The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Resolution No. 19-061 Approving the January 25, 2019 Final Draft Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Conducted by Callander AssociatesJanuary 25, 2019 As Amended and Adopted by City Council on May 21, 2019 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Introduction Planning Process Trail Alignment Summary Recommendations Acknowledgments Appendix Executive Summary Figures 2 3 4 6 5 1 Background & Project Purpose Local & Regional Policies Project Goals & Objectives Existing Conditions Stakeholder and Agency Coordination Trail Criteria and Standards Community Outreach Alternatives Evaluation & Preferred Alternative Segment 1 - Mary Ave to De Anza Boulevard Segment 2 - De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Segment 3 - Vallco to Vallco Parkway Safety, Privacy, and Security 5 6 7 9 22 30 34 1 5 9 39 85 91 92 39 49 57 75 81 Table of Contents 2-1 2-2 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 5 7 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 13 13 13 14 15 17 19 22 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 26 27 33 Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Cupertino Loop Trail Existing Conditions – Less than 14’ Existing Conditions – 14’ or More PG&E Utility Poles in SCVWD Corridor Overall Site Map Bike Lanes on Stelling Road Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Trailhead Existing Conditions at Stelling Road Existing De Anza Boulevard Crossing Existing Conditions along Lucille Avenue Existing Conditions below Blaney Avenue Underpass at Wolfe Road Site Analysis – Segment 1 Site Analysis – Segment 2 Site Analysis - Segment 3 Vallco Parkway Potential Trailhead CalWater Facility Fence De Anza Boulevard On-Ramp Loc-N-Stor Fence on Right Hyatt Hotel House Under Construction Lock It Up Self Storage Fence PG&E Tower Public Storage Wall and SCVWD Corridor Fence Straddling SCVWD Corridor and Residents Vallco Mall Sign CalTrans Two-Way Class 1 Bikeway Figures 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-10 4-11 4-12 4-13 4-14 4-15 4-16 4-17 4-18 4-19 4-20 4-21 4-22 4-23 4-24 Pedestrian Trail, Less than 14’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Min. 14’ Wide, Covered Channel Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Min. 14’ Wide, On-Grade Public Storage Sections Alternative Alignment Plan – Segment 1 Alternative Alignment Plan – Segment 2 Alternative Alignment Plan – Segment 3 Mary Avenue Enlargement East Option Mary Avenue Enlargement West Option Mary Avenue Sections High Visibility Crosswalk Example Grade-Separated Under-Crossing under Stelling Road Existing Conditions under Stelling Road Stelling Road Intersection Enlargement Under-Crossing Example Stevens Creek Trail Tunnel Example 1 Stevens Creek Trail Tunnel Example 2 Tunnel Finishes Tunnel Visual Simulation 1 Tunnel Visual Simulation 2 De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement – Tunnel Under-Crossing Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Visual Simulation 1 Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Visual Simulation 2 De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement – Bridge Over-Crossing 40 40 40 41 43 45 47 50 51 52 53 54 54 55 56 57 57 57 58 58 59 62 62 63 4-25 4-26 4-27 4-28 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 4-33 4-34 4-35 4-36 4-37 4-38 4-39 4-40 4-41 4-42 High Visibility Crosswalk Example De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement – At-Grade Crossing – Alternative #2 Pinch Point between Sound Wall and Guard Rail Lucille Avenue Sections Blaney Avenue Trail Access Enlargement North Portal Avenue Trail Access Enlargement Hyatt House Hotel Enlargement Apple Campus Sections Calabazas Creek Sections Privacy/Security Fence Example Split Rail Fence Example Under-Crossing Barrier Example Guard Rail Example Fencing Example Rendering – Before Fencing Example Rendering – After Trail Patrol Security Camera Milestone Marker 65 67 69 70 71 73 77 79 80 81 81 81 82 82 82 83 83 83 Executive Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 1Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Executive Summary 1 1 The purpose of this study is to determine whether the Junipero Serra Trail is a feasible project for the City of Cupertino. The City anticipates the report will serve as a springboard for further detailed study and identification of project funding, if the trail is deemed feasible. The trail was first identified and approved in the City’s 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and further supplemented in the City’s 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The Junipero Serra Trail is envisioned to be one segment of a larger community wide “Loop” of on and off-street bicycle facilities. Through an extensive public outreach process, it became clear the community has a variety of opinions on the merits of a trail at this location, with many supporting the trail and others not. In addition, community members indicated preferences for easy trail access, grade separated street crossings, neighbor privacy, and security. These and other factors discussed in this report are important considerations to carry forward in the development of this trail. The resulting feasibility study provides a narrative and graphic road map to guide further detailed study of the trail’s development. Based on community input, City goals for trail development, and input from key agency stakeholders, trail alignment alternative #2 is the preferred alternative. Alternative #2 converts the Junipero Serra Channel between the Don Burnett Bicycle- Pedestrian Bridge and Wolfe Road into a box culvert and allows the trail to be located over the top of the culvert. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) preliminarily agreed to alternative #2 under the condition the City accepts all right of way and maintenance of the channel as part of the City storm drain system prior to any construction improvements. Final approval would be subject to approval from SCVWD’s Board of Directors. Other trail development considerations are presented along the alignment and are discussed as to their feasibility and costs of implementation. The study also addresses community concerns surrounding safety and privacy by suggesting various measures including fence options, police patrols, security cameras and increasing the number of access points as much as possible. Detailed cost estimates are provided for each trail alternative, as well as costs for standalone items such as the grade-separated crossings at Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study2Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility StudyExecutive Summary2 Top Image: Callander Associate’s Staff talking to a community member at a community meeting Middle Image: Santa Clara Valley Water District corridor existing conditions Bottom Image: Visual Simulation of a Bridge Over- Crossing for De Anza Boulevard Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 3Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Executive Summary 3 This report summarizes the feasibility study process and contains the following sections: Introduction Provides a brief overview of the project purpose, background, goals and objectives, as well as project alignment with local and regional trail policies. Planning Process Provides an overview of the planning process including an assessment of existing site conditions along the alignment, ranging from typical corridor conditions, adjacent land uses, relationship to nearby facilities and existing roadway crossings; trail development opportunities and challenges; and the community outreach process with details from each event and input received. Trail Alignments Provides an in-depth evaluation of each alignment alternative; including design considerations, trail access points, roadway crossings, safety and security measures, and other site-specific challenges. Summary Recommendations Provides a summary of the recommended trail alternatives to further pursue. Appendix Includes meeting summaries, technical documents, outreach materials, input results, detailed cost estimates, and other supplemental project information for reference. Introduction Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 5Introduction 2 Background & Project Purpose This feasibility study evaluates the potential for development of the Junipero Serra Trail identified in the City of Cupertino’s 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan. If implemented, the trail would create an important east west off-street trail across the heart of the City providing recreational opportunities, commuter options, safe routes to school, and an off-street alternative for bicycle trips. This planning effort was commissioned by the City in the summer of 2017 with the purpose of developing a feasibility study for the trail. As part of the study, a comprehensive public outreach process was initiated to better understand community concerns and desires for the project. The study aims to identify challenges, opportunities, and estimated costs associated with implementation of the 2.91-mile trail. This trail segment represents the northern reach of the “Cupertino Loop”, identified in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The Junipero Serra Trail is one of three trail segments being studied as part of the Loop. The proposed alignment falls almost entirely within Santa Clara Valley Water District right- of-way and utilizes the existing maintenance road that follows the Junipero Serra Channel on the south side of Interstate 280 from Mary Avenue at the western extent to the intersection of Calabazas Creek and Vallco Parkway at the eastern extent. See Figure 2-2. A number of street crossings are required within the alignment, including Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Wolfe Road. If completed, the trail would provide connections to other on-street facilities, the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge, residential neighborhoods, schools, retail centers, and employment hubs. Figure 2-1Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study6Introduction Local & Regional Policies The Junipero Serra Trail project is consistent with a number of local and regional policies relative to trail development. 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, City of Cupertino “The City of Cupertino envisions an exceptional bicycling environment that supports active living and healthy transportation choices, provides for safer bicycling, and enables people of all ages and abilities to access jobs, school, recreation, shopping, and transit on a bicycle as a part of daily life.” - Vision Statement from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan recommends implementation of a loop trail around central Cupertino. The loop would be accomplished by implementing Class I trails along Regnart Creek, along the Interstate 280 Junipero Serra Channel (Junipero Serra Trail) and along the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. These trail segments would be connected to each other by on-street bikeways. See Figure 2-2. 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, City of Cupertino The 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan outlines goals to improve pedestrian safety, access, and connectivity within the City. The Junipero Serra Trail is identified as a Tier 1 project within the 2018 Pedestrian Plan. The trail will supplement the extensive pedestrian network the City is aiming for and supports all of the plan’s goals. General Plan – Community Vision 2040, City of Cupertino The City of Cupertino General Plan – Community Vision 2040 contains twelve guiding principles that encompass a broad range of community aspirations. The following guiding principles are consistent with the trail being considered along Interstate 280: #3 Improve Connectivity: Create a well- connected and safe system of trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and create access to interesting routes to different destinations. #4 Enhance Mobility: Ensure the efficient and safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists to fully accommodate Cupertino’s residents, workers, visitors and students of all ages and abilities. Pedestrian and bike paths should comprise of an integrated system of fully connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Goal M-3 in the City’s General Plan says, “Support a safe pedestrian and bicycle street network for people of all ages and abilities”. Further policies within goal M-3 encourage adoption of bicycle and pedestrian master plans along with encouragement of pedestrian and bicycle crossings at physical barriers. Policy LU-2.1: Gateways identifies the De Anza Boulevard and Interstate 280 on/off ramp intersection as a potential gateway location into the City of Cupertino. Future design for the trail crossing at this intersection may consider incorporating a “gateway” design feature. Countywide Bicycle Plan, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority The Countywide Bicycle Plan identifies the Junipero Serra Trail as a Cross-County Bicycle Corridor (CCBC). District 4 Bike Plan, Caltrans The District 4 Bike Plan identifies policies, strategies and actions for Caltrans and partner agencies to improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists. The Junipero Serra Trail is identified as a “Top Tier” priority project for Santa Clara County. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 7Introduction Project Goals & Objectives 1. Form a clear understanding of the project area, including adjoining neighborhoods, businesses, and community services; and align with other City plans that impact the study area. 2. Have an inclusive community outreach process and encourage participation and input throughout all phases of the study. 3. Identify if the trail is feasible (in entirety or in segments) and provide reasoning for these findings to support future City of Cupertino trail projects. I-280 85 85 I-280 Junipero Serra Trail Figure 2-2Cupertino Loop Trail Planning Process Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 9Planning Process 3 Existing Conditions The proposed trail alignment runs east-west across the northern part of Cupertino, just south of Interstate 280. The SCVWD currently owns and maintains the right-of-way which contains the Junipero Serra Channel and maintenance road being considered for trail development. The channel was originally designed and constructed by Caltrans to intercept drainage on the south side of Interstate 280 when the freeway was built. The right-of-way varies in width from 27’-0” to 140’-0” and the maintenance road is unpaved and also varies in width from 7’-6” to at least 15’-0” within the project limits. The Junipero Serra Channel generally has a trapezoidal structure and is concrete lined for much of the corridor. Where the channel encounters roadway crossings, the channel extends beneath the street via reinforced concrete pipe culverts. East of Wolfe Road, the channel is unlined until the confluence with Calabazas Creek. Figure 3-2Existing Conditions - 14’ or More Existing Conditions - Less than 14’Figure 3-1 CHANNEL LESS THAN 14’-0” SCVWD CHANNEL 14’-0” OR MORE SCVWD Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study10Planning Process Figure 3-4Overall Site Map Trail Segment Transition Trailhead Opportunity Street Crossing Mary Ave Trailhead Lucille Ave Trailhead Calabazas Creek Trailhead North Portal Ave Trailhead The corridor is currently access controlled and has a combination of chain link fence, wood fence, locked gates and freeway sound walls enclosing the perimeter. Overhead PG&E transmission and distribution lines are located within or immediately adjacent to the corridor starting at the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge and extending to Blaney Avenue. For purposes of studying feasibility, the trail was divided into 3 segments. Segment 1 starts at Mary Avenue near the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge approach, heads eastward along Interstate 280, across Stelling Road, and terminates just west of De Anza Boulevard. Segment 2 includes the De Anza Boulevard intersection, Blaney Avenue, and terminates just east of the CalWater facility at North Portal Avenue. Segment 3 extends east of the CalWater facility, past Vallco and Wolfe Road to the confluence of the Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek. The trail then turns south along the west bank of Calabazas Creek and terminates at Vallco Parkway. See Figures 3-4 and 3-12 through 3-14. Figure 3-3PG&E Utility Poles in SCVWD Corridor Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 11Planning Process Land Use The proposed trail spans a variety of adjacent land uses. Between Mary Avenue and Stelling Road, the trail is adjacent to single family residences. Between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard, adjacent land uses include multi-family residences and general commercial/light industrial. Between De Anza Boulevard and Blaney Avenue, adjacent land uses vary and include single family residences, general commercial/office and multi-family residences. Between Blaney Avenue and Wolfe Road, adjacent land uses include single family, residential duplex and regional shopping. Finally, between Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway, adjacent land uses include regional shopping and the “Heart of the City” Specific Plan Area. See Figures 3-12 through 3-14 showing the different land uses near the proposed trail area. Existing Bicycle / Pedestrian Facilities There are a number of existing bike and pedestrian facilities that would have direct connections to the Junipero Serra Trail including: • Mary Avenue: Class II bike lanes in both directions • Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian Bridge: Class 1 bike path over Interstate 280 • Stelling Road: Class II bike lanes in both direction • De Anza Boulevard: Class II bike lanes in both directions • Blaney Avenue: Class II bike lanes in both directions • Wolfe Road: Class IV separated bike lanes planned as part of Interstate 280/Wolfe Road interchange improvements • Vallco Parkway: Class II bike lanes in both directions The proposed trail’s proximity to existing bike infrastructure will improve connectivity across the City, particularly for east to west travel. See Figures 3-12 through 3-14 to see the existing bicycle facilities relative to the proposed trail. Nearby Facilities The area surrounding the Junipero Serra Trail alignment includes schools, residential neighborhoods, commercial, retail, hotels and major employment centers. The addition of a trail would provide an off-street link between these various uses. Below is a list of adjacent facilities along with their travel distance from the trail: Schools • Garden Gate Elementary School – 0.5 miles • Homestead High School – 0.4 miles • Lawson Middle School – 0.4 miles Commercial/Retail/Hotels • Vallco – direct connection to trail • Hyatt House – direct connection to trail • Courtyard by Marriot –0.5 miles • Hilton Garden Inn – 0.5 miles • Heart of the City Specific Plan Area – direct connection to trail Employment • Apple – direct connection to the trail at two locations, within 0.5 mile to other nearby campuses including Apple Park • Other various employers Figure 3-5Bike Lanes on Stelling Road Figure 3-6 Figure 3-7 Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Trailhead Existing Conditions at Stelling Road Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study12Planning Process Roadway Crossings Much of the trail alignment runs through residential, commercial and retail areas as described in the Land Use section. The trail alignment encounters multiple roadways within the project limits: Mary Avenue, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, Lucille Avenue, Blaney Avenue, Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway. Mary Avenue Mary Avenue is a two-lane road with a speed limit of 35 mph. It runs north and south between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Meteor Drive, continuing north of Interstate 280 at Homestead Road into the Sunnyvale city limits. The existing Don Burnett Bike- Pedestrian Bridge spans over Interstate 280 to connect these two segments of Mary Avenue with a Class I bike path. The trailhead at Meteor Drive also serves as the western extent of the Junipero Serra Trail. The section of Mary Avenue closest to the trailhead is surrounded mostly by single family and multi- family residential as well as a City corporation yard and storage facility. See Figure 3-6. Stelling Road Stelling Road runs north and south between Homestead Road and Prospect Road. It is a two-lane collector road with a speed limit of 30 mph and crosses Interstate 280 with an overcrossing bridge. Stelling Road intersects the Junipero Serra Channel and is one of the major crossings for the Junipero Serra Trail. This portion of Stelling Road is located within residential neighborhoods of single-family residences to the west and apartments to the east. Stelling Road currently has class II bike lanes in both directions and there is no existing crosswalk where the trail would cross Stelling Road. The trail’s intersection with Stelling Road will need careful consideration as an at-grade crossing would represent a new mid-block crossing. Sightlines, traffic volumes and speed are all factors that will need to be considered in designing for a mid-block crossing at this location. See Figure 3-7. Figure 3-8 Figure 3-10 Figure 3-9 Existing De Anza Boulevard Crossing Existing Conditions below Blaney Avenue Existing Conditions along Lucille Avenue Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 13Planning Process De Anza Boulevard De Anza Boulevard is an arterial with a speed limit of 35 mph that runs north and south between Homestead Road and Prospect Road. De Anza Boulevard intersects the Junipero Serra Channel and is another major crossing for the Junipero Serra Trail. The street at this location has five northbound through lanes and one right turn lane and four southbound lanes. There is an existing crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard just south of the on and off ramps to southbound Interstate 280 with a pedestrian refuge island at the landscape median. The trail’s intersection with De Anza Boulevard will require considerable attention as there are numerous constraints affecting any crossing alternative under consideration. A bike- pedestrian bridge is constrained by overhead utilities, while a tunnel is constrained by underground utilities. An at-grade crossing has impacts to traffic operations. Each of these alternatives are discussed in greater detail later in this report. See Figure 3-8. Lucille Avenue Lucille Avenue is a two-lane road with a speed limit of 25 mph, running east and west from approximately Larry Way to North Blaney Avenue. This section of roadway parallels the trail corridor and provides opportunities for trail access and visibility. See Figure 3-9. Blaney Avenue Blaney Avenue crosses over Lucille Avenue and Interstate 280 with a bridge and does not intersect with the trail alignment. However, there is a separate section of Blaney Avenue separate from the overcrossing that connects to Lucille Avenue at a sharp 90-degree bend just east of the overcrossing bridge. A trail access opportunity is possible at this location as well. See Figure 3-10. Figure 3-11Underpass at Wolfe Road Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study14Planning Process Wolfe Road Wolfe Road runs north and south between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, bisecting the Vallco property. Wolfe Road crosses over Perimeter Road near the on and off ramps to Interstate 280. The proposed trail is anticipated to utilize the existing Perimeter Road undercrossing beneath Wolfe Road. Additionally, plans are in development for a new interchange at Interstate 280 and Wolfe Road. Preliminary plans make provisions for trail connections from the sidewalks on Wolfe Road to the proposed trail. See Figure 3-11. Vallco Parkway Vallco Parkway runs east and west between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue and has class II bike lanes in both directions. Vallco Parkway is a four-lane road with a speed limit of 30 mph. The trail is planned to terminate at Vallco Parkway on the west bank of Calabazas Creek, which presents an opportunity for a trailhead. However, careful consideration is needed at this location as the trail does not end at a signalized intersection. Site Analysis Plan The process for developing the feasibility study included an extensive evaluation of existing conditions and criteria as previously described. A Site Analysis Plan was prepared to synthesize the existing conditions into an exhibit to analyze opportunities and challenges at a corridor-wide scale. Preliminary steps included gathering base data, conducting a detailed site reconnaissance, and reviewing easements, utilities, and property ownership. The City’s geographic information system (GIS) files were used to develop base mapping including parcel identification, streets, sidewalks, tree canopies, structures, utilities, contours, and other pertinent information. The consultant team and City staff walked the full length of the trail to photograph existing conditions and make observations relevant to trail development. A critical component of the site reconnaissance was to identify available width for a trail. During the field walk, width measurements were taken of the existing maintenance road throughout the corridor. Because a class I multi-use trail is desired to meet the goals of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian policies, a minimum 14’-0” overall trail width would be preferred. Generally, most of the maintenance road within the limits of the project is less than 14’-0” wide. In some pinch point locations, the maintenance road narrows to approximately 7’-6” wide. The section between Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway is the only exception and provided widths in excess of 14’-0”. The variation in maintenance road width is depicted on the Site Analysis Plan. See Figures 3-1 and 3-2 for graphics showing the width of the corridor. Using the base map and site observations, a Site Analysis Plan was prepared. The plan identified the existing maintenance road widths, City limits, utilities, potential trail access locations, adjacent land uses, schools, major retail centers, major employers, existing on-street facilities, among other existing features. See Figures 3-12 through 3-14. Additionally, cross sections and Site Analysis were generated to better understand various trail configurations. See Figure 4-4, 4-10, 4-28, 4-32, and 4-33. Planning ProcessJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 15 Available Width, less than 14’-0” (does not meet class 1 multi-use standards) City Limits Available Width, 14’-0” minimum (meets class 1 multi-use standards) Trail Connection Point Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Public Building (BA) Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor General Commercial (CG) Office/Planned Office (OA/OP) Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor Agricultural Residential (A1) Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element) *residential zoning is not shown Bike Lanes on Street Existing Connections Bike Route Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Overhead Utilities Gateway Class 1 Bike Path Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP) 0 50 100 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (BA) (CG, ML) (BA) (BQ, Mini- Stor) (BA) (BQ) HOMESTEAD HIGH