Loading...
Presentations ITEM #8 DESIGN BUILD ITEM #9 REGNART CREEK .J G u u Presentation by Vice Mayor Liang Chao OUTSLANDING ISSUES TO RESOLVE –AFTER ONE YEAR 1.Easement and landswap: •A portion of the existing chain link fence along Cupertino Civic Center to Codrigues Avenue resides within a Valley Water easement. •A portion of Wilson Park baseball field resides within Valley Water land. •land swap locations to be determined based on the city’s calculation of impacted valley water right-of-way area. 2.Relocation of maintenance ramp: detailed location, on whose land, regulatory permits. 3.Bridge connecting to Wilson Park: Location and structural aspects of the bridge. Bridge replacement and removal plan. •How could a truck reach the bridge through Wilson Park to remove the bridge? 4.Trail design issues (still not addressed after one year): •trailhead features should not impede maintenance vehicle access. •proposed water pollution control measures. •proposed improvements if the unpaved trail is implemented. 5.Draining issues (still not addressed after one year): •proposed retaining curb along South Blaney to East Estates drive recommended to be built along the property line. •valley water prefers drainage to be sloped away from the creek. 6.Fending issues (still not resolved after one year) •fencing treatments along the de Palma Lane and Lozano Lane properties. •potential improvements within Valley Water land at de Palma/Lozano to address impacts to adjacent property owners concerns regarding privacy and security. 7.Joint use agreement –City takes responsibility for any erosion problems. SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO INVEST $$ AND STAFF TIME? COMPARING ALTERNATIVES •Alternative 1 (two bridges to Wilson Park, no ramp relocation) => infeasible due to the need to relocate the baseball field. •NEW Alternative: relocate ramp. => unknow location of new ramp. Unknow bridge structure. Unknow bridge removal method or plan. Unknown landswap option. •NOT accessible at night or during closure => safe alternate option is necessary. •MORE DANGEROUS when students have to ride a different unfamiliar route at night. •MORE DANGEROUS when students find out the trail is closed and have to rush to school taking on-street option at the last minute. •Alternative 4 or 5: •accessible by more residents since the access points are not limited by trailheads. •Accessible 24x7 •Safety: they are as safe as 99% other Cupertino neighborhood streets. LETTER FROM RESIDENT NEAR WILSON PARK •I AM A 15 YEAR RESIDENT OF CUPERTINO, AND A HOMEOWNER ON VICKSBURG DRIVE. MY HOUSE IS ABOUT 2 BLOCKS NORTH OF THE E ESTATES END OF THE PROPOSED TRAILHEAD. MY PROPERTY DOES NOT BORDER THE PROPOSED TRAIL. MY THREE KIDS AND I REGULARLY BIKE AND WALK BETWEEN CUPERTINO HIGH SCHOOL AND THE CUPERTINO LIBRARY, CUTTING THROUGH WILSON PARK TO AVOID CARS. •IT WORRIES ME THAT I CANNOT FIND ANY NEEDS/USE CASE FOR THIS TRAIL -HOW MANY STUDENTS ALREADY BIKE THROUGH WILSON PARK OR DOWN LA MAR? HOW MANY KIDS HAVE BEEN HIT BY A CAR ON LA MAR WHILE WALKING OR ON A BIKE? HOW MANY MORE STUDENTS WOULD BIKE IF THIS TRAIL WENT IN? I APPRECIATE THAT TURNING THE LAND ADJACENT TO THE CREEK IS LOW-HANGING FRUIT, AND LETS OUR CITY CLAIM ANOTHER FAMILY-FRIENDLY TRAIL THAT WILL FURTHER GREEN OUR COMMUNITY. BUT TO CLAIM THAT THIS TRAIL IMPROVES SAFETY FOR OUR COMMUTING CHILDREN IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE. THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER SIMPLE AND CHEAPER THINGS WE CAN DO FIRST, AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU WILL SPEND MY TAX DOLLARS FRUGALLY AND WISELY, BASED ON HARD DATA. •IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE SAFETY, PLEASE EXAMINE THE BLANEY / LA MAR AND CALLE DE BARCELONA / MILLER INTERSECTIONS. THESE TWO INTERSECTIONS ARE THE REAL PINCH POINTS OF THE SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL, NOT THE STRAIGHT SHOT DOWN LA MAR. PLEASE ADDRESS THE RED LIGHT RUNNERS AND STOP-SIGN RUNNERS AT THE AFOREMENTIONED INTERSECTIONS AND ADD MORE DEFENSIVE BIKING SUPPORT -MORE GREEN LANES, MORE BLINKING LIGHTS AT CROSSWALKS. USE MY TAX DOLLARS TO CONTINUE BIKE SAFETY OUTREACH CLASSES FOR OUR KIDS. USE MY TAX DOLLARS TO GIVE OUT FREE CLIP-ON BIKE HEADLIGHTS AND REFLECTORS. •THESE ARE FRUGAL AND MEASURABLE WAYS TO MAKE OUR BIKING CITIZENS SAFER. SR2S TO CHS Who would bike to CHS with Regnart Creek “segment” (RCS)? Group A: Those who already bike to CHS? ⇒RCS won’t add much safety for them, even if RCS is on their way to CHS. Group B: Those who think La