Comanche Creek Riparian Corridor

A Walk Through the Comanche Creek Riparian Corridor.

By Accencion Quezada

July 21, 2008

On Saturday July 12, 2008, a small group of neighbors (seven in all) from Southwest Chico joined in a walk along Comanche Creek to view the state of the creek and discuss “what the future might hold for this natural resource”. We met at Debbie Villasenor’s house on Normal. The walk was led by Emily Alma, a property owner alongside the north bank of the creek known as “riparia”. We walked south on Estes Rd. to the intersection with the rail road crossing, then continued easterly on the abandoned RR ROW (rail road right-of-way), to a spot where the RR ROW intersects the creek. Emily remarked: “There used to be a railroad trestle that crossed the creek at this point, but had been removed several years back.” At this time, two visions for a pedestrian – bicycle path were presented:

Vision One. In this vision, (this concept is illustrated in the “concepts” section, page 41, of the Southwest Neighborhood Plan Draft) the pedestrian – bicycle path would start at the intersection of Estes Rd. and the RR ROW. It would continue easterly to the intersection of the RR ROW and the creek; a pedestrian – bicycle bridge would be constructed to cross the creek at this point. The path would then continue on the south side of the creek following the RR ROW, with the possibility to include a second pedestrian bridge to connect to Ivy and Meyers Streets. It would continue south on the RR ROW, then split, with one fork continuing easterly alongside the creek connecting to the Midway through City owned property purchased from the Thomassons. A second fork would follow the RR ROW to the intersection of Midway and Hegan Ln., connecting to the Durham trail.

Vision Two. This alternative has been overlooked throughout the Southwest Planning process. In this vision, the pedestrian – bicycle path would follow Estes Rd. to the north bank of Comanche Creek, where it would cross the creek utilizing an existing bridge, then continue easterly on an existing “Two Track” alongside the south bank of the creek, intersecting the RR ROW. It would then continue southeasterly to the same point as split in Vision One. At the split one fork continues easterly alongside the creek through City owned property, connecting to the Midway; the second fork would continue following the RR ROW to the intersection of Hegan Ln. and Midway.

Please take a moment and enjoy a Virtual Tour (flash presentation), of the existing “Two Track” alongside the creek.

The group then had to split up, with some wading through the creek, and those of us, not properly dressed for wading; following its north bank, (in a westerly direction), through “riparia”, crossing at the existing bridge. We continued easterly on an existing dirt path on the south side of the creek. Both groups then met about mid trail, discussed the beauty of the creek corridor and continued in opposite directions.

Opportunities and Constraints.

While both visions are valid, each presents its own set of opportunities and constraints, ultimately determining the viability and timing for implementation.

Opportunities:

Vision One:

o Reutilization of the RR ROW.

o The opportunity for the inclusion of a pedestrian path alongside a portion of the north bank of the creek.

o Creates an amenity for the industrial park on Meyers and The Hegan Ln Industrial Park.

o Gives the public access to a portion of natural riparian corridor.

Vision Two:

o Reutilization of an existing bridge crossing the creek.

o Reutilization of the RR ROW.

o Gives the public access to an existing path through a much larger portion of the riparian corridor (substantially greater access).

o Would provide an amenity for all three industrial parks.

o Could be a benefit to the entire community within a few months.

o Considerably reduced cost.

o Better provides for expansion and connectivity to future bike path through Barber Yard, connecting to the Downtown and University through Ivy St.

o Better provides for westerly expansion to Dayton Rd., utilizing an existing equipment underpass, connecting to Diamond Ave. and ultimately Dayton Rd.

Constraints:

Vision One:

o Costly

· Environmental & Biological Studies.

· Bridge Construction (soils testing, engineering, construction …)

· Time elapse before implementation.

Vision Two:

o The south bank of creek is privately owned and would require active participation by the property owners. This, however, would be in their best interest, particularly if the frontage was zoned for a broader use, allowing for employee and public oriented use.

Conclusion:

While both routes would greatly improve and provide public access to the riparian corridor at Comanche Creek, the cost and time constraints make one more viable than the other.

· Time:

Since Vision One includes the construction of a bridge (possibly two), to cross Comanche Creek, a full EIR and Engineering study would be required; this is a very lengthy and costly process. A substantial amount of earthwork is also required for the portion from Estes Rd. to the Comanche Creek. Whereas, the routing for Vision Two would follow an existing dirt pathway and has an existing bridge already in place: the EIR and Engineering Study are not necessary, or would be insignificant by comparison, if required.