SCHOOL GARDEN GATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian Bridge MARY AVENUESTELLING ROADI-280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Figure 3-12Site Analysis - Segment 1 Planning Process Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study16 this page intentionally left blank Planning ProcessJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 17 (CG, ML, OA)(BQ) (R2, Mini-Stor) (A1) (BQ) APPLE LAWSON MIDDLE SCHOOL BLANEY AVENUEDE ANZA BOULEVARDI-280 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0 50 100 200Available Width, less than 14’-0” (does not meet class 1 multi-use standards) City Limits Available Width, 14’-0” minimum (meets class 1 multi-use standards) Trail Connection Point Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Public Building (BA) Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor General Commercial (CG) Office/Planned Office (OA/OP) Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor Agricultural Residential (A1) Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element) *residential zoning is not shown Bike Lanes on Street Existing Connections Bike Route Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Overhead Utilities Gateway Class 1 Bike Path Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP) Figure 3-13Site Analysis - Segment 2 Planning Process Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study18 this page intentionally left blank Planning ProcessJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 19 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 HE HE (Regional Shopping) (Heart of the City Specific Plan Area) HE Enlargement Area - Hyatt House Hotel Bike/ Ped Path Connection (Hotel) HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014AADROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA PUBLIC OPEN SPACE OUTDOOR DINING POOL EXISTING TREE SHADE TREE FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE STREET TREE IN GRATE PUBLIC ART DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK TRASH/RECYCLING BIN STORMWATER PLANTING ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP SCREENED TRANSFORMER LEGEND NORTH SCALE:1” = 20’-0” L-1 12 12 13 13 8 1 3 4 6 7 2 2 2 7 7 10 11 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 16 15 14 13 8 0’5’20’10’10’ proposed class IV separated bike lane as part of I-280/Wolfe Road interchange improvements Green-backed bike lanes along N Tantau Ave. and Vallco Pkwy. See enlargement area connection to proposed trail hotel bicycle/ pedestrian path CALABAZAS CREEKN TANTAU AVENUE VALL C O P A R K W A YN WO L F E ROAD I-280 Vallco marquee sign P(MP) APPLE 33 32 31 30292827 2625 24 23 0 50 100 200 Available Width, less than 14’-0” (does not meet class 1 multi-use standards) City Limits Available Width, 14’-0” minimum (meets class 1 multi-use standards) Trail Connection Point Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Public Building (BA) Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor General Commercial (CG) Office/Planned Office (OA/OP) Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor Agricultural Residential (A1) Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element) *residential zoning is not shown Bike Lanes on Street Existing Connections Bike Route Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Overhead Utilities Gateway Class 1 Bike Path Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP) Figure 3-14Site Analysis -Segment 3 Planning Process Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study20 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 21Planning Process Below is a summary of the opportunities and constraints identified during site analysis. Opportunities 1. Suitable overall width of corridor for trail 2. Connections to existing on-street facilities at Mary Avenue, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, North Portal Avenue, Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway 3. Corridor owned by single agency Constraints 1. Utilities below grade and overhead throughout corridor 2. PG&E easement restrictions with regard to placement of structures at De Anza Boulevard 3. Narrow maintenance road in much of the corridor 4. Difficult grade separated crossings at Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard Vallco Parkway Potential Trailhead Figure 3-15 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study22Planning Process Stakeholder and Agency Coordination Stakeholders With any project, there are numerous agencies, utility companies and property owners directly or indirectly affected by the proposed improvements. This is especially true with trail projects, due to their linear nature. Trails interface with more stakeholders than just about any other project type. The Junipero Serra Trail is similar in that regard. Below is a list of adjacent stakeholders along with preliminary opportunities and challenges for each. Specific design considerations pertaining to each stakeholder are discussed further in Chapter 4. Stakeholders are listed in alphabetical order. Apple To date, the City has had informal conversations with Apple regarding the trail project. Apple has expressed interest in the project as the trail would provide an off-street trail connection between their various campuses in Cupertino. Should the trail project advance into the design phase, further coordination will be needed to better understand Apple’s needs and to ensure the community’s concerns about Apple’s impacts on the trail are met. Primary topics to be coordinated further with Apple include: Trail Access The proposed trail alignment passes directly adjacent to Apple’s Infinite Loop and Vallco Parkway campuses. Employees using the trail would have quick access to restaurants, retail and other Apple campuses. Security and access control would need to be addressed in the design. Fencing at the Apple campuses may need to be upgraded in terms of height and durability for security needs. Property Impacts De Anza Boulevard Tunnel Option The proposed stairs shown in the tunnel option under De Anza Boulevard encroach into Apple’s property. If this option is selected, an easement or property acquisition would be required. The bridge option would not require an encroachment into Apple’s property. Further discussion about the tunnel and bridge options follow in Chapter 4. Vallco Parkway Trail Head The proposed trail terminates near Calabazas Creek at Vallco Parkway between two signalized intersections. The most ideal trailhead in this area would be at the northeast corner of the Vallco Parkway and Main Street Driveway signalized intersection. To better facilitate bicycle and pedestrian movement at this corner, an easement within Apple property may be necessary. See Figure 3-15. CalWater Facility Fence Figure 3-16 Figure 3-17De Anza Boulevard On-Ramp Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 23Planning Process CalWater CalWater has underground facilities in and around the proposed trail alignment which need to be considered in the trail design process. There are several CalWater lines that cross the trail alignment, including but not limited to: • Stelling Road – 6” and 18” water lines • De Anza Boulevard – 8” water line • East edge of Apple Infinite Loop – 8” water line • Blaney Avenue – 6” water line • Western extent of Vallco – 12” line • Interstate 280 off-ramp at Wolfe Road – 12” water line One of CalWater’s facilities is an underground water tank and service yard at the north end of North Portal Avenue. This facility serves a large portion of Cupertino’s water needs. The CalWater service yard also provides an opportunity for an additional trail access point. Trail users would access the trail from North Portal Avenue, following CalWater’s driveway and the southern portion of the service yard for a direct connection to the trail. CalWater would need to grant a trail easement to the City of Cupertino for the trail connection on their property, and access control security would need to be addressed. Public trail access through their North Portal Avenue facility’s driveway was preliminarily discussed with CalWater and would require further coordination with them. A draft concept was prepared to illustrate how access to the trail could be addressed, while maintaining security and access control. This is further discussed in Chapter 4. See Figure 3-16. Caltrans The proposed trail runs along the south side of Interstate 280. While much of the trail would remain outside of Caltrans right-of-way, there are two locations where the trail is proposed to encroach: • Stelling Road: Due to constraints with an at-grade crossing, a grade-separated undercrossing is proposed within the embankment along Interstate 280. • De Anza Boulevard: A bike-pedestrian bridge over De Anza Boulevard may require encroachment into Caltrans right-of-way. Preliminary concepts have been shared with Caltrans depicting these improvements and are further discussed in Chapter 4. Additionally, Caltrans has reserved ingress- egress rights through SCVWD’s corridor and will need to review the plan development process to confirm their access needs are met. See Figure 3-17. Loc -N-Stor Fence on Right Hyatt Hotel House Under Construction Lock It Up Self Storage Fence Figure 3-18 Figure 3-19 Figure 3-20 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study24Planning Process City of Sunnyvale At two locations, the proposed trail passes through the City of Sunnyvale’s City limits: 1. Between Mary Avenue and Stelling Road behind single family residential homes, encompassing approximately 330 feet of the trail 2. Directly north of North Portal Avenue and in an undeveloped, triangular shaped parcel, encompassing approximately 360 feet of the trail. Any trail development, within the locations above, would need to be coordinated with the City of Sunnyvale, especially as it pertains to trail maintenance, plan approvals, and cost sharing if applicable. Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Cupertino Loc-N-Stor is a storage facility located at 10655 Mary Avenue, at the western extent of the proposed trail, near the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge. Two trail access alternatives have been prepared showing how trail users would get from Mary Avenue to the proposed trail. One alternative shows the path immediately adjacent to Cupertino Loc-N-Stor’s facility. Additional coordination during the design phase will be required to address concerns related to security and privacy along this edge. Cupertino Loc-N-Stor is currently considering upgrades to their facility and any improvements made should not preclude trail development. See Figure 3-18. Hyatt House Hotel Currently under construction, the Hyatt House Hotel located on Perimeter Road just east of Wolfe Road and near Vallco Mall, is scheduled to be finished by early 2019. In anticipation of the Junipero Serra Trail being constructed in the future, the hotel project is constructing a 10’ wide trail on the west side of the property that connects to the sidewalk undercrossing on Perimeter Road and the SCVWD property to the north. See Figure 3-19. Lock It Up Self Storage The Lock It Up Self Storage facility is located at 10730 North Blaney, along the proposed trail immediately east of North Blaney Avenue. The back wall of the storage units faces the proposed trail. Security, access control and vandalism will need to be considered in concert with the property owner during the design phase. See Figure 3-20. PG&E Tower Figure 3-21 Public Storage Wall and SCVWD Corridor Figure 3-22 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 25Planning Process PG&E PG&E has numerous facilities throughout the project. Most notably, high voltage overhead transmission lines and lower voltage distribution lines run adjacent to or directly above the proposed trail from the western extent at Mary Avenue to just east of Blaney Avenue, where the overhead lines traverse to the north side of Interstate 280. See Figure 3-21. PG&E easements are located within and immediately adjacent to the corridor. At De Anza Boulevard, the PG&E easement is within SCVWD property where a potential bridge or tunnel crossing may be located. PG&E’s easement language prohibits structures within the easement, taller than 15’-0”. Additionally, CPUC General Order 95 mandates clearances between structures and wires. For these wires, 12’-0” vertical and 6’-0” horizontal clearance is required. Detailed plan enlargements were prepared for Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard to show how trail improvements avoid or impact PG&E facilities. At Stelling Road, overhead and underground PG&E facilities cross the proposed trail. Overhead lines run north and south along Stelling Road as well as east and west along the trail alignment. Underground gas lines are also present in Stelling Road. The PG&E easement on both sides of De Anza Boulevard was mapped to better understand the location and width of the easement. With this supplemental mapping, it was determined the various crossings under consideration are feasible. See chapter 4 for further discussion. There are also underground utilities (electrical and gas) that would impact in the tunnel option under De Anza Boulevard. On-going coordination will be required with PG&E to determine the best overall means of achieving street crossings near their facilities. Public Storage Public Storage is located at, 20565 Valley Green Drive, west of De Anza Boulevard. The back wall of the storage units faces the proposed trail. Security, access control and vandalism will need to be considered with the property owner during the design phase. Public Storage is currently considering upgrades to their facility and any improvements made would not preclude trail development. See Figure 3-22. Fence Straddling SCVWD Corridor and Residences Figure 3-23 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study26Planning Process Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) The proposed trail alignment alternatives lie almost entirely within SCVWD right- of-way. Currently, SCVWD manages and maintains the Junipero Serra Channel in the corridor. Occasional maintenance activities are required to clear the channel of debris and provide general upkeep of the facilities. SCVWD is most concerned with maintaining sufficient access after trail development occurs. Concept plans have been shared with the SCVWD for review and comment. Alternative #1 proposes constructing a trail over the existing maintenance road with a guard rail placed between the maintenance road and the open channel. In reviewing trail alternatives, SCVWD indicated that guardrails at the edge of the open channel would not be acceptable. Reasons for opposing a guardrail include narrowing of the existing maintenance road and limited channel access for maintenance operations. Due to the SCVWD’s position on guardrails, alternative #1 is not feasible as currently envisioned in this study. The steep drop-off adjacent to the trail edge is recommended to be mitigated with a guardrail. For this reason, guard rails are still shown in all alternative #1 graphics. If alternative #1 is selected for further study, an alternative edge treatment will need to be vetted with the SCVWD. A potential solution may include constructing a wider maintenance road with removable guardrail. There would be additional capital costs, design effort and time associated with mitigating these concerns. Alternative #2 involves converting the Junipero Serra Channel into an underground box culvert. SCVWD staff has preliminarily agreed to alternative #2 on the condition that the City of Cupertino assume full ownership and maintenance of the Junipero Serra Channel as part of the City’s storm drain system prior to any modifications being implemented. The transfer of the District’s right of way and Junipero Serra Channel to the City is subject to prior approval by the District’s Board of Directors. Additionally, regulatory approval may be required by the US Army Corps of Engineers, California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) VTA has an interest in many modes of transportation including trail development as planned from a regional perspective. This project is consistent with their goals and policies for Cross County Bicycle Corridors (CCBC) and is shown on their 2018 Countywide Bicycle Plan. VTA is also managing the Interstate 280 and Wolfe Road Interchange project. Preliminary alternatives have been prepared for the interchange project, each of which depict connections from sidewalk facilities to the future Junipero Serra Trail. Single-Family Residential A large portion of the proposed trail is abutted by single-family residences. Through multiple community meetings and events, a number of comments and concerns have been raised by this critical stakeholder group. The most common concerns revolved around safety and security of having a trail directly behind their homes. A number of measures have been suggested to help mitigate these concerns and are described in more depth in Chapter 4. Detailed community input can be found in Chapter 3 and the Appendix. See Figure 3-23. Vallco Mall Sign Figure 3-24 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 27Planning Process Vallco Special Area (Shopping Mall) The Vallco Special Area consists of approximately 70 acres under the ownership of three different entities: Vallco Property Owner LLC, Simeon Properties, and KCR Properties. It is bisected by North Wolfe Road and bounded by Stevens Creek Blvd to the south, Main Street Cupertino and commercial/office developments to the east, Interstate 280 to the north, and the North Blaney neighborhood to the west. On September 19, 2018, the Cupertino City Council adopted the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan (Plan), which specifies the requirements for land uses, design standards and guidelines for any development within the Vallco Special Area. The Plan aims to transform the existing Vallco Shopping Mall site into a walkable, mixed-use district anchored by retail, entertainment and cultural uses, and supported by new neighborhoods, employment areas and public open spaces. City Council approved the Tier 2 development program identified in the Plan, and community benefits identified within the development agreement. The Tier 2 program includes up to 2,923 residential units, up to 1.75 million square feet of office and office amenity spaces, and up to 485,000 square feet of commercial/ retail and civic/cultural spaces. The community benefits include a new City Hall, a Performing Arts Center, affordable housing to moderate income households, and financial and in-kind contributions toward local transportation improvements and public schools. The Plan acknowledges the proposed Junipero Serra Trail, identifying potential future connections to the trail as part of the development. The Plan is one of two development options, the other being a development pursuant to Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), a new state law targeted to streamlining city approvals for housing developments in cities that do not currently meet state guidelines for affordable housing. City staff approved the SB 35 development on September 21, 2018, which includes up to 2,402 residential units, up to 1.81 million square feet of office space, and up to 400,000 square feet of retail space. Fifty percent of the residential units would be affordable housing in compliance with SB 35. With either development, the City would incorporate a 20-foot wide trail easement along the northwest quadrant of the Vallco Special Area, following the alignment of the Interstate 280 off-ramp, as part of the entitlement process. Villages at Cupertino The Villages at Cupertino is a large apartment, townhome and cottage residential complex located between Stelling Road to the west and Beardon Drive to the east, centered around Valley Green Drive. The proposed trail abuts perimeter parking for most of the Villages development. Additional coordination during the design phase will be required to address concerns related to security and privacy along this edge. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study28Planning Process Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) A critical part of determining project feasibility was to identify and engage key stakeholders and agencies early in the process. This assembled group was called the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC consists of utility companies, affected municipalities, and other agencies critical in decision-making. The TAC convened on multiple occasions to vet materials being prepared for community outreach meetings and provide overall input. The TAC included members from the following agencies: • Access control review may be needed if the trail alignment moves onto the north side of the sound wall at Blaney Avenue. The review process is dependent on the size of the project. • Caltrans approval may be required for any changes to the District’s fee title right-of-way for the Junipero Serra Channel where Caltrans has reserved ingress egress easement. CalWater • Support a wider trail for maintenance purposes. Main concerns are related to security around their facilities. • There is a water main along Stelling Road across I-280 through the bridge. • There is a water main along De Anza Boulevard, which may conflict with the tunnel option. • Open to providing access through their service yard site at North Portal Avenue for a trail access point. City of Sunnyvale • No comments PG&E – Pacific Gas and Electric • The tunnel option running East to West through De Anza Boulevard would impact gas lines and other utilities currently below De Anza Boulevard. Relocating these utilities for the tunnel option will be costly. • The bridge option must meet required clearances from the existing overhead transmission lines. • PG&E expressed concern for relocating one of the tubular steel pole (TSP) towers in either the tunnel or bridge option. Relocation would be very disruptive and expensive. • There may be no structures taller than 15’-0” located within the PG&E easement. • City of Cupertino • City of Sunnyvale • CalWater • Caltrans • PG&E – Pacific Gas and Electric • SCVWD – Santa Clara Valley Water District • VTA – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority In addition to hosting two TAC meetings with all TAC members, individual meetings with some agencies were held to gather more in- depth technical input and discuss initial design alternative options for the study area on an as- needed basis. Input from TAC members was used to directly inform preliminary concepts. Below is a brief summary of the primary comments from each commenting TAC member: Caltrans • The Lucille Avenue trail segment under the Blaney Avenue overpass is within Caltrans right-of-way, but Caltrans has a maintenance agreement with the City. • An encroachment permit would be needed for any trail development on Caltrans right-of-way. Encroachment may occur at De Anza Boulevard depending on which alternative is pursued. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 29Planning Process SCVWD - Santa Clara Valley Water District • Open to covering the channel to accommodate trail, however maintenance would become City’s responsibility. SCVWD would quit claim and transfer right-of-way to the city in the event the channel is covered. • Will not approve any physical barriers between the maintenance road and Junipero Serra Channel. Barriers impede maintenance operations. Also, concerned that a guardrail would effectively narrow maintenance access road. • Primary need for access is vegetation control. • Maintenance vehicles require a minimum of 15’-0” vertical clearance. VTA – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority • Develop a trail consistent with the updated Countywide Bicycle Plan. • Concern about lack of access points. Adding one at CalWater’s North Portal Avenue facility would help. • Project could be eligible for 2016 Measure B, Safe Routes to School, and ATP funding. • Concern about removal of crosswalk at De Anza Boulevard. People will still cross instead of using circuitous route to the ramp and over the bridge. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) On December 19th, 2018; the feasibility study was presented to the City of Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. Members of the commission discussed the study and voted 4 to 1 in favor of recommending alternative #1. The sub-alternatives recommended as part of the motion included the West Option at Mary Avenue, both the undercrossing and at-grade crossing at Stelling Road and the at-grade crossing at De Anza Boulevard. The commission appreciated the benefits of alternative #2, but were concerned about the high implementation costs, especially with other trail projects planned elsewhere in the City. Many commission members also observed that building the at-grade option at De Anza Boulevard would not preclude a bicycle-pedestrian bridge in the future. A couple commission members suggested that covering the channel should be considered at pinch points, in order to make alternative #1 more user-friendly. See page 148 for the 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes in the appendix. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study30Planning Process Trail Criteria and Standards There are numerous trail design standards and guidelines, sometimes in direct conflict with one another. The following references were reviewed to develop a design basis for the Junipero Serra Trail project. ADA, GDHS, and CHDM provide mandatory standards for trail design. GSLU, NACTO, SJTN, UITD, and WRPM are references providing guidelines and recommendations. Reference Code Reference Title ADA Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design CHDM Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 GDHS American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets GSLU Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards, and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara County NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide SJTN City of San Jose Trail Network Tool Kit Planning & Design, Chapter 4 UITD Santa Clara County Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines WRPM Water Resources Protection Manual Trail Structures Trail structures, such as bridges or tunnels, may be necessary for trail continuity or to create safer trail connections. Intersections with Highways • Where motor vehicle cross traffic and bicycle use are heavy, grade separated crossings are desirable to eliminate intersection conflicts. Where grade separations are not feasible, assignment of right of way by traffic signals shall be considered. Where traffic is not heavy, “STOP” or “YIELD” signs for either the path or the cross street (depending on volumes) may suffice – CHDM – 1003.1 (5) Trail Bridges • Bridges should be a minimum 12’ wide and structurally capable of carrying maintenance vehicles. Fill over culverts, at a minimum, should equal the trail and shoulder widths combined – UITD – 4.1.2 Trail Under-crossings • Clearance of 14’ is desirable to allow for maintenance access – SJTN – p.61 Retaining Walls • Retaining walls parallel to trails are usually discouraged. Where necessary, they should be signed as a hazard – UITD – 4.1.4 Access Controls and Safety Barriers • Where necessary, to prevent motor vehicles from entering the trail, bollards and/or metal gates shall be used at any trail crossing of a public road right-of- way – UITD – 4.2.1 Fencing • Chain-link is only appropriate for temporary installation during construction - SJTN – p. 63 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 31Planning Process Trail Relationship to Properties The trail’s proximity to neighbors – single family residential, businesses, apartments, utility facilities – should be taken into consideration. Areas Where Trail Routes are Adjacent to Private Property • Visible fencing should be used, if requested by the adjacent property owner to deter users from leaving the trail. Type of fencing should be determined in consultation with the property owner(s). Security fencing or walls should be no closer to the trail than 3’-6” and no lower than 4’-8” – UITD – 1.1.4 Trail Safety Consideration of trail user safety and security is a key consideration, especially where there are limited access points and opportunity for visual surveillance. Trail Alignments and Intersections with Motorized Vehicles • Trail Alignments should be selected that minimize intersections with motorized vehicles. Where feasible, trail grades should be separated from roadway grades at crossings. Where separated crossings are not possible, at-grade crossings must be designed to equally consider vehicular and trail user safety – UITD – 1.1.5 At-Grade Trail Crossings • At-grade trail crossings should be developed with appropriate safety and regulatory signs for both trail users and motorists where either: a trail route crosses the street; or where a trail terminates at a street designated as an on-street bicycle route – UITD – 1.1.6.2 Grading and Drainage Good grading and drainage need to be designed into the trail to ensure ease of using the trail and to ensure water drains properly throughout the trail site. Grades • Cross slope grades should be limited to 2% – HDM – 1003.1 (14) • Grades are to be held to a minimum. Longitudinal grades of 5% or less are desirable and are to not exceed 8.33% – UITD – 2.3 Drainage • The bike path shoulder shall slope away from the traveled way at 2% to 5% to reduce ponding and minimize debris from flowing on to the bike path – CHDM – 1003.1 (16) • Surface water shall be diverted from trails by out sloping the trail tread between 2% and 3% – UITD – 3.5.5 Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways • Drainage inlet grates, manhole covers, etc., should be located out of the travel path of bicyclists whenever possible. When such items are in an area that may be used for bicycle travel, they shall be designed and installed in a manner that meets bicycle surface requirements. See Standard Plans – CHDM – 1003.5 (2) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study32Planning Process Trail Design Practices Trail design and construction practices set standards to create safe trails. Clearance to Obstructions • A minimum 2’ horizontal clearance from the paved edge of a bike path to obstructions shall be provided. The clear width of a bicycle path on structures between railings shall not be less than 10’. There should be a minimum vertical clearance of 8’ across the width of the trail and 7’ over the shoulders – CHDM – 1003.1 (3) Sight Distance • The trail design should provide an optimum 100’ average sight distance where possible., If sight distances on curves, around hills or through densely vegetate areas are less than 100 feet, safety signs and reduced speed limits should be considered – UITD –2.5 Pavement Structure • It is important to construct and maintain a smooth, well drained, all-weather riding surface with skid resistant qualities, free of vegetation growth. Principal loads will normally be from maintenance and emergency crews – CHDM – 1003.1 (15) Widths and Cross Slopes Trail Width for a Class 1 Multi-Use Trail See Figure 3-25. • Shared-use trails should be designed as paved two-way paths and should have an optimum width of 12’ with a center stripe and a minimal 2’, flush graded shoulders or clear – UITD – 2.2.1 • The minimum paved width of travel way for a Class I, two-way bike path shall be 8’, 10’ preferred – CHDM – 1003.1 (1a) Trail Width • Trail tread width should be determined by amount and intensity of trail use and field conditions. Where treads are narrower than 8’, they should be signed and wider turn-out passing areas, should be provided at regular intervals. In most cases these trails should not be narrower than 6’ in order to allow two wheelchairs to pass easily – UITD – 2.2.1 Shoulder • A minimum of a 2’ wide shoulder, composed of the same pavement materials as the bike path or all- weather surface material that is free of vegetation, shall be provided adjacent to the traveled way of the bike path when not on a structure. A shoulder width of 3’ should be provided where feasible. A wider shoulder can reduce bicycle conflicts with pedestrians. Where the paved bike path width is wider than the minimum required, the unpaved shoulder area may be reduced proportionately – CHDM – 1003.1 (1b) Private Access to Public Trails • Private gates onto public trails are typically not allowed where they present a public safety concern due to operation and maintenance needs – SJTN – p. 40 Based on the above trail design criteria, a class I multi-use trail is defined for this project as having a minimum 10’ wide paved trail with 2’ shoulders on either side, for a total width of 14’-0”. Alternative #1 does not meet the minimum standard for a class I multi-use trail between Mary Avenue and the Hyatt House hotel site. For this reason, sections of trail not providing 14’-0” width are described as a Pedestrian Trail. Alternative #2 provides a minimum of 14’-0” width throughout and is designated as a class I multi-use trail. CalTrans Two-Way Class 1 Bikeway Figure 3-25 ES = Edge of Shoulder ETW = Edge of Traveled Way HP = Hinge Point * 1% cross-slope minimum Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 33Planning Process Trail Next to a Stream Local policies dictate trail development along streams. For the Junipero Serra Trail, the portion along Calabazas Creek will be affected. • Trail alignment will be limited to one side of the stream to minimize impacts to impact to habit – WRPM – 3.52 • Goal is to remove the minimum of vegetation as necessary – WRPM – 3.51 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study34Planning Process Community Outreach Community meetings and events were the primary means of obtaining input from the public on the project. Input was gathered throughout the design process using a variety of methods. Public input was critical in identifying and evaluating impacts and developing the preferred alternative. To help guide the process, a public outreach plan was prepared and reviewed by City staff and included a total of three (3) community meetings and two(2) community events between September 2017 and June 2018. Additionally, a series of Bike and Pedestrian Commission meetings and Council meetings were utilized to gather more community input and feedback from advisory and decision- making bodies. The community meetings were designed as “open house” style events held within a two- hour window of time on weekday evenings. This allowed participants to arrive at a time that worked best for them. The rooms were set up with stations where participants could navigate project background information, and review segment specific details. Other opportunities for input included written surveys. Meeting locations alternated between the Quinlan Community Center and Community Hall to allow a broader cross section of the community to attend. In addition to community meetings, the project team attended two community events including the Diwali Festival at the Quinlan Community Center on September 30, 2017 and the Earth Day Festival on April 21, 2018. Booths were utilized to disseminate project information and meeting dates, and to allow the community to review and comment on plans. Outreach Methods Below is a list of methods used to notify the community: • City Website • City Channel • Social Media – Next Door, Facebook, Twitter • Tabling/Flyer Distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest, and Earth Day • Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall • Door hangers and flyers to residents and businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail • Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter • Postcard mailings to residents and businesses within 300 feet of the proposed trail • Email notification to subscribers of the “Bicycle Transportation Plan” e-mail list • E-mail notification to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the nearby surrounding neighborhoods Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 35Planning Process Community Outreach Events Diwali Festival Date: September 30, 2017 Time: 11:00am to 4:00pm Location: Memorial Park, Cupertino, CA A booth was set up at the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce’s annual Diwali Festival to announce the project and upcoming outreach process. The goal was to inform the community about the project and how the project ties into the City of Cupertino’s overarching goal to create a loop trail around the city for pedestrians and cyclists. Community Meeting #1 Date: December 6, 2017 Time: 6:00pm to 8:00pm Location: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room Number of people who signed in: 29 Number of input packets received: 13 The goal of community meeting #1 was to introduce the project goals and objectives, related planning efforts, review opportunities and constraints, and to obtain initial thoughts and concerns from the public. Participants were asked to complete an input packet. Key Comments/Concerns from Meeting:  Safety from Vehicles o Prefer grade-separated crossing at Stelling Road o Prefer grade-separated crossing at De Anza Boulevard  Safety along trail o Requests for lighting, emergency phones, access control fencing behind residences Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study36Planning Process Community Meeting #2 Community Meeting #2 was held on two separate dates at two different locations to provide an opportunity for the community to attend at least one of the meetings and provide input. The same material was presented at both meetings. This meeting followed the same format as community meeting #1, with the addition of a recap of all of the project activities that had transpired since the first meeting. Trail alternative alignments, trail sections and enlargement plans were presented to the public by segment. Participants had the opportunity to evaluate the material presented and provide feedback. Number of people who signed in between meetings 2A and 2B: 37 Number of input packets received between meetings 2B and 2B: 37* *5 packets were submitted by a neighbor for others who could not attend either meeting Community Meeting #2A Date: February 20, 2018 Time: 6:00pm to 8:00pm Location: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room Community Meeting #2B Date: February 26, 2018 Time: 6:00pm to 8:00pm Location: Community Hall, Cupertino Civic Center Key Comments/Concerns between Meetings 2A and 2B:  Majority of attendees: o Live in Cupertino o Are supportive of the trail o Would bike on the trail o Did not attend community meeting #1  55% of attendees preferred Alternative #2, 16% preferred Alternative #1 and 29% preferred neither alternative o Trail width was a major factor for attendees on deciding which alternative they prefer  58% of attendees live next to the trail  56% of attendees prefer both a grade- separated crossing under Stelling Road and a spur trail access with a crosswalk across Stelling Road  When asked which crossing they prefer at De Anza Boulevard, the Bridge Over-Crossing (43%) and Tunnel Under- Crossing (50%) were closely preferred  Safety, Security, and Privacy were some of the main concerns amongst attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 37Planning Process Earth & Arbor Day Festival Date: April 21, 2018 Time: 11:00am to 3:00pm Location: Civic Center Plaza, Cupertino, CA A booth was set up at the City of Cupertino’s annual Earth & Arbor Day Festival. Materials presented were similar to what was presented at Community Meeting #2. Instead of an input packet, an interactive board was displayed where community members could vote by placing stickers on the board. Community Meeting #3 Date: June 6, 2018 Time: 6:00pm to 8:00pm Location: Community Hall, Cupertino Civic Center Number of people who signed in: 19 Number of input packets received: 13 This meeting followed the format of community meeting #1 and #2, with the addition of a recap of all project activities that transpired since the first meeting. Visual simulations were provided to assist in understanding the undercrossing at Stelling Road and the pedestrian bridge and tunnel options at De Anza Boulevard. Additionally, there was more information pertaining to fencing improvements. Sergeant Brown from the Santa Clara County Sherriff’s office was present to address concerns about safety and security along the trail. Key Comments/Concerns from Meeting:  Majority of attendees: o Had not attended previous meetings o Supported the location of the trail o Would primarily walk on the trail o Live in the City of Cupertino  Mixed feedback about the De Anza Boulevard crossing o Some attendees liked the having a grade-separated crossing option o Other attendees were concerned about safety of a tunnel  Concerns about trail access for Apple employees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study38Trail Alignments Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 39Trail Alignments 4 Based on input received from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and community, and evaluation of existing conditions, two trail alignment alternatives were studied in further detail. See Figures 4-5 through 4-7 for the Alternative Alignment Plans. The alternatives represent different solutions for achieving the City’s goal of providing the community with an off-street trail. In addition, opportunities for trailheads and street crossings were studied and are discussed at length in this chapter. Alternatives Evaluation & Preferred Alternative The alternatives evaluated include different options for accessing the trail around the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge approach and crossing alternatives at Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard. The alignment alternatives also suggest trail heads at Mary Avenue, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, North Portal Avenue, Wolfe Road, Lucille Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and connecting to approved trail plans at Vallco and Hyatt House. The community generally expressed a preference for grade separated crossings where possible. They also preferred alternative #2 as it provided a wider trail with more physical separation from residential fences and more potential for trail enhancements. Alternative #2 is also preferred by SCVWD. Alternative #1 is preferred by the City’s Bike Pedestrian Commission. Pedestrian Trail (less than 14’-0” wide) Alternative #1, next to channel The primary difference between the alternative alignments is their relationship to the existing Junipero Serra Channel in the SCVWD corridor between the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge and Wolfe Road. Alternative #1 utilizes the existing SCVWD maintenance road adjacent to the channel. This trail alternative varies in width, between approximately 7’-6” and 13’-0”. The available width is insufficient in most areas to accommodate a Class I multi- use trail, as described in Chapter 3. This limits the usefulness of this alternative as a two-way bike facility. Bicycles may still use the trail, but the trail would be more uncomfortable for users and could lead to unsafe conditions due to its sub-standard width. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study40Trail Alignments Because the trail would be immediately adjacent to the steep drop-off at the channel, a barrier railing would be required to prevent trail users from falling into the channel. SCVWD expressed they will not approve this alternative because the barrier railing would reduce the usable width of the maintenance road and could impede channel maintenance activities. See Figure 4-1 for typical alternative #1 section. Class I Multi-Use Trail (min. 14’-0” wide) Alternative #2, covered channel and on-grade Alternative #2 converts the open channel into a concrete box culvert, allowing the trail to be located directly over the box culvert. This alternative can accommodate a full Class I multi-use trail including a 10’ wide paved trail, with 2’ wide shoulders on each side, for a total width of 14’. Locating the trail over the box culvert also allows the trail to shift northward and be more centered within SCVWD right- of-way. By shifting the trail, there are more opportunities for trail enhancement and screening for the neighboring properties. Trail enhancements may include planting areas that address storm water treatment as well as provide visual screening. Converting from an open channel to a box culvert will require storm water connections to be re-established and tied into the box culvert. Surface run-off, within SCVWD right- of-way, previously entering the channel will also need to be captured and piped into the box culvert. Access manholes would need to be provided at approximately 400’ intervals to allow for box culvert maintenance. Another consideration related to the conversion from an open channel to a covered box culvert is a change in maintenance responsibility. Maintenance of enclosed culverts or channels is not SCVWD’s expertise. If Alternative #2 is pursued by the City, SCVWD Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Min 14’ Wide, Covered Figure 4-2 will request that the City accept ownership and maintenance responsibility prior to project construction. Based on a preliminary engineering analysis of the watershed contributing to the channel, approximate culvert sizes were determined. From Mary Avenue to Stelling, the culvert would be 4’x4’. From Stelling to De Anza Boulevard, the culvert would be 5’x8’. From De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road, the culvert would be 6’x10’. East of Wolfe Road, the channel would remain unlined. Periodic flushing of the box culvert will be required via access manholes spaced at approximately 400’. See Figure 4-2 for typical alternative #2 section. East of Wolfe Road, the existing maintenance road widens sufficiently to support a class I multi-use trail. Trail improvements in this section would leave the unlined channel as-is and would be described as on-grade improvements. See Figure 4-3 for typical standard section. Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Min. 14’ Wide, On-Grade Figure 4-3 The sections that follow describe the trail alignments by segment. The alignments are illustrated and detailed in this chapter through the use of the following: • Narrative Description • Alternative Alignment Maps • Enlargement Plans • Sections • Visual Simulations Figure 4-1 Pedestrian Trail, Less than 14’ Wide Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 41Trail Alignments Pedestrian Trail Guardrail, 4’- 6” Tall SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies Public Storage PG&E Transmission Lines To Remain Existing Tree To Remain Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 Drainage Channel To Remain+-35’- 0” PG&E Transmission Pole To Remain Chainlink Fence To Remain +-9’- 0” 2’-0” Shoulder Alternative #1 Existing Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 11’- 6”+- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees PG&E Transmission Poll Existing Concrete Lined Drainage Channel Existing Chainlink Fence 35- 0”+- Alternative #2 Class 1 Multi-Use Trail SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies Public Storage 10’-0” Min.2’-0”2’-0” Existing Tree To Remain Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 Planted Stormwater Treatment Area Decomposed Granite Shoulder Concrete Box Culvert Shoulder, Typ.Asphalt Trail +-35’- 0” PG&E Transmission Pole To Remain Chainlink Fence To Remain PG&E Transmission Lines To Remain Access Manhole at 400’- 0, typ. Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Figure 4-4 Public Storage Sections Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study42Trail Alignments this page intentionally left blank Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 43 0 50 100 200 HOMESTEAD HIGH SCHOOL GARDEN GATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PUBLIC STORAGE Mary Avenue Bridge MARY AVENUESTELLING ROADI-280 See Stelling Road Intersection Enlargement HOMESTEAD ROAD CASTINE DRIVEGARDENA DRIVE METEOR D RI V E See Mary Avenue Enlargement (East Option and West Option) City Limits Trail Connection Point / Enlargement Area Existing ConditionsTrail Types Bike Lanes on Street Existing Connections Bike RouteGateway Class 1 Bike Path Alternative #2, covered channel On-grade Alternative #1, next to channel Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide Pedestrian Trail, less than 14’ wide Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide Figure 4-5Alternative Alignment Plan - Segment 1 Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study44 this page intentionally left blank Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 45WOLFE ROADCity Limits Trail Connection Point / Enlargement Area Existing ConditionsTrail Types Bike Lanes on Street Existing Connections Bike RouteGateway Class 1 Bike Path Alternative #2, covered channel On-grade Alternative #1, next to channel Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide Pedestrian Trail, less than 14’ wide Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide 0 50 100 200 APPLE LAWSON MIDDLE SCHOOL BLANEY AVENUEDE ANZA BOULEVARDI-280 See Blaney Avenue Intersection EnlargementSee De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement (Tunnel Under-Crossing and Bridge Over-Crossing) HOMESTEAD ROAD Potential Trail Access Point LUCILLE AVENUE Figure 4-6Alternative Alignment Plan - Segment 2 Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study46 this page intentionally left blank Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 47 0 50 100 200 1 2 Area in-flux, especially on the west side of Wolfe Road. Goal is the get a class 1, multi-use trail into the planning process. Hyatt House development made provisions for trail. City Limits Trail Connection Point / Enlargement Area Existing ConditionsTrail Types Bike Lanes on Street Existing Connections Bike RouteGateway Class 1 Bike Path Alternative #2, covered channel On-grade Alternative #1, next to channel Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide Pedestrian Trail, less than 14’ wide Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide Figure 4-7Alternative Alignment Plan - Segment 3 CALABAZAS CREEKCALABAZAS CREEKTANTAU AVENUE VALL C O P A R K W A YWOL FE ROAD I-280 Vallco Marquee Sign APPLE See Hyatt House Hotel Enlargement Vallco / I-280 Interchange Projects Class 1 Multi- Use Trail, Proposed 20’ Wide Public Trail Easement Potential Future Connection to Vallco Special Area Specific Plan, Typ. 1 2 APPLE Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study48 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 49Trail Alignments Segment 1 – Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard The community expressed concern with this alternative, including privacy and security for the neighbors, impacts to the trees and the narrower trail width. This alternative is not preferred for the trail because significant tree removal and grading will have to occur. See Figure 4-8 for an enlargement of the East Option. West Option Near Mary Avenue The West Option runs along the west side of the bridge approach, adjacent to the Loc- N-Stor facility. This alternative stays entirely within the existing slope easement on Loc- N-Stor’s property. Due to the location of the slope easement, the trail ties into the bridge approach path further north. There is more physical space on this side of the bridge approach, which allows for a full Class I multi- use trail. Additionally, the grades are gentler than the East Option, thus requiring less retaining wall length and is anticipated to be shorter in height (approximately 1’ to 3’ tall). A few trees would need to be removed, but not as many as the East option. Loc-N-Stor expressed concern with security having the trail so close to the fence line, as they have had break-ins in the past. Loc-N-Stor is proposing to improve their property and has submitted preliminary plans for City approval. The City may request a condition of approval on the redevelopment of Loc-N-Stor’s property to allow for future implementation of a trail. Continued coordination will be required between the City and Loc-N-Stor along this edge to satisfy any outstanding concerns of having a trail in this location. The community expressed a preference for this alternative as it locates the trail further away from residences, allows for a wider trail and requires far fewer tree removals. See Figure 4-9 for an enlargement of the West Option. Segment 1 runs from Mary Avenue to the west side of De Anza Boulevard. Starting at the westernmost trail extent, Segment 1 begins at the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge plaza. The bridge approach presents a choice for how to access the trail within the SCVWD corridor. The approach slopes upward to meet the bridge deck elevation over Interstate 280, while access to the proposed Junipero Serra Trail requires an access path, on either side of the bridge approach, to slope down to conform with grades at the SCVWD maintenance road. Both access path options are feasible and a more detailed description of each option is presented below. See Figure 4-10 for a section of the East Option and West Option for Mary Avenue. East Option Near Mary Avenue The East Option runs along the east side of the bridge approach, directly behind the residential properties on Nathanson Avenue. The trail would tie into the existing plaza at Mary Avenue and run parallel to the residential wood fences northward to the SCVWD right- of-way. The trail would be offset from the fence a minimum of 3’ to provide a privacy buffer. Due to considerable cross slopes and limited space available, the trail may need to be narrower than a full Class I multi-use trail at this section. For these reasons, the paved trail width through this section would be reduced to 10’ wide. Additionally, a retaining wall up to 8’ in height would be required to obtain suitable flat area for a 10’ wide trail. The east side of the bridge approach also contains numerous mature trees, including large redwoods requiring removal to accommodate a trail. Lastly, the trail parallels overhead utilities and poles that would need to be avoided in this area. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study50Trail Alignments Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Centerline Culvert Tree To Be Removed Class I Bike Path Existing Trail to Mary Avenue BridgeInterstate 280Open Channel Low Split Rail Fence, Typ. Begin Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide Over Covered Channel Guardrail Private Residence Fence 10’ wide Pedestrian Trail Proposed Tree, Typ. Storm Water Management Proposed Vegetation, Typ. Minimum 3’ Wide Buffer from Residential Fence Existing Loc-N- Stor Property Fence To Remain Existing City Property Fence To Remain, Typ. Existing Maintenance Gate To Remain Retaining Wall, 6’ to 8’ Tall 0 15’30’60’ Figure 4-8 Mary Avenue Enlargement East Option Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 51Trail Alignments Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Centerline Culvert Tree To Be Removed Class I Bike Path Wood Fence To Remain Re-aligned Maintenance Gate Private Residence Fence Existing Maintenance Access To Remain Existing Loc-N- Stor Property Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide Over Covered Channel Guardrail Retaining Wall, 1’ to 3’ Tall Proposed Tree, Typ.Existing Trail to Mary Avenue BridgeProposed trail within existing slope easement Interstate 2800 15’30’60’ Figure 4-9 Mary Avenue Enlargement West Option Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study52Trail Alignments Existing Tree Existing Tree To Be Removed Existing Public Service EasementCity of Cupertino Width Varies Existing Trail Residential Existing Tree Existing Tree To Be Removed Existing Chain-link Fence with Barbed Wire Existing Fence Mary Avenue Bridge Existing Pedestrian Lighting Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Existing Slope Easement Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Existing Public Service EasementCity of Cupertino Width Varies Looking North Looking North Existing Slope Easement Existing Trail Residential Existing Chainlink Fence With Barbed Wire To Remain Existing Fence To Remain Existing Fence To Remain Mary Avenue Bridge Existing Pedestrian Lighting To Remain Retaining Wall Retaining Wall 12’-0”2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ.2’-0”2’-0” Pedestrian Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. 10’-0” Narrowed Trail to Gain Buffer From Residential West Option: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside East Option: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree Removal and Grading Will Be Required. Existing Proposed 75’- 0”+- 75’- 0”+- Figure 4-10Mary Ave Sections High Visibility Crosswalk Example Figure 4-11 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 53Trail Alignments Mary Avenue to Stelling Road After Mary Avenue, the trail turns east within SCVWD right-of-way towards Stelling Road for approximately 0.5 miles. This section of trail is located behind single family residences and runs parallel with PG&E’s overhead electrical transmission lines supported by lattice towers. Many of the homes in this section are physically separated from SCVWD right- of-way by a greater distance than elsewhere on the trail due to the presence of the PG&E easement next to the SCVWD right-of-way. Stelling Road Stelling Road is the first major street crossing in the trail. The community expressed a desire for grade-separated street crossings for trail user convenience and safety reasons. With that input, a number of options were evaluated for crossing Stelling Road. A bike-pedestrian bridge over Stelling Road was evaluated but quickly proved problematic due to the large number of overhead electrical lines impeding any proposed alignment over the street. The overhead lines on the west side of Stelling Road are particularly low and would require relocation or undergrounding to accommodate a bike-pedestrian bridge. Additionally, this section of SCVWD’s right-of- way is very constrained with respect to width. Accommodating a bike-pedestrian bridge and a spur trail side by side within a 25’ to 30’ wide space is challenging. The bike-pedestrian bridge also introduces privacy concerns as the bridge approach on the west side of Stelling Road would give trail users views into backyards. The east bridge approach would be adjacent to a parking lot, so privacy concerns there are not as significant. A tunnel was also evaluated at this location. CalWater and PG&E have significant underground utilities at this location that would require relocation to accommodate a tunnel. The width constraint is also a factor as running a tunnel side by side with a spur trail would be difficult within the space available. The drainage culvert under Stelling Road would also need to fit alongside the tunnel. The space doesn’t accommodate a tunnel, spur trail and culvert, side by side. For these reasons, the tunnel is not a feasible option. Another option evaluated was an undercrossing at Stelling Road. The trail would meander north onto Caltrans right-of- way, ramp down underneath Stelling Road at the west approach and ramp up at the east approach. A nearby example is along the Stevens Creek Trail at Middlefield Road and Highway 85. This option minimizes the utility conflict concerns present with both a bike-pedestrian bridge and tunnel option. It also eliminates the space constraint concerns since the main trail and spur trail utilize both SCVWD and Caltrans right-of-way. There would also be reduced privacy concerns as the trail undercrossing would be below street level on Caltrans right-of-way and away from residences. See Figure 4-12 and 4-13. At street level, a high visibility crosswalk with flashing beacon signal is recommended to increase visibility of pedestrians and cyclists crossing Stelling Road at-grade. Trail head plazas are proposed for both sides of Stelling Road as a trail amenity and branding opportunity for the trail. The community preferred the undercrossing option to an at- grade only crossing of Stelling Road. See Figure 4-14 for an enlargement of the Stelling Road Intersection Enlargement. Stelling Road to De Anza Boulevard The trail continues east after Stelling Road. This section of Segment 1 is located behind the Villages at Cupertino residential community, Public Storage and the multi-family residential development at 10745 De Anza Boulevard. See Figure 4-4 for a typical section through this area. Segment 2 starts just west of De Anza Boulevard. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study54Trail Alignments Figure 4-12Grade-Separated Under-Crossing at Stelling Road Existing Conditions under Stelling Road Figure 4-13 Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 55 0 15’30’60’Stelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide Over Covered Channel West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide Over Covered Channel Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk, with pedestrian beacon Open Channel Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 14’ Wide Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Channel (When Covered) HWY 85 Stevens Cre e k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead Figure 4-15Under-Crossing Example Figure 4-14Stelling Road Intersection Enlargement Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study56 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 57Trail Alignments Segment 2 – De Anza Boulevard to Vallco De Anza Boulevard Overall, Segment 2 runs from the west side of De Anza Boulevard to the west side of Vallco Shopping Mall. The intersection at De Anza Boulevard is adjacent to multi-family residential, Apple’s Infinite Loop campus, and I-280 on and off ramps. Additionally, the PG&E overhead transmission lines cross over De Anza Boulevard and the Junipero Serra Channel is conveyed via culvert under De Anza Boulevard. There are CalWater and PG&E facilities (among others) beneath De Anza Boulevard running north and south. The community expressed a strong desire for a grade separated crossing to mitigate conflicts between trail users and vehicular traffic at this busy intersection. Three alternatives for crossing De Anza Boulevard were evaluated and are discussed further below. Tunnel Alternative There are a number of obstacles to avoid with a tunnel option beneath De Anza Boulevard. The existing culvert beneath the street will need to remain in its current alignment, so any tunnel option will need to remain entirely on one side of the culvert. Additionally, there needs to be space for a spur trail and a set of stairs to access the tunnel from the street. With constraints on available width, the proposed tunnel option would require property acquisition on both sides of De Anza Boulevard to accommodate stairs. The tunnel will directly conflict with underground utilities in De Anza Boulevard. Further utility coordination would be required if the tunnel option is pursued. Additionally, the existing PG&E poles present a challenge for the footprint of the tunnel. The pole on the west side of De Anza Boulevard is located on the south side of the Junipero Serra Channel and the pole on the east side of De Anza Boulevard is located on the north side of the channel. Keeping the tunnel within SCVWD right-of-way would require the relocation of one of the poles. The proposed plan shows the relocation of the west-side pole into Caltrans right-of-way. This clears enough room to accommodate the spur trail, the tunnel approach ramp and the stairs. The tunnel itself would be at least 10’-0” wide and 10’-0” tall and equipped with security lighting and a skylight at the median to allow natural light. Stairs into the tunnel should consider bike runnels to allow more direct trail access for bikes. The wall opposite the stair entrance may be angled to allow more visibility and natural light into the tunnel approach. The stairs and spur trail would all be accessed at grade from a trail head plaza on both sides of De Anza Boulevard. See Figures 4-19 through 4-21 for an enlargement plan and a visual simulation of this alternative. Stevens Creek Trail Figure 4-17Stevens Creek Trail Tunnel Example 2 Figure 4-18Tunnel Finishes Figure 4-16Stevens Creek Trail Tunnel Example 1 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study58Trail Alignments Figure 4-19 Figure 4-20 Tunnel Visual Simulation 1 Tunnel Visual Simulation 2 Tunnel under De Anza Boulevard, looking west Tunnel approach under De Anza Boulevard, looking West Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 59 Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Channel Centerline CulvertDe Anza Boulevard0 15’30’60’ Interstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p PG&E Tower To Be Removed Tunnel Under-Crossing With Skylight For Natural Lighting Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide Over Covered Channel West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain Tunnel Approach Ramp Tunnel Approach Ramp Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide 40 MPH Reocated PG&E Tower on Caltrans R.O.W. Existing Property Fence, Apple Stairs to Tunnel Under-Crossing, Typ. Figure 4-21De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Tunnel Under-Crossing Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study60 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 61Trail Alignments Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Like the tunnel option, there are obstacles associated with the bike-pedestrian bridge. Because the bridge is an aerial structure, the conflicts associated with underground utilities and the culvert under De Anza Boulevard are reduced. However, the overhead electrical lines become problematic. An initial alternative of the bike-pedestrian bridge illustrated relocation of the PG&E pole on the east side of De Anza Boulevard would be required to keep the bridge away from overhead wires and remain entirely within SCVWD right-of-way. Concern for significant construction costs and coordination effort related to relocation of a PG&E pole led to the development of a second alternative where the PG&E pole would not have to be relocated. At the same time, a supplemental survey was commissioned to determine exact pole locations and vertical clearance between the roadway and the lowest wires. The survey indicated that the lowest wires were approximately 37’ above the roadway surface on De Anza Boulevard. 37’ does not provide enough clearance for a bike-pedestrian bridge. The required vertical clearance over De Anza Boulevard is 17’. Assuming a concrete structure, the depth of the bridge deck would be approximately 4’-6”, resulting in a bridge deck elevation of 21’-6” above De Anza Boulevard. The barrier fencing on the bridge adds another 8’ minimum, bringing the total structure height to 29’-6” above De Anza Boulevard. With the wires being 37’ above the roadway, that leaves approximately 7’-6” between the top of bridge structure and the lowest hanging wires. PG&E requires 12’ vertical clearance from any of their overhead supply conductors and supply cables running between 750 to 22,500 Volts. This information further solidified the requirement to minimize the bridge footprint from being under the wires. In the second bridge alternative, the alignment was shifted north to avoid the PG&E poles with a minimum of 6’ horizontal clearance per PG&E requirements. The bridge would be located within Caltrans right-of-way and would require modifications to a traffic signal pole, a street light, a utility box, and a pull- out along the on-ramp. There would be stairs leading up to the bridge deck on both sides of De Anza Boulevard. On the west side, the stairs would come from an at-grade plaza at the intersection. On the east side, the stairs need to be shifted far enough east to keep the stairs below PG&E’s vertical cable clearance and 15’ maximum height for structures within their easement. See Figure 4-24. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study62Trail Alignments Figure 4-22 Figure 4-23 Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Visual Simulation 1 Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Visual Simulation 2 De Anza Blvd bike-pedestrian bridge overhead view looking south at De Anza Blvd De Anza Blvd bike-pedestrian bridge on the west plaza looking west at the stairs up to the brige Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 63 this page intentionally left blank 0 15’30’60’ Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Santa Clara Valley Water District Property PG&E Easement De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing Figure 4-24 De Anza BoulevardInterstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Bridge Access Ramp, 4% PG&E Tower To Remain Stairs to Bridge Over-Crossing Bridge Approach Ramp, 4% Trailhead Plaza, Typ. Bridge Over-Crossing Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Bridge Approach Ramp, 4% PG&E Tower To Remain 40 MPH Traffic Light to be Relocated Utility Box to be Relocated Pull Out to be Removed Cobra Light to be Relocated Drainage Channel Centerline Culvert Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study64 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 65Trail Alignments At-Grade Crossing At-grade trail crossing alternatives were also evaluated for the De Anza Boulevard crossing. The current signal timing has high potential for conflicts with two south-bound off-ramp right hand turn lanes turning at the same time as the pedestrian “walk” signal phase. Two different at-grade alternatives were explored: Alternative 1 would not include the construction of any physical improvements, but signal timing would be modified such that the off- ramp right-turn and pedestrian crossings would not be in conflict. It is anticipated this would result in a degradation of traffic operations at the intersection. Alternative 2 would include the construction of an additional lane on the southbound I-280 off-ramp, resulting in a left-turn lane, shared left-turn/through lane, and two dedicated right-turn lanes. This change would allow separation of the ramp signal phase, making it possible for the crosswalk phase to operate concurrently with the eastbound off-ramp left turn/through movement. Overall delay would remain relatively consistent with existing conditions in this scenario. See Figure 4-26. Alternative 2 is the recommended at-grade alternative as there would be minimal traffic impacts, while also increasing trail user and vehicular safety. The complete design memorandum for the at-grade crossing can be found in the Appendix. De Anza Boulevard to Blaney Avenue Between De Anza Boulevard and Blaney Avenue, the trail runs adjacent to Apple’s Infinite Loop campus and along Lucille Avenue in a residential neighborhood. Apple may desire to have an employee access point in the section of trail adjacent to their campus. The overhead electrical transmission lines continue to run through this section with PG&E’s tubular steel poles (TSPs) located very close to the proposed trail alignment, particularly if trail alternative #1 is selected. Due to width constraints, the locations of these poles and trail alignment will require further study during a detailed design phase due to the narrow width available between the PG&E pole and the top of channel. See Figure 4-28 for typical sections of this trail section. Figure 4-25High Visibility Crosswalk Example Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study66Trail Alignments Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 67 this page intentionally left blankDe Anza BoulevardInterstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p 0 15’30’60’ Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Add 4th Traffic Lane, Redesignate Lanes - 2 Left Turn and 2 Right Turn Trail PG&E Tower To Remain, Trail Pinch Point PG&E Tower To Remain Trailhead Plaza, Typ. Existing Utilities and Infrastructure to be Relocated - Backflow, TS Cabinet, Irrig. Controller, 2-(E) Service Me- ter, Transformer, TS Pole, Curb Ramp, Signs, Pull Boxes, Crosswalk Widen Median Opening to accomodate crosswalk width 14’ Wide High Visibility Crosswalk with two 4’ wide Ped Lanes, and one 6’ wide Bike Lane Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain Trail Existing Property Fence, Apple Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Drainage Channel (When Covered) 40 MPH De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - At-Grade Crossing - Alternative #2 Figure 4-26 Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study68 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 69Trail Alignments Blaney Avenue The 0.22-mile section parallel to Lucille Avenue is the only portion of the trail that’s not behind homes or businesses. This section of the trail provides an access opportunity not often available between major intersections elsewhere along the trail. Should trail alternative #2 be pursued, there’s potential for the trail to be separated from Lucille Avenue with planting enhancements, a lower fence to allow improved visibility and aesthetics. Intermittent decomposed granite paths connect to the trail from Lucille Avenue. If trail alternative #1 is selected, the trail will be narrower in places and located closer to the street. A trail head with amenities such as seating, signage and decorative paving is depicted. Also, improved connections to the trail are shown such as a crosswalk, traffic calming bulb-outs and sidewalk improvements. Some neighbors expressed concern at the community meetings about parking and speeding along Lucille Avenue with the implementation of a trail. The City may want to explore a policy, implementing permit parking for portions of Lucille Avenue, while allowing for some expected trail use parking. Bulb-outs may also help alleviate any speeding along Lucille Avenue. See Figures 4-28 and 4-29. Pinch Point Below Blaney Avenue Further east, the trail encounters a challenging 100’ long section starting below the Blaney Avenue overcrossing to the open Junipero Serra Channel adjacent to Lock It Up storage. At the bend of North Blaney Avenue, there is a 10’ wide pinch point between the sound wall and metal beam guard rail. A potential solution for widening the trail here is to shift the street curb line 2’ inward and relocate the guard rail accordingly. A guy anchor would need to be modified to allow vertical clearance for trail users. See Figure 4-29 for the location of the 10’ wide pinch point on the Blaney Avenue Enlargement and Figure 4-27 for an image of the pinch point. The sound wall, near the pinch point, stops just east of the Blaney Avenue overcrossing and becomes chain link fence. Further consultation with Caltrans may be required to install additional sound wall to protect trail users from a vehicle potentially leaving the freeway and ending up on the trail. North Portal Avenue Trail Access Heading east from Blaney Avenue, the trail goes behind Lock It Up storage and residential neighborhoods. At the CalWater facility at North Portal Avenue, there is another trail access opportunity. In early meetings with CalWater, they have been amenable to the idea of providing trail access through their facility, provided appropriate security protections are designed. The CalWater property is currently used to maintain vital water supply for the City. For the trail entrance, an access easement should be obtained to allow trail users to travel through the property to access the trail at the east end of the property. To give access to trail users, the existing fence and gate should be removed and a new fence and gate should be installed to still allow CalWater access and security of their facility. Bollards should be placed after the new gate, trail signage at the entrance to the CalWater property, and “NO PARKING” signs on the asphalt along the trail entrance should be placed to deter trail users from parking within the trail entrance and to prevent CalWater vehicles from being blocked from accessing their equipment on their property. See Figure 4-30 for the North Portal Avenue Trail Access Enlargement. Figure 4-27Pinch Point between Sound Wall and Guard Rail City R.O.W.Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 18’- 6”+- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 40’- 0” Existing Tree Existing Tree Existing Sound Wall PG&E Transmission Pole Lucille Avenue Existing Chain-link Fence Existing Concrete Lined Drainage Channel PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study70Trail Alignments Figure 4-28 Alternative #1 Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 40’- 0” Varies, 10’-0” Max.2’-0”2’-0” Pedestrian or Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. City R.O.W. Existing Tree To Remain Sound Wall To Remain Guardrail, 4’-6” Tall, Only Where Drop-Off Slope Exceeds 3:1 Concrete Lined Drainage Channel To RemainLucille Avenue Existing Tree To Remain 3:1 Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0” Tall, With Openings Along Lucille Avenue For Trail Access PG&E Transmission Lines To Remain PG&E Transmission Pole To Remain Alternative #2 Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 40’- 0” 10’-0”2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. City R.O.W. Existing Tree To Remain Sound Wall To Remain Lucille Avenue Existing Tree To Remain Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0” Tall, With Openings Along Lucille Avenue For Trail Access Concrete Box Culvert PG&E Transmission Lines To Remain PG&E Transmission Pole To Remain Planted Stormwater Treatment Area Access manhole at 400’- 0”, typ. Lucille Avenue Sections Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 71 0 15’30’60’ Interstate 280 Blaney AvenueRandy LaneVilla De Anza AvenueProposed Sidewalk To Meet Existing Sidewalk at Olivewood Street Metal Beam Guardrail At Curve Existing Edge Of Street Proposed Curb Shift, 2’-0” approximately 10’ Width At Pinch Point Paved Trail Access Point Guy Anchor To Be Modified, Maintain Min. 10’ Vertical Clearance Over Trail Trail utilizesexisting undercrossing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide Over Covered Channel Trailhead Existing Tree To Remain, Typ.Landscaping, Typ. Existing On-street Parking Seatwall, Typ. Low Split Rail Fence, Typ. Wires Overhead, Typ. D.G. Path Connection, Typ. PG&E Tower, Typ. Proposed Crosswalk and Sidewalk With Ramps 25 MPH Lucille Avenue Enlargement Legend Trail Parking, explore extension of permit parking on Lucille Curb Bulbout, Typ. Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Channel Centerline Culvert Blaney Avenue Trail Access Enlargement Figure 4-29 Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study72 this page intentionally left blank Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 73 0 15’30’60’ Int e r s t a t e 2 8 0 Proposed Double Gate New Asphalt Pavement Existing Gate to be Removed Existing Driveway to Remain Existing On Street Parking Existing Asphalt Path to Remain Proposed Removable BollardsProposed Trail Access Spur, Utilize Ex. Cal Water Driveway Proposed Trail Wayfinding SignagePortal AveDrake DrivePARKINGNO 15’Proposed Access Control Fence Proposed Trail CA L T R A N S R . O . W . S. C . V . W . D . P R O P E R T Y Drainage Channel Centerline Enlargement Legend North Portal Avenue Trail Access Enlargement Figure 4-30 Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study74 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 75Trail Alignments Segment 3 – Vallco to Vallco Parkway Segment 3 of the trail runs from the west edge of Vallco Mall to Vallco Parkway alongside Calabazas Creek. Starting at the western extent, the Vallco Mall site is currently being proposed for re-development and is in a state of flux. The developer is working with City staff on a proposal for the site. It is anticipated that the trail will follow the northern edge of the Vallco site and connect to the Perimeter Road undercrossing below Wolfe Road. Additionally, VTA is leading a design effort to reconstruct the Wolfe Road interchange at I-280. Caltrans’ Project Study Report for the project has been completed, and an environmental assessment of the alternatives is being performed. Preliminary alternatives depict connections from the Wolfe Road sidewalks to the Junipero Serra Trail. The trail project will need to conform to the interchange project as designs advance. The trail would utilize the Perimeter Road undercrossing and connect to the Hyatt House development project, currently under construction. The Hyatt House is constructing a 10’ wide trail as part of their project, which will serve as a small section of the overall trail. See Figure 4-7 for the enlargement plan of this area and Figure 4-31 for the Hyatt House Enlargement, which is a part of this area. Commencing at the Junipero Serra Channel side of the Hyatt House project, a full Class I multi-use trail can be constructed adjacent to the channel. This section of the channel is unlined and will remain unlined. The trail continues east behind an Apple campus until the unlined channel’s confluence with Calabazas Creek. The trail at this point, turns southward along the west bank of Calabazas Creek. This section continues to accommodate a class 1 multi-use trail adjacent to the creek. SCVWD studies indicate that the maintenance road along Calabazas Creek is below top of bank and subject to inundation during 10-year storm events and greater. During large storm events, temporary trail closures will be needed to ensure trail user safety. Locking swing gates accompanied by signage are recommended as means for securing the area. City staff would be responsible for monitoring flow conditions and closing this section of the trail as needed. Improvements to the Calabazas Creek maintenance road may require approvals from regulatory agencies, including the California State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. There is a potential trail head and connection to a signalized intersection on Vallco Parkway, which would connect the trail to existing bike street infrastructure and Main Street, a popular mixed-use neighborhood. Additional coordination with Apple and the City is required for this trail head location. See Figures 4-32 and 4-33 for sections through segment 3. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study76Trail Alignments Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 77 HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014AADROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA PUBLIC OPEN SPACE OUTDOOR DINING POOL EXISTING TREE SHADE TREE FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE STREET TREE IN GRATE PUBLIC ART DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK TRASH/RECYCLING BIN STORMWATER PLANTING ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP SCREENED TRANSFORMER LEGEND NORTH SCALE:1” = 20’-0” L-1 12 12 13 13 8 1 3 4 6 7 2 2 2 7 7 10 11 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 16 15 14 13 8 0’5’20’10’10’ To Existing Under-crossing HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014AADROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA PUBLIC OPEN SPACE OUTDOOR DINING POOL EXISTING TREE SHADE TREE FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE STREET TREE IN GRATE PUBLIC ART DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK TRASH/RECYCLING BIN STORMWATER PLANTING ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP SCREENED TRANSFORMER LEGEND NORTH SCALE:1” = 20’-0” L-1 12 12 13 13 8 1 3 4 6 7 2 2 2 7 7 10 11 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 16 15 14 13 8 0’5’20’10’10’ Connection to Proposed Trail Hotel Bicycle / Pedestrian Path, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Wol fe Road Concept Plan prepared by Bruce Jett Associates, 8/13/14 Trail Types Alternative #2, covered On-grade Alternative #1, next to Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide Pedestrian Trail, less than 14’ wide Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide Hyatt House Hotel Enlargement Figure 4-31 Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study78 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 79Trail Alignments Existing Apple Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 21’- 0”+- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies Existing Tree 65- 0” Existing Tree Chainlink Fence Existing Vegetated Drainage Channel Existing Chainlink Fence Proposed Existing Tree To Remain Existing Tree To Remain 10’-0”2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. Apple Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 65- 0” Chainlink Fence To Remain Vegetated Drainage To Remain Chainlink Fence To Remain 3:1 Figure 4-32Apple Campus Sections Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study80Trail Alignments Apple SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 70’- 0” + Existing Tree To Remain 10’-0” Min. 2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. Chainlink Fence To Remain Calabazas Creek Riparian Vegetation To Remain 3:1 Proposed Apple 24’- 6”+- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 70- 0” + Existing Tree Calabazas Creek Riparian Vegetation Existing Existing Chainlink Fence Figure 4-33Calabazas Creek Sections Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 81Trail Alignments Safety, Privacy, and Security The previous sections of this chapter discussed the trail alignment in detail. This section discusses trail safety, privacy and security. Suggestions are provided for fence types to suit various conditions along the trail. Privacy/Security Fence Adjacent to Residential The existing fencing behind homes varies with regard to materials, height, visual openness and condition. Many neighbors expressed two concerns in particular. One is privacy and how trail users may be able to see into their properties. The other is security and whether fencing will discourage intrusion into their property. One potential solution regarding the privacy concern is to install opaque fencing for those properties with open chain link or similar fence type. A solution for discouraging intrusion is installing a fence of such height and design that climbing over it is a deterrent. To meet these two criteria, it is recommended that a 7’ tall wood fence be installed at those properties currently deficient in either privacy and/or security. It is anticipated there may be some existing fences or walls that meet this standard, and no work will be required to upgrade the fencing. See Figure 4-34. Split Rail at Lucille Frontage A split rail fence is recommended at the Lucille Avenue frontage. Aesthetically, this would be more inviting than the existing chain link fence. This fence type also allows more visibility since it’s lower than the existing chain link and more visually open. And it still provides a delineation between trail use and street use. There would be openings in the fence to allow trail access from the street. See Figure 4-35. Undercrossing Barrier at Stelling Road Where the trail goes beneath Stelling Road, a Caltrans approved barrier fence will be required to keep trail users from entering the freeway. Additionally, the fence may need to be designed to resist vehicular impact. The design of this fence will require further coordination with Caltrans as the design advances. See Figure 4-36. Figure 4-35 Figure 4-34 Privacy/Security Fence Example Figure 4-32 Split Rail Fence Example Figure 4-36 Under-Crossing Barrier Example Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study82Trail Alignments Figure 4-38Fencing Example Rendering - Before Figure 4-39Fencing Example Rendering - After Figure 4-37Guard Rail Example Guard Rail Adjacent to Open Channel Where trail alternative #1 is pursued, a 4’- 6” tall guard rail is recommended along the open Junipero Serra Channel to prevent trail users from accidently falling into the channel. However, the SCVWD will not approve any trail with a guard rail, as currently shown in this study, along the Junipero Serra Corridor due to maintenance access constraints. Further discussion with SCVWD will need to occur if a guard rail is pursued for the trail. See Figure 4-37. Middle and Bottom Images: Show the impacts of the Privacy/ Security Fence adjacent to residential and the Guard Rail Fence adjacent to the open- for alternative #1. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 83Trail Alignments Trail Security One of the main concerns amongst community members was security along the trail. To address some of their concerns, the following options may be considered for the trail. Patrols Increased sheriff presence on the trail and near trailheads would help deter undesirable activity along the trail. The trailheads could be designed to allow vehicular access for policing activities, whether by patrol car or ATV. Bicycle patrol could also be included in the policing plan for the trail. See Figure 4-40. Security Cameras Security cameras could be installed at key locations, such as trailheads and intermediate points along the trail with limited visibility. The cameras can record suspicious activity on the trail and aid law enforcement in the event of criminal activity. The visual presence of security cameras also acts as a deterrent. See Figure 4-41. Milestone Markers Milestone markers provide emergency personnel and first responders specific location information in the event of an emergency along the trail. They can also provide trail users with distances to measure their exercise regimen. See Figure 4-42. Lighting Lighting along trails is generally discouraged when adjacent to a riparian zone. The Junipero Serra Trail is planned to operate dawn to dusk. However, the following exceptions may apply: • Lighting along commuter corridors during the winter months from 5am to 7am and 4pm to 8pm • At trail under-crossings • Where the trail is parallel to lighted streets and roads • At street intersections and street crossings Figure 4-40 Figure 4-41 Figure 4-42 Trail Patrol Security Camera Milestone Marker Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study84Summary Recommendations Summary Recommendations Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 85Summary Recommendations 5 The study recommends alternative #2. This alternative provides an off-street, paved class I multi-use trail and is consistent with current bicycle and pedestrian plans adopted by the City. The trail links to existing on- street facilities, residential neighborhoods, employment centers, schools, retail and commercial uses. The estimated cost to build out the recommended alternative is $45.2 million. The SCVWD and the City of Cupertino will have to enter into a joint use agreement for the corridor if any of the alternatives are pursued. The City would also be responsible for all trail maintenance. Utility agencies would continue to operate and maintain their facilities. Safety, security, and privacy were the biggest concerns raised by the community. To address these concerns, fencing upgrades will be recommended where existing fences are deficient in terms of privacy and security. The study recommends implementing a sheriff patrol program and that the City consider the use of security cameras and milestone markers. Throughout the alignment, there are a number of sub-alternatives at specific locations to consider. The table below summarizes the alternatives and provides recommendations for each. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study86Summary Recommendations Trail Alignment Recommendations Summary Location Location Options Options Overall Trail Alignment Mary Ave Connection to Trail Stelling Rd Crossing Alt #1 East Under-Crossing Only Alt #2 West At-Grade Crossing Only Alternatives Sub-Alternatives Both Under-Crossing and At-Grade Crossing De Anza Blvd Crossing Tunnel Bike-Pedestrian Bridge within SCVWD Right-of-Way At-Grade Crossing, Alt #1 Bike-Pedestrian Bridge within both SCVWD and Caltrans Right-of-Way At-Grade Crossing, Alt #2 = Recommended Option Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 87Summary Recommendations Options Alternative #1 (in millions of dollars) Alternative #2 (in millions of dollars) Basic Project $7.1 $29.4 Basic Project, Stelling Rd Under- Crossing and At-Grade Crossing, and De Anza Blvd Bike-Pedestrian Bridge within both SCVWD and Caltrans Right-of-Way $22.9 $45.2 Basic Project, Stelling Rd Under- Crossing and At-Grade Crossing, and De Anza Blvd Tunnel $30.1 $52.4 Trail Alignment Cost Matrix Cost Estimate Costs for the Junipero Serra Trail were estimated for each trail alternative, broken out by segment, and in 2018 dollars. A line item was developed for “basic project” costs. Those costs include all the work required to build a basic trail project plus contingencies, escalation, and professional services related to the basic project. The basic project includes costs for construction of the trail with trailheads (including the Mary Avenue West Option) and at-grade crossings. Costs for the Stelling Road undercrossing, De Anza Boulevard tunnel, De Anza Boulevard bike- pedestrian bridge, and De Anza Boulevard at- grade crossing were broken out as separate ‘all-in’ costs. This estimating strategy allows decision-makers to see price points at various levels of trail implementation and starts to suggest where project phasing might occur. Detailed cost estimates for alternative #1 and alternative #2 can be reviewed in the Appendix. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study88Summary Recommendations Grant Funding Sources There are several grant funding programs the Junipero Serra Trail will be eligible for, including the Transportation Fund for Clean Air: Bicycle Facilities Grant Program (TFCA), administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation; and the Active Transportation Program (ATP), funded by the California Transportation Commission. Funding for these programs has concluded for Fiscal Years 2018-2019, but additional cycles are anticipated. The 2018 TFCA program allocated over $5 million to fund construction of new bicycle facilities that will reduce vehicle trips for commutes to work and/or school. With its proximity to multiple schools and direct connection to multiple large employers, the Junipero Serra Trail would be a strong candidate for the award. Minimum awards in this past cycle were $100,000 with a 10% required match. The LWCF aims to fund park projects that meet the goals of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. This project meets those goals by providing community space for healthy lifestyles, and through its process of community engagement. The maximum award for this program’s 2018 cycle was $3,000,000 with a required minimum 50% match. The ATP Cycle 4 is expected to announce the award of approximately $440 million in May, 2019. The program extends through 2023, and is awarded annually to California infrastructure projects that enhance safety and mobility for non-motorized transportation. It also gives consideration to Safe Routes to School projects, with the stated goal of enhancing public health and reducing childhood obesity. Because the project is within two miles of more than one public school, it qualifies for the Safe Routes to School designation, and enhanced consideration under this program. Another potential source is the Pedestrian and Bicycle Project Funds available under the Transportation Development Act, Article 3. For a project to be included in annual allocation of these funds, a city must request that the county recommend the project for inclusion in its allocation. These funds are available for projects that exclusively benefit pedestrians and/or bicyclists, and that are consistent with the City’s bicycle and pedestrian plan. Continuous interconnected routes, continuity with longer routes, and access to activity centers are all preferred qualities. Santa Clara County voters approved Measure B in 2016, which would have funded a variety of transportation projects, including bicycle and pedestrian improvements. However, a legal challenge and subsequent appeal has delayed initiation of any projects related to the measure until the suit is resolved. The Junipero Serra Trail would be a strong candidate for award of funds pending resolution of the lawsuit. Summary RecommendationsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 89 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study90Summary Recommendations Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 91Summary Recommendations Figures City Council Steven Scharf, Mayor Liang Chao,Vice-Mayor Rod Sinks, Council Member Darcy Paul, Council Member Jon Willey, Council Member Barry Chang, Former Council Member Savita Vaidhyanathan, Former Council Member Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Jennifer Shearin, Chair Gerhard Eschelbeck, Vice Chair Pete Heller, Commissioner Eric Lindskog, Commissioner Sean Lyn, Commissioner City Staff Public Works Department Community Development Department Acknowledgments Technical Advisory Committee Chris Wilson, CalWater Sergio Ruiz, CalTrans Lillian Tsang, City of Sunnyvale Ted Quach, PG&E Albert Le, PG&E Usha Chatwani, Santa Clara Valley Water District Lauren Ledbetter, VTA Taghi Sadaati, Cupertino Sanitary District Richard Tanaka, Cuperinto Sanitary District Consultant Team Callander Associates, Landscape Architecture Brian Fletcher, Principal-in-charge David Rubin, Project Manager Jana Schwartz, Graphics Kelly Kong, Graphics Fehr and Peers, Transportation Consulting Steve Davis Sandis, Surveying/Civil Engineering Ron Sanzo Jenner Phillips Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study92Appendix Meeting Summaries Start Up Meeting Summary SCVWD Meeting Summary TAC Meeting #1 Summary Staff Meeting Summary Community Meeting #1 Summary CalWater Meeting Summary PG&E Meeting Summary CalTrans Meeting Summary TAC Meeting #2 Summary Community Meeting #2 Summary Community Meeting #3 Summary 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes Outreach Materials City Flier City Postcard City Door Hanger City Door Hanger for Portal Ave Residents CALA Hand Out Apple R.O.W. Acquisition Exhibit Sandis - Surveyor Box Culvert E-mail CalTrans Box Culvert Notes De Anza Blvd Overhead Wires Survey Input Materials Community Meeting #1 Input Packet Community Meeting #2 Input Packet Community Meeting #3 Questionnaire Input Board for Diwali Festival 94 94 96 98 102 104 112 114 116 118 122 136 148 152 152 153 154 155 156 157 159 159 163 165 167 167 171 179 181 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 93Appendix 6 183 183 189 189 193 194 196 213 213 223 233 235 235 237 239 239 240 244 248 248 250 252 Community Meeting #3 Materials What We Heard Boards Memos Document Review Public Outreach Outline Public Outreach Plan De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Cost Estimate Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Engineering Option of Probable Construction Costs for Box Culvert for Alternative #2 Draft De Anza Boulevard Crossings Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to Remain Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to be Removed TAC Comments on Draft Study City of Sunnyvale Comments Caltrans Comments SCVWD Comments City of Cupertino Responses to TAC Comments Response to City of Sunnyvale Comments Response to Caltrans Comments Response to SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study94Appendix Start Up Meeting Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via E-mail Only August 23, 2017 Meeting Summary I-280 Channel Trail Feasibility Study RE: Project Start-Up Meeting Date: Tuesday, 8/22/17 Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Site Walk: 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.) Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com A meeting was held to kick-off the project, review background information and materials needed, discuss project goals and objectives, and review the City’s preliminary thoughts on public outreach, branding, and TAC coordination. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in bold identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Discussed 1)City to send back executed agreement by 8/29 or soon after, CA submitted signed agreement to JC at meeting on 8/22. 2)Roles and Responsibilities a)CA to correspond through JC and copy DS b)City to correspond through DR and copy JS 3)Project Materials a)JC to request 2016 contours and aerial by 8/25 (received by CA on 8/23) b)CA to send link for contours and aerial to Sandis by 8/29 and ensure files are AutoCAD compatible c)JC to send link to assessors maps by 8/25 (received by CA on 8/23) d)CA to ask Sandis about materials needed by 8/25 and correspond with City e)Other planning efforts underway include: •Pedestrian Trail Guidelines (expected adoption later this year) •Countywide Bicycle Plan by VTA (late 2017) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 95Appendix Start Up Meeting Summary I-280 Channel Trail Feasibility Study RE: Project Start-Up Meeting August 22, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_StartUpMtg © copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Discussed •City to provide input from Parks and Recreation Master Plan (in-progress) f)CA to review City standard details, suggested by City 4)TAC Formation a)CA to separate invite for TAC and businesses/private owners, TAC will be agencies only b)DS to correspond with businesses/private owners •Likely businesses/private owners: −Apple −Loc-N-Stor −Vallco −HOAs c)CA to create directory by 9/30 for TAC and businesses/private owners 5)Public Outreach Plan a)City/CA to staff 2 community events (Diwali Festival-Sep., Earth Day-Apr.) b)Consider small community events (i.e. Farmers’ markets, Bike to Work Day) throughout study period to promote project. These would be attended by City staff c)City to select outreach dates/locations by 9/15 and reserve space for events d)CA to get notices out by 9/20, before Diwali Festival e)CA to send examples of prior notices/flyers by 8/23 for City to review 6)Branding a)City to review and provide feedback on branding by 8/30 •City to meet on 8/28 to review/discuss branding for the trail •City to discuss use of “The Loop” •City to suggest use of branding colors, font, graphic style from other City-signage programs b)City to send wayfinding signage example to CA from bike boulevard project (received by CA on 8/23) c)CA to provide branding alternatives by 9/13 for City to review and to incorporate in outreach materials - END - The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study96Appendix SCVWD Meeting Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 1, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: SCVWD Review Meeting Date: November 28, 2017 Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Attendees: SCVWD : Sue Tippets (ST), SCVWD, stippets@valleywater.org Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org Cody Houston (CH), SCVWD, chouston@valleywater.org Devin Mody (DM), SCVWD, dmody@valleywater.org Consultants: Jon Cacciotti (JCa), HMHca, jcacciotti@hmhca.com Jodi Starbird (JS), DJP, jstarbird@davidjpowers.com City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with SCVWD, gather technical input, and discuss design alternative options for the drainage ditch that runs parallel to the trail alignment study area. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take 1.SCVWD generally prefers no barrier between trails/maintenance roads and creeks. However, if there is a severe drop they would consider a low open barrier. CA to study edge conditions 2.SCVWD discussed the desire for "permeable pavement" use however during further discussion the intent is for more natural looking pavements. They talked about a recent project that Google did near Crittenden Bridge. CA to review example project Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 97Appendix SCVWD Meeting Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: SCVWD Review Meeting December 1, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_SCVWDMtg.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 3.The Junipero Serra Creek was never a creek. The drainage ditch was constructed when I-280 was built. It was constructed by Caltrans then transferred over to the Water District. CA to remove “creek” from all materials 4.Would be open to considering an option that would replace the ditch with a closed pipe and buried. This should not be the only option studied. SCVWD expressed some hesitance with the maintenance of a closed pipe as they are more comfortable with maintaining open channels. CA to include covered and open alternative options -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study98Appendix TAC Meeting #1 Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 1, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #1 Date: November 29, 2017 Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Attendees: TAC Member: Richard Tanaka (RT), CSD/Mark Thomas, rtanaka@markthomas.com Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org Lauren Ledbetter (LL), VTA, lauren.ledbetter@vta.org Lillian Tsang (LT), City of Sunnyvale, ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org Ben Fu (BF), Planning, benjaminf@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review the project background and existing conditions of the site, discuss the trail alignment locations, and gather technical input and documents from the TAC members. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take 1.The Junipero Serra Trail (trail) has been identified as a high priority by City Council. The trail would be a recreational/transportation corridor. Apple has a large bicycle population that would likely use it. The trail supports Cupertino’s interconnectivity. Noted 2.SCVWD refers to the waterway in the corridor as a “drainage ditch”, it is not a natural channel. It was constructed in conjunction with the construction of I-280. Noted Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 99Appendix TAC Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #1 December 1, 2017 Page 2 of 3 17056_SUM_TACMtg#1.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 3. LL noted personal security concerns, lack of access points. Access points are identified on the site assessment plans; an access point at the CalWater facility is to be evaluated. Stevens Creek is a trail that also has limited access points, high volumes of users makes it feel safe. CA to review project with CalWater by 12/15 4. Treatment of trail crossings over major streets: Stelling is an on- street crossing with possible beacons; City is encouraging grade- separated crossing at De Anza; Blaney has a curve that creates pinch point; Vallco will be coordinated with concurrent planning projects. Noted 5. SCVWD has maintenance requirements in the corridor; need access for maintenance and vegetation management; installation of a concrete guard rail closed off access near Wolfe Rd. recently. Noted 6. Caltrans should have a hydraulic report available for I-280 that would elaborate on the drainage ditch. It is believed that the ditch was constructed to accommodate 100 year storm from overland flows, from the neighborhoods, intercepted before flowing onto the freeway. Waters from I-280 are not believed to be flowing into the drainage ditch. Caltrans turned responsibility over to SCVWD. CA to request hydraulic report and drawings for the ditch from Caltrans by 12/8 7. RT discussed CalWater 14” ACP water line at the confluence of the drainage ditch and the Calabazas Creek. Location of facilities is unknown. CalWater crosses the creek at image #30. Check 14’-0” trail width availability. CA to discuss with CalWater by 12/15 8. There is a sanitary easement adjacent to the SCVWD property in the vicinity of the Apple campus (photo images #13 - #20). There is an undersized 8” sewer line within the easement that the Sanitary District to upgrade to at least 12”. They are studying options. CA to review by 12/15 9. Sanitary District needs width of 8’-0” (HydroFlush truck capabilities); SCVWD will inform CA of width requirements/preference. UC to provide width requirements by 12/15 10. VTA is updating the Countywide Bike Plan now (available February 2018); trail eligible for 2016 Measure B, Safe Routes to School, and ATP funding. CA to review funding options with VTA and include in report estimate Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study100Appendix TAC Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #1 December 1, 2017 Page 3 of 3 17056_SUM_TACMtg#1.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 11.SCVWD is seeing a lot of challenges in dealing with trails – people want them available 24/7, but SCVWD has to occasionally close trail for maintenance. SCVWD has noticed impacts to riparian areas and trails are getting more constrained. There is a trend towards evaluating trails policy (CSJ developing Toolkit). SCVWD wants to review VTA Countywide Bike Plan when available to include SCVWD policies. SCVWD wants to stay away from lighting and bridge crossings. Noted 12.RT asked if the City would consider ownership of R.O.W. where trail is being proposed; it would be a multi-use trail over a drainage facility, not a flood control facility. City to review 13.VTA is managing Wolfe interchange project with HMH. No plans available yet; in environmental review phase (15-18 month timeline); not fully funded. Noted -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 101Appendix this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study102Appendix Staff Meeting Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 1, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Staff Meeting, Phone Call Date: November 30, 2017 Time: 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review TAC Meeting #1 and prepare for Community Meeting #1. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take TAC Meeting #1 1.VTA funding sources for the Junipero Serra Trail is a part of the County-wide bicycle plan. Funding sources will be incorporated into the estimates for the feasibility study. CA to email VTA (Lauren Ledbetter) by 12/8 2.Need to better understand the structure of the drainage ditch and how stormwater intercepted. In a covered alternative, consider appropriate pipe sizing/capacity. Access and maintenance requirements will also need to be accounted for. CA to review with Caltrans by 12/15 3.Need to show a non-covered alternative for the trail alignment. Alternatives show cost difference and ability to accommodate class 1 facilities. CA to include in alternatives 4.Send email with TAC meeting materials to non-attendees (Caltrans, Cal Water, PG&E) and schedule follow-up call/meeting to discuss project purpose/objective and agency concerns. JS to send draft email text and materials to City. City to send email by 11/30 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 103Appendix Staff Meeting Summary Meeting Summary Juniper0 Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Staff Meeting, Phone Call December 1, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_StaffMtg_171130.