Mar, a common neighborhood street, is too dangerous to bike. ⇒The block near CHS (Miller, Calle de Barcelona, Finch) is still dangerous. RCS won’t add much safety for them. Group C: Those who imagined that the route to CHS is somehow “safer” because of RCS. => They will likely get into accidents on normal neighborhood streets and near CHS. Do we put more students in harms way with FALSE SAFETY PROMISE? DANGERDANGER DANGER DANGER NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOO D DANGERDANGER PRIORITY: Improve DANGER sections first. Then, improve NEIGHBORHOOD sections. Is there any plan to improve the DANGER segments? ⇒Not much, except one tiny section. If anyone considers biking in the NEIGHBORHOOD streets dangerous, he/she won’t bike anywhere in Cupertino even with RCS. DANGERDANGER DANGER DANGER NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOO D DANGERDANGER EATON SR2S •Regnart Creek “segments” accessible only from trailheads. MONTA VISTA HS TO CUPERTINO HS Would a high schooler take a route with straight segments? Or a route with many twist and turns (meaning more waiting time and more chances for collision)? Using Major Roads: McClellan -> Stelling -> Stevens Creek -> Finch Use Alternative 4: McClellan -> Pacifica -> Blaney -> La mar -> Creekside Park -> Calle de Barcelona -> Finch Use Alternative 5: McClellan -> Torre -> Rodrigues -> Wilson Park -. Creekside Park -> Calle de Barcelona -> Finch 2016 BICYCLE PLAN Scored 48 out of 100. Bottom of Tier 2 Study only 2016 BICYCLE PLAN SUGGESTS: To address the risks leading to these collisions The city should take the following steps: •Improve education for drivers and bicyclists about safely operating in and around intersections, especially right turns. •Implement enhanced bikeway treatments at intersections •Improve & enhance existing bikeways on the arterial network •Prioritize the creation of alternative cross- city routes that do not require travel on the arterial network •Ensure bicyclists have enough time to cross intersections by reviewing signal timing standards along key bikeways OBJECTIVES •2016 Bike Plan Objective 2.A: reduce the number and severity of pedestrian and bicycle related collisions, injuries, and fatalities. •Measure 2.A.1: adopt a Vision Zero policy by 2017. •Measure 2.A.2: Reduce the number of bicycle related collisions & injuries by 50 percent from 2013 levels by 2026. •Measure 2.A.3: Reduce the number of bicyclist fatalities to zero by 2026. Source: Staff Report from June 18 Council meeting when the FY 19-20 budget was approved. "While revenues are forecasted to increase at conservative to moderate rates, expenditures are increasing at a higher rate, resulting in a STRUCTURAL DEFICIT.” (June 18, 2019 Staff Report) SPARE FUNDING: $4.5-6M/YEAR "While revenues are forecasted to increase at conservative to moderate rates, expenditures are increasing at a higher rate, resulting in a STRUCTURAL DEFICIT.” (June 18, 2019 Staff Report) Proposed 2016 Measure B Bicycle/Pedestrian Capital Projects Competitive Grant Program Criteria (as of 2019-09 from VTA BPC) 9/11 VTA BPC meeting agenda: http://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2957 $4.5-6M/YEAR SPARE FUNDING NEEDS TO FUND: •Subsidy for below-market -rate housing, such as $5M city paid for the veranda. •Parkland purchase and renovation, such as for Mitty Park and upcoming renovation of Memorial park or Blackberry Golf Course. •Other bike paths and pedestrian sidewalk projects, such as separated bikeways or other essential projects to improve safety •Building renovation for seismic safety, such as the city hall, the service center. •Storm drain facilities and other essential infrastructure maintenance. •Raises for employees to compete with rising living cost. ESSENTIAL PROJECT: It is absolutely necessary. It is much more important than all other projects. NICE-TO -HAVE PROJECT, BUT NOT ESSENTIAL: Making an already safe bike path safer. REALITY: WHEN WE FUND NON-ESSENTIAL PROJECTS, WE ARE PAYING FOR IT USING FUTURE TAX INCREASES OR DEBT THROUGH BOND FINANCE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS OPPOSE! •“Our concerns stem from the inherent conflict between providing access to nature and the intrusion into riparian zones that provide remnant habitat and movement linkages for wildlife. More recently, the use of creekside trails as commute corridors exacerbated the impact on animals, including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, and on native riparian vegetation.” •“There is a feasible, safe and preferable on-street alternative