· Cost:

During a workshop for the Southwest Neighborhood Plan, Matt Johnson P.E. (Senior Development Engineer for the City of Chico) responded to the one idea presented for a “pedestrian bridge” across Little Chico Creek at Ivy St.: “The cost to build a pedestrian bridge would probably start in the $300,000 range.” Vision Two, by utilizing the existing bridge, could be fully implemented for a fraction of the construction cost for a single bridge in Vision One.

In conclusion, although both visions could eventually be implemented, given the City’s current RDA funding and the current / future demands for those monies, the cost associated with Vision One makes it virtually impossible to implement at this time. As we all know, other sources of City funding are highly unlikely, given the current fiscal crisis. It is reasonable to assume these economic conditions will remain for the foreseeable future.

Vision Two, however, could be implemented in far less time (months), for far less money. It would likely provide the greatest benefit to the entire community for less cost than any project before the City today. This alternative could easily be built for a total cost of less than $ 250,000 (Vision Two color key & cost estimate). While providing a total of 1.54 miles of creekside pathway, this plan provides .33 additional miles (27 % more access) than Vision One (1.21 miles in total). With the inclusion of the west extension to the railroad underpass, the difference increases to .44 additional miles (a combined 36% more access). Based on remarks by a City Engineer (see above), it is unlikely the two bridge crossings in Vision One would cost less than the total cost to build Vision Two (including the extension to the UP railroad), while providing public access to the complete riparian corridor.

At a time when the City is spending a substantial sum of money in salaries … promoting Chico’s image to improve the job market, this option provides an amenity to the adjacent industrial parks, the retail, commercial and industrial uses along Park Ave., Fair, East Park Ave. as well as greater Chico. For those (private & public sectors) who have been actively seeking to attract investment in the area, this is the single most valuable asset we have in Southwest Chico and, the cheapest investment possible toward our future benefit.

Furthermore, at a time when we are talking about “sustainability”, it makes sense to invest in our existing resources. Communities across the nation invest heavily in an effort to create such riparian environments within their cities, fully realizing the return to their communities. It is what creates what is called “a sense of place”.

The City purchased the Thomasson property in 2005, three years ago! Since then, the property has remained fenced off, with no public access. Will it become another Bidwell Ranch? It is time to allow public access to the public’s property and provide those living in the neighborhood, those who work in the adjacent business parks and the community at large a much needed and valuable natural resource. The construction of the pedestrian – bicycle path is a good place to start.



	Comanche Creek Riparian Corridor? A Walk Through the Comanche Creek Riparian Corridor. By Accencion Quezada July 21, 2008 On Saturday July 12, 2008, a small group of neighbors (seven in all) from Southwest Chico joined in a walk along Comanche Creek to view the state of the creek and discuss “what the future might hold for this natural resource”. We met at Debbie Villasenor’s house on Normal. The walk was led by Emily Alma, a property owner alongside the north bank of the creek known as “riparia”. We walked south on Estes Rd. to the intersection with the rail road crossing, then continued easterly on the abandoned RR ROW (rail road right-of-way), to a spot where the RR ROW intersects the creek. Emily remarked: “There used to be a railroad trestle that crossed the creek at this point, but had been removed several years back.” At this time, two visions for a pedestrian – bicycle path were presented: Vision One. In this vision, (this concept is illustrated in the “concepts” section, page 41, of the Southwest Neighborhood Plan Draft) the pedestrian – bicycle path would start at the intersection of Estes Rd. and the RR ROW. It would continue easterly to the intersection of the RR ROW and the creek; a pedestrian – bicycle bridge would be constructed to cross the creek at this point. The path would then continue on the south side of the creek following the RR ROW, with the possibility to include a second pedestrian bridge to connect to Ivy and Meyers Streets. It would continue south on the RR ROW, then split, with one fork continuing easterly alongside the creek connecting to the Midway through City owned property purchased from the Thomassons. A second fork would follow the RR ROW to the intersection of Midway and Hegan Ln., connecting to the Durham trail. Vision Two. This alternative has been overlooked throughout the Southwest Planning process. In this vision, the pedestrian – bicycle path would follow Estes Rd. to the north bank of Comanche Creek, where it would cross the creek utilizing an existing bridge, then continue easterly on an existing “Two Track” alongside the south bank of the creek, intersecting the RR ROW. It would then continue southeasterly to the same point as split in Vision One. At the split one fork continues easterly alongside the creek through City owned property, connecting to the Midway; the second fork would continue following the RR ROW to the intersection of Hegan Ln. and Midway. Please take a moment and enjoy a Virtual Tour (flash presentation), of the existing “Two Track” alongside the creek. The group then had to split up, with some wading through the creek, and those of us, not properly dressed for wading; following its north bank, (in a westerly direction), through “riparia”, crossing at the existing bridge. We continued easterly on an existing dirt path on the south side of the creek. Both groups then met about mid trail, discussed the beauty of the creek corridor and continued in opposite directions. Opportunities and Constraints. While both visions are valid, each presents its own set of opportunities and constraints, ultimately determining the viability and timing for implementation. Opportunities: Vision One: o Reutilization of the RR ROW. o The opportunity for the inclusion of a pedestrian path alongside a portion of the north bank of the creek. o Creates an amenity for the industrial park on Meyers and The Hegan Ln Industrial Park. o Gives the public access to a portion of natural riparian corridor. Vision Two: o Reutilization of an existing bridge crossing the creek. o Reutilization of the RR ROW. o Gives the public access to an existing path through a much larger portion of the riparian corridor (substantially greater access). o Would provide an amenity for all three industrial parks. o Could be a benefit to the entire community within a few months. o Considerably reduced cost. o Better provides for expansion and connectivity to future bike path through Barber Yard, connecting to the Downtown and University through Ivy St. o Better provides for westerly expansion to Dayton Rd., utilizing an existing equipment underpass, connecting to Diamond Ave. and ultimately Dayton Rd. Constraints: Vision One: o Costly · Environmental & Biological Studies. · Bridge Construction (soils testing, engineering, construction …) · Time elapse before implementation. Vision Two: o The south bank of creek is privately owned and would require active participation by the property owners. This, however, would be in their best interest, particularly if the frontage was zoned for a broader use, allowing for employee and public oriented use. Conclusion: While both routes would greatly improve and provide public access to the riparian corridor at Comanche Creek, the cost and time constraints make one more viable than the other. · Time: Since Vision One includes the construction of a bridge (possibly two), to cross Comanche Creek, a full EIR and Engineering study would be required; this is a very lengthy and costly process. A substantial amount of earthwork is also required for the portion from Estes Rd. to the Comanche Creek. Whereas, the routing for Vision Two would follow an existing dirt pathway and has an existing bridge already in place: the EIR and Engineering Study are not necessary, or would be insignificant by comparison, if required. · Cost: During a workshop for the Southwest Neighborhood Plan, Matt Johnson P.E. (Senior Development Engineer for the City of Chico) responded to the one idea presented for a “pedestrian bridge” across Little Chico Creek at Ivy St.: “The cost to build a pedestrian bridge would probably start in the $300,000 range.” Vision Two, by utilizing the existing bridge, could be fully implemented for a fraction of the construction cost for a single bridge in Vision One. In conclusion, although both visions could eventually be implemented, given the City’s current RDA funding and the current / future demands for those monies, the cost associated with Vision One makes it virtually impossible to implement at this time. As we all know, other sources of City funding are highly unlikely, given the current fiscal crisis. It is reasonable to assume these economic conditions will remain for the foreseeable future. Vision Two, however, could be implemented in far less time (months), for far less money. It would likely provide the greatest benefit to the entire community for less cost than any project before the City today. This alternative could easily be built for a total cost of less than $ 250,000 (Vision Two color key & cost estimate). While providing a total of 1.54 miles of creekside pathway, this plan provides .33 additional miles (27 % more access) than Vision One (1.21 miles in total). With the inclusion of the west extension to the railroad underpass, the difference increases to .44 additional miles (a combined 36% more access). Based on remarks by a City Engineer (see above), it is unlikely the two bridge crossings in Vision One would cost less than the total cost to build Vision Two (including the extension to the UP railroad), while providing public access to the complete riparian corridor. At a time when the City is spending a substantial sum of money in salaries … promoting Chico’s image to improve the job market, this option provides an amenity to the adjacent industrial parks, the retail, commercial and industrial uses along Park Ave., Fair, East Park Ave. as well as greater Chico. For those (private & public sectors) who have been actively seeking to attract investment in the area, this is the single most valuable asset we have in Southwest Chico and, the cheapest investment possible toward our future benefit. Furthermore, at a time when we are talking about “sustainability”, it makes sense to invest in our existing resources. Communities across the nation invest heavily in an effort to create such riparian environments within their cities, fully realizing the return to their communities. It is what creates what is called “a sense of place”. The City purchased the Thomasson property in 2005, three years ago! Since then, the property has remained fenced off, with no public access. Will it become another Bidwell Ranch? It is time to allow public access to the public’s property and provide those living in the neighborhood, those who work in the adjacent business parks and the community at large a much needed and valuable natural resource. The construction of the pedestrian – bicycle path is a good place to start.