for trail connectivity for this narrow segment of the creek corridor. There is ample room for safe bike routes on surface streets in this area.” •“We believe that an environmental impact report should be prepared if the city chooses to persist in pursuing efforts to develop the trail … It would also allow much needed review by pertinent regulatory agencies such as the regional water quality control board and the california department of fish and wildlife.” ARE YOU TRUE ENVIRONMENTALIST? •Do you think human should take away the last bit of nature habitat just to have a bit more comfort in biking and walking? Trash near the gate to Regnart Creek. Found in just one stop. WHO ARE SELFISH AND GREEDY? IF YOU TRULY CARE ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE AND OPEN SPACE IN CITY CENTER …. •Why don’t you join me to advocate for more open space and dedicated parkland in every development project, especially the large ones with many acres of land? •Why don’t you join me to advocate for better bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in every development project, especially the large ones with many acres of land? •Why don’t you join me to advocate for development projects that fit the General Plan and oppose oversized projects that worsen traffic congestion? IF YOU TRULY CARE ABOUT BIKE SAFETY AND CHILDREN…. •Why do you never speak up when oversized projects get approved to clog our streets to make it more dangerous to drive and bike to schools? REGNART CREEK “BANK SEGMENTS” (RCS) •It is NOT a trail or a segment of any bike/pedestrian trail network. •It is just two 0.4 mile segments of dirt creek bank with steep drop to creek bottom. •It is not “green”. Water district does not allow ANY landscaping in these “two bank segments.” •It does not provide safer bicycle path, except for those who live right next to the trailheads. Anyone else has to ride on normal neighborhood streets to reach RCS even if RCS leads to their destination. •Valley Water is making multiple demands •No physical structure at all on their land. •Removing fence near City Hall/Library since the fence was built on their easement. •Request land swap because a part of Wilson park baseball field is on their property. •Asking retaining curb to be on adjacent neighbors’ property, although it’s only 6 inch wide. STAFF REPORT… •“Within these [bike & peds] plans, RCT was identified as a vital connector of the neighborhood to local destinations in the vicinity of the creek …” [CANNOT FIND REF IN THE PLANS] •“The project was also recognized in the plans as a critical link for schoolchildren on their route to school …” [CANNOT FIND REF IN THE PLANS] •RCT scored 1 out of 20 for safety and 10 out of 20 for School Travel. •“Letter from valley water dated september 6, 2019 indicating that the project meets their standards.” [NOT IN THE LETTER] •Letter merely stated “city staff continues to engage with us to address our concerns in a mutually satisfactory manner.” •“Given that valley water’s requirements have been met, they have no opposition to the project and will enter into a joint use agreement with the city” [NOT IN THE LETTER] •Letter states “Cnce design issues have been resolved, a joint use agreement with the city can be presented to our board…” •Alternative 1 is consistent with Bike & Ped plans and Alternative 4 & 5 are not?? [NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PLANS] •Goal 2 in Bike Plan: Safety: Improve bicyclist safety through the design and maintenance of roadway improvements. •Objective 2.A: reduce the number and severity of bicycle related collisions, injuries, and fatalities. NEW CITY COUNCIL •TRANSPARENCY •ACCOUNTABILITY •COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT •City council to not rubber stamp, but ask questions and then make informed decisions •Staff to present all available options and challenges, so that council is properly informed. •Staff report should present facts, not opinions. •Community would be informed of all sides of an issue, not biased opinions. BUSNIESS AS USUAL? OR DEMAND TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND TRUE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. NET ZERO:IMPROVE INTERSECTIONS FAST IMPLEMENTATION OF SEPARATED BIKEWAYS FOR ARTERIAL STREETS. GREEN STREETS: WALKABLE AND BIKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS SAFE BIKE PATHS WITHIN ONE-TWO BLOCKS OF SCHOOLS BACKUP LOOP TRAIL •2016 bicycle plan only include FEASIBILITY STUDIES of these trails, not implementation. Red circles: areas that require future study,.