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 5.Send Doodle poll to TAC members to coordinate time for next TAC meeting (February). JC to send Doodle by 12/8 Community Meeting #1 6.Room layout for event has attendees visiting 7 stations and recording input in a handout. CA created diagrammatic layout of the Cupertino Room with table/chair layout and the purpose for each station. JC to send layout to City staff by 12/1 for room preparation 7.City staff includes Jenn, David, and Erick. CA will be positioned at segment stations; City staff will be positioned at sign-in, goals + objectives, background, and floating around the room. Noted 8.Finalize all materials for the meeting and bring to event. Remove “creek” on all materials. CA to bring materials to event 9.Refreshments to be provided at community meeting CA to provide -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Community Meeting #1 Summary SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate 311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 12, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 Location: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room Date: December 6, 2017 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Number of people who signed-in: 29 Number of people who turned-in an input packet: 13 Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com Community Meeting #1 was open house style where participants were invited to arrive at any time during the event window (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and provide individual feedback on the trail project. Community members were notified about the event through the following methods: •City’s website •City Channel •Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter) •Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest •Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall •Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents •Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter The meeting included six stations for community participants to provide their input at their own pace. Station #1 was the welcome table, where participants were greeted by City staff and provided an input packet to record comments as they traveled between stations. The five additional stations included project background and goals and objectives (Station #2), Stations #3, 4, 5 were for the three segments of the proposed trail, and refreshments (Station #6). Participants were asked to return their input packets to Station #1 before leaving so that their comments could be recorded. The next sections review the input methodology and summarize the input received at the meeting. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study104Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 2 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Commenting Material Community Meeting #1 included several opportunities to provide written input and have that input recorded. Input methods included the input packet, the trail segment plans, and large flip charts. Participants were not limited to one commenting method and everyone was encouraged to document their input. Below is a description of each input method available: Input Packet The input packet included the same two open-ended questions for each trail segment. Community members were asked to respond to these questions as they traveled to each of the trail segments. •Questions 1: What do you like about this segment of the trail? •Question 2: What can be improved in this segment of the trail? Trail Segment Comments The trail was divided into three segments and set up at three separate stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Each trail segment plan was printed at a large scale to help community members identify neighborhood features and the proximity of the trail to community resources (i.e., schools and businesses). Participants were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback on each trail segment. Commenting directly onto the large plans is a useful tool for input because context can be applied to a specific comment and ideas can be drawn and documented. Each of the trail segments provided this input method, but the geographic differences between each segment generated unique comments from the community. •Trail Segment #1 – Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard This segment includes the connection to Mary Avenue Bridge and the on-street bicycle network that connects to Garden Gate Elementary School. This segment includes a street crossing at Stelling Road. •Trail Segment #2 – De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center This segment is in close proximity to Lawson Middle School and runs along the northern edge of the Infinite Loop. This segment includes a street crossing at De Anza Boulevard and would have the trail running under Blaney Avenue. •Trail Segment #3 – Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway This segment is near the Vallco Center and runs along the northern edge of to the new Hyatt Hotel and Apple. The trail runs under Wolfe Road and terminates at Vallco Parkway and Calabazas Creek. Flip Charts Flip Charts were placed at Station #2 and each of the three trail segment stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Flip charts did not include a prompted question, all feedback provided was open-ended. Not all Stations with flip charts received comments. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 105Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 3 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Input Received Station #2 - Project Background and Goals and Objectives Flip Chart •Please keep redwood trees along I-280 frontage. Do not cut down. They run the length of I-280 from Los Altos to San Jose so the provide a greenbelt along the freeway and buffer residential from the freeway. Redwoods also clean impurities from the air. Station #3 – Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard) Input Packet – Question #1 •I would like to have lights on the way, some benches to sit, a water station, restroom facility •Connecting the trail to the bridge is great! •No stoplights (well almost) •Minimal cross streets •The bike bridge •Everything •Good access to western areas in the city •It's a trail •Less car traffic for students going to De Anza College •Easy connection to Mary Ave. bridge and avoids Stevens Creek Blvd. •Connectivity to Mary Avenue Bridge •Takes you to Mountain View •Connection to Mary Avenue Bridge Input Packet – Question #2 •Protect bikes from falling into ditches •Have a camera at the main junctions •Put up signs (dog on-leash, no loitering, speed limit) •Stelling Rd. crossing needs bridge over •Need mile markers •Access to the trail via Stelling Rd. is too dangerous for kids •Take it along the wall all the way to De Anza College; use the City maintenance land to go from Mary Ave back to the sound wall here •Put underground crossing under Stevens Creek Blvd to De Anza College •Have the City buy a house along [Flora Vista Ave.] to allow Lawson students to access the trail (Garden Gate Elem. feeds into Lawson Middle) •Need access near [photo] #4; buy a house, tear it down, provide access •A glass sound wall so Teslas stuck in traffic can see how fast bikes go •East end of bike bridge (Homestead Rd and Mary Ave) needs to be reconfigured •Need grade separation (prefer underpass) for trail at Stelling Rd. •Improve Stelling Rd. crossing if possible •Safety and security of residence and businesses - how are we going to protect our business and homes along the path? Need regular monitoring for security concerns! •Parents will still drive kids to neighborhood regardless Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study106Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 4 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Crossing at Stelling Rd. should be above or below street, no crosswalk is near the access point right now •Widen 14' for multi-use •All segments use over or under grade crossings to major streets •Extend via bridge or tunnel to De Anza College and across 85 with dedicated bridge protected from cars/ramps •Traffic light or bridge tunnel between [picture] #6 and #7 •Prefer the route be closer to storage, as it would have less impact on the residents and it is wider •Safety and security of the trail while maintaining safety, security and privacy for the residents impacted by the trail Trail Segment Plan Comments •This speed table [on Meteor Dr.] will drive cars to Amulet then Nathanson Ave. •Median on Meteor Dr. slows traffic and is a good thing •Nobody stops at Nathanson Ave. turning onto Meteor Dr. •Some late night noise at trail head [Mary Avenue Bridge] •Hit by car at Glenbrook •Mini-store employee concern about vandalism and homeless •Purchase property at curve of Castine Ave. to Gardena Dr. •Pedestrian bridge would be great between image #7 and #8 (Stelling Rd.) [other response] - or tunnel •Suggest 20' minimum width to accommodate bikes, strollers, etc. Flip Chart Comments •Deter vehicular speed •Drivers don't respect hawk signals •Steven's Creek Blvd and Homestead Rd are existing east-west on-street connections •Fencing for neighbors •Trail is very isolated Station #4 – Trail Segment #2 (De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center) Input Packet – Question #1 •Keep the existing trees and plant some new trees •IDEA: Give property owners a cut in their property taxes to allow a portion of their land for the trail is selected cases. Bar Harbor along their harbor does this •Spur to Lawson Middle along the east edge of Apple's property •Will help Apple and it’s near my house :) •Everything •This is a great connector across the city without riding/walking on busy streets •It's a trail •Less vehicle traffic •Avoids Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza Blvd Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 107Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study108Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 5 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Good east-west trail through Cupertino Input Packet – Question #2 •Under/over bridge at the De Anza Blvd. crossing •Add underground crossing under De Anza Blvd. •Do not remove car access under Blaney Ave. bridge, it is used heavily •Do not remove parking on Lucille Ave because it is used by PBC Church, apartment tenants, and Apple •Take trail UNDER De Anza Blvd., look at Loveland, CO for examples! •Removing vegetation to put trail in will increase sound from freeway, please put sound considerations high on design list •Use negotiations with Apple to get Lawson students off the street [arrow pointed to east edge of Apple property] •A wide, bright tunnel at [image] #17 •Suggest oaks with hairy leaves that will filter the freeway soot (East PA has done this) •Pedestrian/bike undercrossing at De Anza Blvd. •Add connection along Apple sound wall (parallel to Larry Way) to permit direct route to Lawson Middle and Merrit Way bike boulevard •De Anza Blvd. crossing •Safety of bikes •Widen 14' for multi-use •De Anza Blvd crossing should be above or below street level •Make access for Garden Gate Elementary •Reduce conflict between north-bound De Anza Blvd. to south-bound I-280 vs. crossing Trail Segment Plan Comments •Suggest a tunnel or bridge (built by Apple of glass and chrome…) •Evening backup on I-280 south-bound on-ramp at De Anza Blvd. •Will this trail connect to De Anza Blvd. bike lanes? Optimize the crossing •Loveland, CO has lots of underpass connections •Bar Harbor - gave a cut in property taxes to allow for trail •Could there be a spur [east side of infinite loop Apple property], provide connection to school and bike boulevard [other response] - yes! •[Between image #15 and #16] Church parking, don't take parking away •Add label for all BQ zoned properties •When apartments are full [between Blaney Ave. and Randy Ln.] they park on street •Don't close the loop under Blaney Ave. •[Behind Mini-Stor] - Lots of graffiti when fence comes down; •Wolfe improvements get tagged, may have taken another chain-link fence •If trail is narrower than full width, is it harder to obtain funding? •I would use [the trail] on commute and evening walks •Look at Santa Clara Agilent property - proposed trail Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 109Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 6 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Flip Chart Comments •No comments provided at this station Station #5 – Trail Segment #3 (Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway) Input Packet – Question #1 •Overall love this idea of Cupertino Loop; can't wait to start running on the trail •Will help Vallco and retail, when it's built •Everything •Utilization of existing Wolfe underpass at Vallco •Access to Main Street and future Vallco activities and shopping •It's a trail •Less Apple traffic •Wolfe crossing is not at street level •Allows access to Vallco and Main Street •Scenic •Connection to Main Street, hotels, Apple Input Packet – Question #2 •Add emergency blue poles throughout the trail •Vegetation all along wall helps with freeway pollution and sound reduction, please consider this when designing the entire trail •Bridge trail over Wolfe Rd. •Overall, I suggest a 20' minimum width to accommodate a wide range of transportation preferences; trees, trees, trees (large species) •Why not a full width new trail around "Section A"? [Hyatt Hotel Trail segment] •Make sure bicycles abide by same rules as road users •Make SHP developer incorporate bike access to trails •Nothing •Turning left onto Vallco Pkwy. on a bicycle is impossible/dangerous/requires using sidewalk? Trail Segment Plan Comments •Why not go across? [keep trail parallel to I-280, cut through Wolfe Rd. interchange and hook into trail at the Hyatt Hotel] •Make the new trail at the hotel property wider, it's new •Bridge over Wolfe Rd.? [Where underpass is currently] •Is Perimeter Rd. public or private; is there an easement? •Be aware of how a dotted melted strip bike lane feels on 110 psi bike tires •Radius of speed hump should exceed that of 27" bike wheel! •Traffic volume will increase at Vallco Pkwy. and Tantau Ave. intersection •Continue trail across I-280 [follow Calabazas Creek] and connect at Tantau Ave. •Add button for cyclists well ahead of intersection with priority timing [Idea is to be able to hit the button while on your bike and the light will be green by the time cyclist gets to the intersection] •[At the Vallco Pkwy. trailhead] - What happens when you want to turn left onto Vallco Pkwy.? Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study110Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 7 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Add roundabout at Tantau Ave./Vallco Pkwy. intersection [other response] - I would be scared to use that Flip Chart Comments •No comments provided at this station Community Meeting #1 Images This section illustrates images captured from the meeting. Sign-in and Input Packet Pick-Up Trail Section Background and Goals and Objectives Background and Goals and Objectives Trail Section Input Packet Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 111Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 8 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days. Submitted by: Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates cc: All attendees Attachments: 1.Input Packet Response Data Presentation 2.Notification Flyers CalWater Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study112Appendix BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 7, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: CalWater Review Meeting, Phone Call Date: December 6, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Attendees: California Water Service (CalWater): Chris Wilson (CW), CalWater, cwilson@calwater.com City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with CalWater and gather technical input. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take 1.CalWater is supportive of the project. There are certain security measures to consider in implementing a trail next to their facilities, mostly concerning access control. Noted 2.CalWater is adding concertina wire to address intrusion issues. CalWater has vandalism and trash dumping in the past. Noted 3.CalWater has an underground tank at this site that serves a large portion of Cupertino. Noted 4.CalWater supports a wider trail for maintenance purposes. Currentl they access corridor from N. Portal Avenue. Noted 5.CalWater is open to the idea of providing access through their site to access the trail. CA to consider CalWater site as a potential trail access point. -END- CalWater Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 113Appendix Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: CalWater Review Meeting, Phone Call December 7, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_CalWaterMtg.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study114Appendix PG&E Meeting Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 14, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: PG&E Review Meeting (Conference Call) Date: December 12, 2017 Time: 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Attendees: PG&E: Jessy Borges (JB), PG&E, jy16@pge.com Ramiro Coronel (RC), PG&E, RSC7@pge.com Ted Quach (TQ), PG&E, tpq1@pge.com Albert Le (AL), PG&E, ahla@pge.com City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with PG&E, gather technical input, and discuss initial design alternative options for the study area. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take 1.PG&E noted the presence of gas lines near the drainage ditch. There are gas lines at Stelling Rd. City to request gas facilities throughout project limits. 2.115kv overhead electrical transmission lines run along the project limits. City to request electrical facilities throughout project limits. 3.PG&E needs a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to provide mapping information. City to coordinate with PG&E. 4.Maintenance road would need to support line trucks, trucks weigh approximately 80 tons. Noted. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 115Appendix PG&E Meeting Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: PG&E Review Meeting (Conference Call) December 14, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_PGEMtg.docx © copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 5.Wire height will need to be verified. The voltage goes up as the height increases. PG&E to verify wire clearances. 6.Identify locations where poles potentially conflict with trail alignments. CA to mark up and send exhibit to City. -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees CalTrans Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study116Appendix BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 22, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Caltrans Review Meeting (Conference Call) Date: December 20, 2017 Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Attendees: Caltrans: Sergio Ruiz (SR), Caltrans, sergio.ruiz@dot.ca.gov City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with Caltrans, gather technical input, and discuss initial design alternative options for the study area. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take 1.SR has requested drainage ditch As-Builts from the hydraulic team and has not heard back. SR will follow-up with the design team to get turn-around time for drawings. SR to request drainage ditch As- Builts within the project limits. 2.The road segment under the Blaney Rd. overpass (on Lucille) is Caltrans R.O.W., but Caltrans believes that segment has a maintenance agreement with the City. SR to locate the maintenance agreement and send to JC. 3.An encroachment permit would be needed for any trail development on Caltrans R.O.W. Access control review may be needed if the trail alignment moves onto the north side of the sound wall. The review process is dependent on the size of the project. Caltrans can review the drawings once a trail alignment is decided. Noted. CalTrans Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 117Appendix Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Caltrans Review Meeting (Conference Call) December 22, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_CalTransMtg.docx © copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 4.Caltrans will make their draft Bicycle Plan available. SR to provide draft plan. -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study118Appendix TAC Meeting #2 Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only February 6, 2018 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #2 Date: January 31, 2018 Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Attendees: TAC Member: Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org Lauren Ledbetter (LL), VTA, lauren.ledbetter@vta.org Lillian Tsang (LT), City of Sunnyvale, ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov Ted Quach (TQ), PG&E, tpq1@pge.com Albert Le (AL), PG&E, ahla@pge.com Chris Wilson (CW), CalWater, cwilson@calwater.com Steve Davis (SD), Fehr&Peers, s.davis@fehrandpeers.com T. Saadati (TS), Walk Bike Cupertino, tsaadati@sbcglobal.net Dianne Yee (DY), Caltrans, dianne.yee@dot.ca.gov City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review input received from Community Meeting #1, discuss the trail alignment plan alternatives, and gather technical input and documents from the TAC members. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take Segment 1 – Mary Avenue Bridge to De Anza Boulevard 1.The public storage facility near De Anza Boulevard may include a public access easement as a part of a redevelopment project. Plans should identify easement and review impacts. CA and City to review by 2/14 2.JC asked what “covering the ditch” means. Is the action to cover or to rebuild? The design assumes a box culvert. Noted Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 119Appendix TAC Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #2 February 6, 2018 Page 2 of 3 17056_SUM_TACMtg#2.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 3.LL asked how the alternative route for maintenance closures was selected. It is based on existing bike/ped facilities and directness. Noted 4.All development projects are subject to PG&E review. Noted 5.How much is the undercrossing encroaching on Caltrans R.O.W? CA to review and provide to Caltrans by 2/14 6.There is a water main along Stelling Road (unknown if the line runs through the bridge or under I-280). CW sent drawings on 2/6 Segment 2 – De Anza Boulevard to the Vallco Shopping Center 7.The guy anchor near trail entrance at the curve of Lucille Road can be repositioned for vertical clearance. Noted 8.If the ditch stays open (along Lucille) versus a closed ditch, amenities shown in the enlargement (i.e. bioswale retention, a continuous class 1 facility, etc.) will not be included. Noted (this is true for all alternative #1 scenarios) 9.Relocating a steel transmission pole is expensive (~$1 million). Noted 10.If the crosswalk is removed across De Anza Boulevard, people will still cross and additional treatments may be required. CA to review with the City by 2/14 11.LL asked about bicycle behavior in response to the circuitous route at De Anza Boulevard with the stair and ramp approaches. Noted 12.SCVWD asked how the bridge will be supported and still preserve maintenance access? CA to review by 2/14 13.TS asked if there is an option to move the spur trail onto Caltrans R.O.W. for the tunnel crossing scenario. CA to review by 2/14 14.There is a CalWater water main along De Anza Boulevard (through tunnel option) and one behind Apple’s Infinite Loop. CW sent drawings on 2/6 15.What are the lighting requirements for the trail? Are there CMAQ requirements? The lighting may be dawn/dusk or 24 hours. CA to review by 2/14 16.Clearance from PG&E wires is still unknown. SCVWD requires 15’-0” vertical clearance for maintenance vehicles. Noted Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study120Appendix TAC Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #2 February 6, 2018 Page 3 of 3 17056_SUM_TACMtg#2.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 17.5% grade might be too steep for bridge and tunnel approaches; consider switchbacks or reducing the grade. Noted Segment 3 – Vallco Shopping Center to Vallco Parkway 18.Identify and preserve access gate for SCVWD near the Hyatt Hotel (at I-280 on-ramp); hotel plans do not show access for SCVWD. Noted 19.CalWater has a water main that crosses I-280 and moves towards Vallco Parkway. CW sent drawings on 2/6 20.Incorporate design recommendations from this feasibility study into the Wolfe Road / I-280 / Vallco Plans Noted 21.Design a better transition at the Vallco Parkway trailhead. Noted -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 121Appendix this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study122Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate 311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only March 5, 2018 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #2a and 2b Meeting #2a Location: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room Date: February 20, 2018 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Meeting #2b Location: Community Hall, Cupertino Civic Center Date: February 26, 2018 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Total number of people who signed-in: 37 Total number of people who turned-in an input packet: 37* *5 packets were provided by a neighbor for others who could not attend either meeting Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org Julie Chiu (JCh), Public Works, juliec@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com Community Meeting #2 was held on two separate dates at two separate locations to provide an opportunity for the community to attend one of the meetings and provide input. Community Meeting #2a was held in the Cupertino Room at the Quinlan Community Center on February 20th and Community Meeting #2b was held in the Community Hall at the Cupertino Civic Center on February 26th. Community members were notified about the event through the following methods: •City’s website •City Channel •Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter) •Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest •Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall •Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 123Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 2 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter •Postcard mailings to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents including residents/businesses within 300 feet of a proposed trailhead •Email notifications to subscribers of the “Bicycle Transportation Plan” email list •Email notification to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the nearby surrounding neighborhoods The format of the meetings, as well as the project displays and the questions asked of the community, were the same at both meetings. Each meeting was open house style where participants were invited to arrive at any time during the event window and provide individual feedback on the trail project. Six stations were set up for participants to visit at their own pace. Station #1 was the welcome table, where participants were greeted by City staff and provided an input packet to record comments as they traveled between stations. The five remaining stations included: •Project background and goals and objectives (Station #2) •The three segments of the proposed trail (Stations #3, 4, 5) •Refreshments (Station #6) Participants were asked to return their input packets at Station #1 before leaving so that their comments could be recorded. The following summarizes input received for both meetings, including from input packets, flip charts, and comments applied onto the trail segment plans, enlargements, and sections. Input Packet The input packet included seven sections of questions, and was comprised of general questions, trail design alternative questions, and segment-specific questions. The following organizes the comments received from the public in the order they appear in the input packet. Multiple choice questions are summarized to show the percentage breakdown of the answers received. Questions that had an open ended answer include the individual comments received. I. General Background Question 1: Did you attend Community Meeting #1? Yes No 37% 63% Question 2: Do you support a trail at this location? Yes No 62% 38% Question 3: How would you use the trail? (circle all that apply) Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other 40% 10% 33% 4% 13% Answers under “Other” include: •Would not use it •Not at all •Not at all! Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study124Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 3 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Wouldn’t use it! •Not •To walk to restaurants and stores •To shops and restaurants Question 4: Do you live or work in Cupertino? Live Work Live and Work Do not Live or Work 77% 0% 14% 9% II. Trail Design Question 1: Which alternative do you prefer? Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither 16% 55% 29% Question 2: What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative? •Cost: significantly more for alternative #2. Use: Alternative #1 will be used multi-use anyway. •Wider, multi-purpose, dream big - one time cost •Wider trail, safety that someone not going to fall in ditch. •Safety •Multi Use - Bike and Pedestrian •Safety, traffic, parking, noise, lack of privacy, Increase of strangers in the area •No bikes, lighting, noise, less privacy, security •Open Space. It would provide a better experience. •Impact of people and traffic •Aesthetics, Width-allows easier bike + pedestrian traffic •Separation from traffic •Allowing bicycles on the trail is vital in order for the trail to provide a good commuting alternative •Potential users; impact on privacy, security of residents along trail; reversibility; potential impact to water authority activities •More room for ped and bike •Trail width •I like the extra width provided by Alt #2, but I think Alt #1 would be much simpler and less expensive which will help it happen! Would particularly be concerned about limiting water flow or complicating maintenance when covering the ditch. Alt#2 also adds some additional green buffer to neighbors, but I don't think this will be a problem after it is constructed •Safety, security, noise impact, privacy for those houses impacted •This is the "aging of America" (I don't think this is being considered). The aged are not going to be riding bicycles (nor walking over bridges/trails) to get to their medical appointments or bring home groceries, etc. We have enough bicycle/access infiltrating our area, bringing in outsiders. These "designs" will impact the quiet enjoyment of our homes even more!! •Walking along a trail built right next to a major highway is not something of great appeal; physical and environmental safety concerns (i.e. fumes from many motor vehicles, noise) will Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 125Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 4 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. not be great appeal; Building and maintaining such a trail, built next to a major highway will be much more expensive? What is the projected cost? •The proposed trail would run directly behind my house, it would impact my privacy as well as increase the noise level •Safety of existing redwood trees along 280; presence of bikes and pedestrians on same trail - how safe? •For the second alternative, there is more space for people to commute to work, or go on a family walk. For people going to work, it is a longer commute by bike without the trail •It would be cosmetically nicer and it might keep out any random undesirable smells •I am concerned about security for property owners next to the trail. As is, there is graffiti on I- 280 sound wall •Multi-use trail more useful than narrow pedestrian only trail •It is wider, it looks nicer, there is more greenery •This is for Apple-only and don't care about us who live next to the trail •Consistent width, avoids falling in ditches, more visually appealing, avoids conflict with location on PG&E poles, especially in Station #4 area •Width! The wider trail is safer to allow pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, etc. Question 3: Do you live next to the trail? Yes No 58% 42% Question 4: Do you have children that would use the trail? Yes No Possibly in the Future 19% 72% 9% Station #3 (Trail Segment 1 – Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard) III. Mary Avenue Question 1: Which alternative do you prefer? Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither 6% 65% 29% Question 2: What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative? •Wider, bike friendly •Do the right thing. If trail is not proper and wide it won't be usable and people won't use it. Having wider trail is right idea. •Safety •Multi Use, wider trail •Security, noise, lighting, privacy •Terrible proposal •Width of the trail being better for multiple uses - pedestrian and bicycles; plant a new tree or bush to replace tree removed. •Maintain trees along residences Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study126Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 5 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Slope is more natural and pleasing. In an emergency, trail users can leave the trail by climbing the slope; sharp easement feels walled in. •Security underpass area •Pleasant landscaping •Easier, cheaper, better •Again, making a choice for a simpler solution has a better chance of getting approved and built; I would encourage you to maintain as much natural screening as possible and NOT excavate more to create neighbor isolation; the perception of the negative is greater than the reality •Why can't the existing Mary Ave. bridge on-ramp be used to access trail? That will reduce the project costs. Alternative 2 is my second choice, do not support Alternative 1 •See former page [Trail Design] •Concerns over expense of such a project versus the benefit to public. Do not believe this project will have a great deal of appeal to most people •I am not in favor of either alternative especially because it will be right behind our house/property. This trail would be an invasion of my privacy. The foot and bike traffic would result in noise and debris left on the trail •Amount of water flowing in ditch •Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have parkour skills, which most people don't). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and next to a hillside, it would be nicer •It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :) •Multi-use of bicycles •Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail •Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic •Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area. Question 3: Would you use Mary Avenue Bridge to connect to this trail system? Yes No Maybe 35% 44% 21% Question 4: Do you have any additional comments about the Mary Avenue Trail access point? •Restroom, Water station, bench, camera, lighting, mile marker, safety patrol, website to promote •Putting water, parking spaces, lighting, maybe restrooms near parks is a good idea. •You should plan trail on 'storage' side at pedestrian bridge •Consider collaborating with residences to improve robustness of fences along trail •Amenities for bikers and walkers here please! Benches and congregating spaces here would be great (mini-park). Keep those away from the neighbors though •Concerns over effects and disruption to the local residents, especially over Alternative #1 •Have police on bike patrol at the Stelling undercrossing to deter loitering and theft and graffiti •Concerned w/ safety for trail users, particularly with potentially being in a secluded area out of plain sight, by the Loc-N-Stor •Safety - it seems secluded. Add mirrors for blind spots. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 127Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 6 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. IV. Stelling Road Crossing Question 1: What type of crossing do you prefer? Grade-Separated Crossing Under Stelling Road with Spur Trail Access and No Crosswalk Across Stelling Road Crosswalk Across Stelling Road and No Grade- Separated Crossing under Stelling Road or Spur Trail Access Both a Grade-Separated Crossing Under Stelling Road with Spur Trail Access and a crosswalk Across Stelling Road 36% 8% 56% General Station #3 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail segment? •This is heavy traffic area, option C is better. Least preferred choice is A. •Stelling is extremely busy at rush hour in morning and evening. A surface crosswalk would be a disaster •Not option B: will cause traffic backups on Stelling. Will cause safety issues. Also the bridge railing when traveling south on Stelling blocks sight line to the trail toward the west making it much less safe. •For biking on busy streets, like Stelling, separation is very important to induce casual/weekend bicyclists •Crosswalk good for pedestrian access and in case of flooding (?) •Traffic on Stelling is heavy and depends on events at De Anza College. A crosswalk is likely to be overlooked (note crosswalk near Quinlan); A Stelling Road entrance to the bike path is likely to influence and impact traffic on Stelling •Very noisy •Very clever solution, if possible and affordable •Both please! Don't know if Stelling will be a big turning point, the underpass path would obstruct people wanting to get on Stelling. The crosswalk support will be nominal in cost for the benefit •Apple employees have access to trail from campus and not on streets!!! •Security of undercrossing •A crosswalk across Stelling Road will make traffic on Stelling much worse than now. The traffic is bad enough now with traffic from Gardena Dr., Greenleaf, and the apartment complex feeding into Stelling. During peak hours, traffic can back into Hollenbeck in the north and all the way to Stevens Creek Blvd to the south •Both would be great, but any of the options seems workable •For long distance bike riders, it is much faster to have a grade-separated crossing, it is also safer •Very concerned about a crosswalk and the interaction with traffic - especially during school drop-off/pick-up and during rush hour •If you can't do #1C then do #1A. Do not do just 1B! Add mirrors for blind spots. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study128Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 7 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Station #4 (Trail Segment 2 –De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center) V. De Anza Boulevard Crossing Question 1: What type of crossing do you prefer? Bridge Over-Crossing with Crosswalk Across De Anza Boulevard Tunnel Under-Crossing with Crosswalk Across De Anza Boulevard No Grade-Separated Crossing and Maintain Existing Crosswalk Across De Anza Boulevard 43% 50% 7% Two people who voted for the bridge option said either the tunnel or bridge option would be fine. Question 2: Would you support removal of the existing crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard if the bridge of tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided? Yes No Maybe 48% 21% 31% VI. Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue Question 1: Regarding trail access and amenities, which of the following do you support? Informal Trail Access and No Trailhead or Trail Amenities Single Trail Access Point and Trailhead with Limited Trail Amenities Multiple Trail Access Points and a Trailhead with Greater Level of Amenities 29% 32% 39% General Station #4 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #4 trail segment? •Must have direct Apple access (infinite loop) to trail, to reduce bikes on Randy Ln/Larry Way. Limit access points to two: One east of Randy, (just far enough away from Apple to discourage parking) and one at Blaney. This grade-level proposal for crossing at Blaney is great. •Right next to my house. Privacy concerns. Live on Larry/Lucille. •Privacy, parking, traffic are concerns for residents of Lucille, Larry and Randy. 1: Consider wall to help with privacy. 2: Big no to any access points on Lucille Ave. •Not familiar with this section so no comment. •No trail access on Blaney/Lucille •Maintain fence - ideally make opaque for privacy. Make Lucille permitted parking M-F like Randy and Larry. Need frequent garbage clean up. Limited access - far from apple side to prevent parking problems. Maintain access under bridge for car traffic. Need police patrol for safety. •I support none of these. I live here and would be impacted. •Maintenance of trash can emptying would be very important •Multiple access points make the trail more usable for people living in the neighborhood, and would provide trail users route options •Informal trail access could serve as a pilot and could be upgraded if the trail use supports expansion •Some convenience but less cost •I prefer tunnel over bridge at De Anza mainly because of reduced elevation gain/loss; Use box culvert only when needed for trail width Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 129Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 8 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Mostly just need trailhead here; benches would be the only amenities needed •How is security mentioned? Security patrol? How about people using trail for "hanging out"? •Don't care… •As shown •Get Apple off the streets; safer alternatives for walkers/bikers; be mindful of neighborhood •Section east of Blaney - no soundwall; trail users protection form vehicles leaving the road •Provide access to Portal Ave. through CalWater site •I live next to the trail on Randy Lane; trail would cause such a problem for traffic and people, let alone criminal activity •Consider adding Trailhead/access point at the end of Lucille adjacent to the Apple campus. Work with Apple to create a linkage to Lawson Middle School along the edge of the Apple property, parallel to Larry Way, It would be nice to have some way to go directly from the trail up to the Blaney overpass. •Do not put the additional access points in the middle of Lucille. Trail amenities needed: a map of trail, a beach, mile markers, lighting. Extra security around the main entrance & under the bridge. There has been tagging & dumping (mattresses, etc) in this area. Keep the road (Lucille) open under the bridge. Do not close it. The neighborhood relies on it to get to Homestead without having to cross Blaney. Critical to AM/PM traffic flow & school traffic. VII. Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway General Station #5 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 trail segment? •Keep Crossing at Wolfe not competing with cross traffic •This trail is for apple only. What a shame. •Be sure the contractor of Vallco includes space for bikeway •Perhaps stipulate that a proper multi-use trail along the south and east edges of hotel development be included in future development there. •The proposed path behind the new hotel is bad! It's still under construction - is there a way to create a path (or alternative path) that passes in front of hotel tracing Perimeter Road. •Nice •Have Vallco future pay for access to trail and out of neighborhood!!! Access to trail from Vallco itself not in neighborhood at all! •It is important to keep redwoods along 280 intact behind Hyatt House and property behind the old Macys. Will there be public creek trail along Calabazas Creek from 280 and Calabazas intersection to the Calabazas and Vallco Parkway intersection? One portion of the creek trail mentioned above along the small portion of Calabazas Creek should be both pedestrian and bike. •Provide easy access to hotel for residents and guests. Use CalWater area for access to Portal Ave. •East-west connectivity for bikes between Blaney and Tantau is important, especially with Pruneridge gone •Underpass is good •Make all sections of it as wide as possible to allow lots of multi-uses & improve safety. Add mirrors for blind spots & destination signs. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study130Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 9 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. General Project Comments (end of input packet) •Great handout! Do this again. •Make it a world class trail. Heart of Silicon Valley must look good. Plant new trees. •Should be trail that represents Cupertino. Home of Apple. Best of best shall be created. •My property backs up to the trail between Mary and Stelling. I currently see the trail used by PG&E. My concerns are: 1. liability - I have tall trees that have dropped branches on the trail. 2. Safety - giving easier access to my back yard. 3. Privacy - I have no fence (just chain link). I am not against the bike/ped path, just want my concerns addressed. •This part of Cupertino has been impacted enough by the freeway, the schools, Apple and it's employees. •We are very worried about safety, security, privacy. Homestead high school kids jumping the fence (which they do), homeless, smokers, drugs and nuisance. •It's a shame that Apple can cause such a project to be contemplated that would impact the residents of this area. •I support alternate #2 for Mary to De Anza Blvd. •Very supportive. Good luck! •Please, please build it! This trail would remove a lot of local commuting traffic off the roads (Apple employees between campuses, students to De Anza college…) and provide a great off- street recreational alternative within the city (jogger, dog walkers...). Provide trash cans along trail : dog walkers; drinking fountains at trail ends would be great bonus •Consider if paving is necessary. No lights - encourage dawn to dusk use; Consider Alternative #1 as a pilot which could be expanded if use of trail becomes high. •Seems like there needs to be more thought about intermediate access points. The major points are too far apart. While I favor choices that reduce cost and complexity, I would encourage setting standards for trail width - there are too many narrow pinch points identified already. Please spend the money to widen where needed. •I am extremely concerned about safety, privacy, and noise issues. Currently, we have a lot of people hanging out at 2am during summer nights at the Mary Avenue Bridge trail head, located directly behind my house. 1) I am extremely concerned this trail will add to the noise we experience. 2) Make sure security is enforced after dusk (when officers are not busy with school patrolling). We already clean up broken glass bottles in our yards. 3) We are concerned about any trash, debris items that can be thrown over the fence into our backyards. 4) Can existing bike bridge be used to access 280 per alternative #2 near Mary Avenue? This would perhaps reduce capital costs. •All-in-all, do not think this to be a very worthwhile project. Probably very expensive and lacking in widespread appeal. Walkers, joggers, or cycling along trail next to major highway not very appealing, especially at times of rush-hour traffic. •I am totally opposed to the construction of the trail •Super •Very good graphics and presentation of trail options. Please keep the redwood trees along 280 •Really make sure Apple campus 1 and 2 have good connection to path •Please think about possibly separating bikers and pedestrians if the trail becomes crowded, in the future •Why do I and my neighbors have to suffer because the city can't say no to Apple Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 131Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 10 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Mile Markers (1/4 mile markers), security cameras in key areas and convex mirrors for blind corners, all for safety. Please make an effort to tie into the new signage style proposed for the City's Bike Boulevards, including "destination" signs indicating what is near the access points. Post a 25 mph speed limit (or less). Allow E-bikes with 25 mph max speed. Prohibit other motorized vehicles (gas, diesel, etc.). I LIKE HAVING A CROSS-TOWN CONNECTION OFF OF THE BUSY STREET LIKE STEVENS CREEK •When it opens, safety & security has to be very good to "set the tone" of the project. If people think it is not safe they won't use it or let their kids use it. Prevent Apple bikes from riding 2-3-4 across & taking over the path like we currently see them, do on our neighborhood streets like Vista Drive. (Comments provided via email after both community meetings) •After briefly reviewing the online story boards, I believe that accompanying trail construction, permit parking must be extended to the entirety of Lucille between Blaney and Apple. Lucille already has the occasional Apple employee parking and is used daily for Employees to smoke at the cul de sac at Apple. The neighborhood is permit parking because of the Apple overflow, and active vehicle commuters on Lucille is inconsistent with the trail’s use for the three schools nearby. Also, if smoking is not allowed on the trail, then it somehow should be restricted in the neighborhood. Apple doesn’t allow smoking on their campus, and if they think the trail bordering their property is also non-smoking, they will be driving smokers into the neighborhood which is unacceptable. We already have employees parking on Lucille then coming back to the area to smoke during breaks. •I just learned about a potential bike path along the Junipero Serra Channel. This is exciting, as it would give bicycles a protected way to get from Mary to Tantau. Currently, if you're near 280, you need to go to Homestead or Stevens Creek to go between Blaney and Wolfe. This change would encourage more bicycling, getting even more cars off the roadways. Hope you find some common ground with the water district and Caltrans to get this done. Of course, it would be great if the road crossings weren't at grade, but I'll leave that to the experts. Flip Charts Flip Charts were placed at Station #2 and each of the three trail segment stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Flip charts did not include a prompted question, all feedback provided was open-ended. Not all Stations with flip charts received comments. Project Background And Goals and Objectives – Station 2: •Goal 4 - Have the trail access along I-280 be strictly for bike traffic. That way bike riders can travel at a faster speed. This would be good for people commuting on bikes between Apple Campus (Sunnyvale) and Apple Campus 2 (Tantau). •If pedestrian and bikes are on the same trial, the bikes need to go slower and pedestrians need to understand how to go on a trail with bikes Trail Segment 1 – Station 3: •Safety, security #1 issue. Graffiti already there. Had a burglary. •Connect to Stevens Creek Trail to the west? Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study132Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 11 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Trail on north side of 280 •No monitoring of ex. Plaza. Needs monitoring. Use cameras. •Concern about beacon crossing stopping traffic on Stelling. Concern about safety. Low visibility southbound. •Do a soundwall for safety and privacy. •Light for night use. •Amenities, drinking fountains, seating, "dream big" •Security cameras at problem/key areas. •Traffic stacks at Stelling. Trail Segment 2 – Station 4: •Concerns at Lucille Trailhead: •Safety •Parking (unwanted!) •Traffic •Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime) •Apple employees (this project is for Apple only) Trail Segment 3 – Station 5: •No e-bikes (more than 25 mph) •No motorized •Allow e-bikes, speed < 25 mph Trail Segment Plans Trail segment plans were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment. Trail Segment 1 – Station 3: •Concern over liability of trees dropping branches •Graffiti •Privacy & security •Stats on crime - how will police monitor •Parking will be issue •Leave redwoods •Why paved? Leave gravel •No lights •Homeless, privacy, security •Alt 2 viable? •Do we need a trail? Is demand there? For Apple employees? Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 133Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 12 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Trail Segment 2 – Station 4: •Blaney avenue: don't block •Blaney impacted by traffic •Concern bringing kids through an already congested area. •Keep fence to prohibit access from Lucille •Drive kids to school due to speeding cars •One access point may be ok •No sidewalk •Lucille not under some parking permit. Needs to be included in permit program •Will trail encourage parking on Lucille? •Lots of Apple bikes •Can you provide access here? For Lawson & Apple •Need access to Apple to Trail •Two access points •Speeding traffic to school •Use mirrors for blind spots •Call boxes along trail. Emergency. •Bike runnels at stairs? •Can we have police cameras on the trail •Consider security of users in tunnel crossing •Access for Apple employees to trail & the streets •Would not preclude Alt 2 in the future •Look @ stair channels Trail Segment 3 – Station 5: •Access for Guests & Visitors Trail Enlargements/Sections Mary Avenue Bridge •Pedestrian Trail: concern about buffering Stelling Road Crossing •Would people loiter here? Sheriffs need to patrol trail. Presence. •Heavy traffic on Stelling Rd •Lights in ground too •No loitering Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue •Might not be feasible •Moving trucks double park and isn't safe •Shift road to enable consistent class I Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study134Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 13 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Prohibit access in this area...not safe •Add mirrors •Redwood trees @ curb •Trash & homeless •Cut through lots of trash •Hiding spot under bridge •Homeless living in ex tunnel •Taggers •Can you put a sidewalk here? •Parking concerns •Safety - can you have call boxes? Mile markers •Car theft (Lucille ave) •Consider alternative fencing - that provides features of existing chainlink (e.g. animal/pedestrian control) -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days. Submitted by: Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates cc: All attendees Attachments: 1.Input Packet Response Data Presentation 2.Meeting notification material Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 135Appendix this page intentionally left blank SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate 311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only June 18, 2018 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #3 Location: Cupertino Civic Center, Community Hall Date: June 6, 2018 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Total number of people who signed-in: 19 Total number of people who turned-in an input packet: 13 Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Santa Clara County Sergeant Jason Brown (JB), jason.brown@shf.sccgov.org Sheriff’s Office: Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Kelly Kong (KK), kkong@callanderassociates.com Community members were notified about the event through the following methods (refer to the end of the report for example outreach materials): •City’s website •City Channel •Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter) •Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest •Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall •Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents •Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter •Postcard mailings to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents including residents/businesses within 300 feet of a proposed trailhead •Email notifications to subscribers of the “Bicycle Transportation Plan” email list •Email notification to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the nearby surrounding neighborhoods Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study136Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 2 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. The format of the meeting was an open house style where participants were invited to arrive at any time during the event window and provide individual feedback on the trail project. Sergeant Brown was present to address concerns about safety and security along the potential trail. Six stations were set up for participants to visit at their own pace. Station #1 was the welcome table, where participants were greeted by City staff and provided a questionnaire to record comments as they traveled between stations. The five remaining stations included: •Project background and goals and objectives (Station #2) •The three segments of the proposed trail (Stations #3, 4, 5) •Refreshments (Station #6) Participants were asked to return their questionnaire at Station #1 before leaving so that their comments could be recorded. The following summarizes input received at and after the meeting, including from questionnaires, flip charts, comments written onto the trail segment plans, enlargements, sections, and follow-up e-mails. Questionnaire The questionnaire included two sections of questions and was comprised of general questions and more specific input. The following organizes the comments received from the public in the order they appear in the questionnaire. Multiple choice questions are summarized to show the percentage breakdown of the answers received. Questions that had an open-ended answer include the individual comments received. I. General Background Question 1: Did you attend Community Meeting #1 or Community Meeting #2? Only #1 Only #2 Both #1 and #2 Neither 8% 17% 17% 58% Written Comment: •#1 or #2 Question 2: Do you support a trail at this location? Yes No 75% 25% Written Comment: •Maybe only if its Alternative #2 on Mary Question 3: How would you use the trail? (circle all that apply) Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other 21% 21% 53% 0% 5% Answers under “Other” include: •Getting around town! Question 4: Do you live or work in Cupertino? Live Work Live and Work Do not Live or Work 50% 0% 50% 0% Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 137Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 3 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. II. Input Question 1: What aspects of the trail design do you like? What do you like about the proposed trail? •Very nicely done. •The bridge concept. Definitely is superior in my opinion. Aspects of safety, aesthetics, cost etc. are best. I totally don’t like the tunnel concept. Not good for safety, cost, etc. •Thank you for listening to people’s comments. •It’s a trail, where neighbor kids can ride/scooter/run safely. It’s an off-street cross route for the non-motorized. If there’s a problem with homeless encampment, it would probably help. •In Alt 2 I like the buffer of increased space = plantings to have trail impact residents less. I like how this would connect Apple’s campus making biking easier & safer between campus. Like the idea of walking trail. •Connect Apple to Apple relieving city streets of dangerous bikes. Safer bike/vehicle separation is preferred. Trail option #2 east of De Anza is the only acceptable option. •Enclosed culvert with trail on top. Undercrossing at De Anza and Stelling (and Wolfe). At Mary, prefer trail NOT adjacent to home (Alt 2) •Under grade coming at Stelling bridge at De Anza Blvd •The design where the trail sits on top of the drainage Question 2: How can the proposed trail be improved? •Don’t like the current plans for De Anza Blvd. Overcrossing or undercrossing. •A beautiful designed bridge is the ideal. •Mitigation for encroaching homeless and crime. •Can’t think of anything in particular. The consultants have some good ideas, albeit expensive. •Add lighting. Lighting that does not impact homes, but low enough to highlight misuse during darkness. Trail heads official physical closure from dawn to dusk. Need more parking at trailhead on Mary. It’s not realistic to say that people won’t park at the trailhead. •More parking would be needed at trailheads. Trail needs official closure from Sherriff’s office and needs to be actively enforced. Lighting needs to be added. It should be low profile as to not cause light pollution onto resident homes. •Apple employees who will use this trail need access from their own campus to get on trail. Having them come down onto the neighborhood to access trail is unacceptable to Linwood Acres residents. No access point at end of Randy. Too many bikes – pedestrians at this busy Apple school neighborhood. •Vehicle barrier between Blaney overpass and Wolfe = dangerously close pedestrian/homeless access to freeway and trail. As proposed no grade or vertical barrier protecting path. •Add the access from N Portal along Calwater Property. Add access on Apple side of wall adjacent to homes on Larry way with a spur to Lawson Middle School. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study138Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 4 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •It good enough •Mary Ave @ Bridge: prefer Alt #2 because it’s away from residents and allows trail users to get on bridge faster. Blaney Ave Intersection – prefer Alt #2 because the width can be 12’ fixed rather than varying, there’s more plantings bordering Lucille to buffer sound of freeway and trail users, safer for all users because it will be wider. •Remove all access points on Lucille except one by the Blaney overpass bridge and one at the other end of Lucille at the cul de sac. •It is critical to have an access point to this trail from Apple Infinity Loop to get Apple employees off the streets and encourage them to use the trail. •Negotiate a spur from the trail to Lawson Middle School on the Apple side of the wall bordering residents on Larry Way. Question 3: Do you have any other comments about the project? •It is nice you can plan this even when we don’t know what will happen at Vallco. •I do not like the trail across De Anza Blvd. I live in the condominium at the SW corner of 280 and De Anza. Very impressed with the crew here on 3rd community night. •What is the upside for homeowners along Gardena and Mary? The trail will bring security and privacy invasions with no apparent benefit to these residents. Reevaluate necessity with existing bike boulevards. •The wider you can make the path the safer it will be because bikes, peds, strollers, skateboard, dogs, etc. will use it. Wider means fewer collisions. •Good work with it! •Is this a project that will be put up for a vote by the community or does the community not have a say? Gardena Drive will become even more dangerous with a greater influx of commuters commuting to the start of the trailhead on Mary. •This project should be put to an official vote. It negatively impacts several residents while benefitting mostly Apple employees that want to bike to work. These meetings are tough to make it to when you work outside of Cupertino. Every neighbor that I have personally talks to is very against this project. I reside on the proposed trail path. •Prefer Alternative 2 – Why is Apple not yet involved as this literally will connect its 2 campuses? Prefer lots of trees where the trail impacts neighborhoods to mitigate noise, trash impact. •The lack of detail between Randy and De Anza does not build public trust. A failure to document access to Apple from the North and East, which does not exist now, and which would have an immediate impact on neighborhood, is unacceptable. Apple controls its own fences, and without documenting city barrier intent, all that exists currently is Apple fence. •Keep going! Negotiate to have Apple access point to trail that does not require Apple bikes to ride through neighborhood streets to access trail. •Mary Avenue – Use Alt #2/Segment 1 – Use Alt #2 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 139Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 5 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Bridge over De Anza looks good •Alternative #1 on Mary is right behind our house. I strongly oppose it. It would impact our privacy, safety and potentially other issues such as more noise, obstructed views. If at all, Alternative #2 should be evaluated for this project and the only option. Please take the homeowners along the trail @ Mary in consideration & big negative impact it has with Alternative #1. •The proposed 8 ft fence (wood) maintenance should also be the City’s responsibility. Control area bike use should also be established which is not evident in the I-280 overpass. •Mary Ave @ Bridge – prefer Alt #2 because its away from residents & allows trail users to get on bridge faster •Blaney Ave Intersection – prefer, Alt #2 because: 1.The width can be 12’ fixed rather than varying 2.There are more plantings bordering Lucille to buffer sound of freeway and trail users 3.Safer for all users because it will be wider •Remove all access points on Lucille expect one by the Blaney overpass bridge and one at the other end of Lucille at the cul-de-sac •It is critical to have an access point to this trail from Apple Infinity Loop to get Apple employees off the streets and encourage them to the trail •Negotiate a spur from the trail to Lawson Middle School on the Apple side of the wall bordering residents on Larry Way Alternative Alignment Plan: Alternative Alignment plans were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment. •Conduct sensibility of parking for those who will drive to Mary entrance •Privacy and security concern for residents along path •Consider mitigation for crime during non-use hours •No tunnel – feels unsafe •No at-grade crossing – most dangerous •Trail safety critical for everyone •Apple access point? Connect to Apple Park campus. •Blaney: homeless •Blaney intersection: wall? What We Heard: What We Heard boards were placed at stations 2 through 5. Participants were invited to draw and write on each board to provide comments on what we heard from previous meetings. •Alternative #1 too close to fence. No privacy. Alt #2 •Like’s Alt #2 @ Mary. Less impact to privacy. •Establish rules of the road. Prepare a document explaining how shared use trail works. Public outreach. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study140Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 6 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Series of public presentations in the City Hall to discuss proper trail etiquette. This means what type of behavior is expected of pedestrians and bicyclists on the Loop Trail. Flip Charts Flip Charts were placed at stations 2 through 5. Participants were invited to draw and write on each flip chart to provide feedback for each station where there was a flip chart. Bike path across De Anza Blvd. (Sunnyvale – Saratoga): •Issue with the bike bridge over Sunnyvale – Saratoga Ave. This is a good idea, but it is visual clutter and makes the whole area look like the middle of a big freeway going over Sunnyvale – Saratoga Rd. This design detracts from the beauty of the Apple I campus and the trees and the other buildings. Too much clutter. •On other view of having an underground tunnel in lieu of the bike bridge over Sunnyvale – Saratoga Avenue, the current tunnel as presented is dark and scarey [sic] and looks like it would not be safe to walk in. There could be pick-pockets and purse snatchers. There is too much enclosed area in the tunnel and as a woman I would not feel safe walking or bicycling in that dark tunnel with no one else around. •Can you come up with a better plan? •Underground is good, but currently it is too dark and scarey [sic] and unsafe. •Remove multiple access points on Lucille and keep only one at Blaney overpass and one at Apple parking lot corner (possibly open on both Apple and Lucille sides) •Negotiate with Apple to add a spur along edge of parking lot adjacent to homes on Larry Way to provide off street parking access to Lawson Middle School and Apple employees •Homelessness concern: What mitigations will be taken if homelessness does become a problem after the trail is built? •Connections Map: Show access points to trail! Trail Enlargements/Sections Trail Enlargements and Sections were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment. Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue •Apple access is very important •Would rather have parking •Flashing beacon •Can a flashing sign be put here to alert cars of peds? •Trash concerns •Keep existing redwoods and water valve & existing boxes •New landscape •Informal trail •Lots of litter Stelling Rd Under Crossing: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 141Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 7 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •More solid @ bottom of fence •Deterrent to potential homeless camp •Close •Signage for cyclists Community E-mails Some community members who were not able to attend the community meeting sent Jennifer comments about the project via e-mail. E-mail #1: Jennifer, It was good meeting with you during last meeting in this topic. I won't be in town to participate in person. As expressed during our meeting I am reiterating my points, 1. Our primary stance is "complete No- No for this initiative." The reason is we are very seriously concerned with Security, privacy as well Our safety. In addition, unknown people hanging around and noise are concerns as well. I had expressed similar concerns during Mary avenue bridge. City officials were deaf to our concerns. We continue to suffer from late night noise, some illegal acts, unknowns hanging around in the area between our backyard and empty area off Bridge. 2. However if city officials still continue to take same stance ( as in the past )and build a trail, here are options, 1. Trail will be used only for walking/ Jogging. 2. No bike access / Skate boarders. 3. Strict access control to Homestead high students. 4. City officials Meeting with neighbors every quarter for any concerns. I also insist on following, 1. We need 10 feet solid wood fence to be built. This will be maintained and managed by city. 2. No access to trail after 7 pm till 7 am. 3. More cops and police to monitor trail access and faster response in case of any issues or concerns. 4. 24x7, monitoring Cameras to be installed at the trail entrance. Alarms in case of access after 7 PM till 7 AM. 5. Strict control policy on noise level. Currently we have several days the year people hanging around bridge area making loud noises, chatting which goes on till late night. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study142Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 8 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Lastly, we need guarantee from city on our safety, security concerns are, if not a firm commitment from city and owning responsibility for any issues / concerns arising from such incidences as well being legally liable. Please ensure our concerns and voice is heard clear and loud in any further planning. Thank you, ”Name Omitted for Privacy” E-mail #2: Dear Jennifer, As 20+ year residents of Cupertino, we would like to voice our support for the Junipero Serra bike trail. ”Name Omitted for Privacy” -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days. Submitted by: Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates cc: File Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 143Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 9 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Pictures of Community Meeting #3 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study144Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 11 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Door Hanger: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 145Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 12 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Door Hanger for Residents Around Portal Avenue: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study146Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 13 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Meeting Postcard: (Front of Postcard) (Back of Postcard) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 147Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study148Appendix 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 149Appendix 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study150Appendix 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 151Appendix 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study152Appendix Outreach Materials - City Flier Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 153Appendix Outreach Materials - City Postcard Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study154Appendix Outreach Materials - City Door Hanger Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 155Appendix Outreach Materials - City Door Hanger for Portal Ave Residents Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study156Appendix Outreach Materials - Hand Out AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 157 Apple R.O.W. Aquisition Exhibit Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study158 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 159Appendix Sandis - Box Culvert E-mail Jana Schwartz <j.schwartz@callanderassociates.com> Box Culvert Information - Junipero Serra Trail 1 message David Rubin <drubin@callanderassociates.com>Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:07 PM To: Jennifer Chu <JenniferC@cupertino.org>, David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Cc: Jana Schwartz <jschwartz@callanderassociates.com>, Brian Fletcher <bfletcher@callanderassociates.com> Jenn/David, I wanted to follow up on your questions yesterday regarding the box culvert. I was able to connect with Sandis and get some additional information. Below is the email from Jenner Phillips at Sandis regarding sizing of the culvert. Also, attached to this email are Caltrans details for box culverts, similar to what we'd propose here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I suspect the channel was designed for the full build-out condition as well as to accommodate the 100-yr storm. Assuming everything from Stevens Creek Blvd flows north into the channel, I roughly calculate a 100-yr flow rate of 1329 cu-ft/sec. This is based on a composite run-off coefficient of 0.64 for a drainage area of 940 acres. I then compared that to the flow capacities of different parts of the channel. The box culvert (10ft wide x 6ft tall) just before the naturalized channel at Wolfe has a roughly calculated capacity of approximately 1340 cu-ft/sec. Based on our conversations to cover the culvert to gain more space for the path, I think a good option might be to replace the trapezoidal channel with a box culvert where the top of the culvert could be the top of the path (or at least a part of the path) with direct manhole access for maintenance personnel. The following segments of could be changed per the following: Mary to Stelling – 4’x4’ Box Culvert; Stelling to De Anza – 8’x5’ Box Culvert; De Anza to Wolfe – 10’x6’ Box Culvert; Wolfe to Calabazas Creek – Remain Unlined Trapezoidal. The unlined channel will very likely have to remain unlined. I doubt the Waterboards will allow a naturalized channel to be paved. They actively try to do the reverse. Drain inlets should be installed along the length to allow surface water to flow in and culvert water to flow out if the channel floods. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional information regarding access and maintenance: Q: How is culvert accessed and how far apart are access points? A: Can cast the manhole access flush with the top of the culvert or add a riser if there is fill above. Typically manholes are either 300 or 400 ft apart. It depends on maintenance preferences and costs. Either end of the culvert will need bars or something to restrict access. Q: How big are the access locations? A: Typical 2' manhole access. Q: What kind of equipment is needed to maintain culvert? A: Smaller sections probably need to be flushed clean similar to circular pipe sections, larger sections could allow a crew inside with equipment (power washers, brooms, shovels, etc…). The box culverts are designed to handle H-20 loading Lastly, alternative #2 means converting 10,100 linear feet of ditch from Mary Ave. to Wolfe Rd to box culvert (or about 1.91 miles). The last section east of Wolfe would remain unlined as it is today. I hope this helps and please let me know if you need anything else regarding the culverts. Thanks, Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study160Appendix this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 161 Sandis - CalTrans Box Culvert Notes Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study162 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 163 Sandis - CalTrans Box Culvert Notes Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study164 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 165 Sandis - De Anza Blvd Overhead Wires Survey Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study166 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 167Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet 17056_CommunityMeeting#1CommentHandout.indd December 6, 2017 • Travel to each of the stations and provide your input • Enjoy the refreshments • Ask us lots of questions Junipero Serra Trail December 6, 2017 How would you use this trail? Circle all that apply. Walking/Jogging/Biking Commuting to Work Taking children to school None of the above 1. 2. 3. 4. How often do you currently use a trail system elsewhere? Circle one. Never Once a year Once a month Once a week More than once a week 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Regarding trail development, what’s most important to you? Circle all that apply. Safety and security Trail access Trail amenities Connections to other bike and pedestrian facilities Other: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Community Meeting #1 Welcome! How to get started Tell us what you think Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study168Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1 Available Width, less than 14’-0” (does not meet class 1 multi-use standards) City Limits Available Width, 14’-0” minimum (meets class 1 multi-use standards) Trail Connection Point Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Public Building (BA) Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor General Commercial (CG) Office/Planned Office (OA/OP) Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor Agricultural Residential (A1) Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element) (BA) (CG, ML) (BA) (BQ, Mini-Stor) *residential zoning is not shown Bike Lanes on Street Existing Connections Bike Route Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Overhead Utilities Gateway Class 1 Bike Path Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP) (BA) (BQ) THE LOOPCupertino 0 50 100 200 17056_SiteAnalysis.indd Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis HOMESTEAD HIGH SCHOOL GARDEN GATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Mary Avenue Bridge MARY AVENUESTELLING ROADI-280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 STATION #3 - Mary Ave to De Anza Blvd What do you like about this segment of the trail? What can be improved in this segment of the trail? Please rate this segment’s overall desirability: Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities: Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Commuting to work Walking/Jogging/Biking Going to school Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 169Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1 B(CG, ML, OA)(BQ) (R2, Mini-Stor) (A1) Available Width, less than 14’-0” (does not meet class 1 multi-use standards) City Limits Available Width, 14’-0” minimum (meets class 1 multi-use standards) Trail Connection Point Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Public Building (BA) Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor General Commercial (CG) Office/Planned Office (OA/OP) Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor Agricultural Residential (A1) Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element) *residential zoning is not shown Bike Lanes on Street Bike Route Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Overhead Utilities Gateway 0 50 100 200 Existing Connections Class 1 Bike Path Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP) (BQ) 17056_SiteAnalysis.indd THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis APPLE LAWSON MIDDLE SCHOOL BLANEY AVENUEDE ANZA BOULEVARDI-280 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 STATION #4 - De Anza Blvd to Vallco Center What do you like about this segment of the trail? What can be improved in this segment of the trail? Please rate this segment’s overall desirability: Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities: Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Commuting to work Walking/Jogging/Biking Going to school Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study170Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1 HE HE (Regional Shopping) (Heart of the City Specific Plan Area) HE Enlargement Area - Hyatt House Hotel Bike/Ped Path Connection Available Width, less than 14’-0” (does not meet class 1 multi-use standards) City Limits Available Width, 14’-0” minimum (meets class 1 multi-use standards) Trail Connection Point Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Public Building (BA) Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor General Commercial (CG) Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP) Office/Planned Office (OA/OP) Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor Agricultural Residential (A1) Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element) *residential zoning is not shown Bike Lanes on Street Bike Route Class 1 Bike Path Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Overhead Utilities Gateway 0 50 100 200 Existing Connections (Hotel) 17056_SiteAnalysis.indd THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014AADROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA PUBLIC OPEN SPACE OUTDOOR DINING POOL EXISTING TREE SHADE TREE FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE STREET TREE IN GRATE PUBLIC ART DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK TRASH/RECYCLING BIN STORMWATER PLANTING ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP SCREENED TRANSFORMER LEGEND NORTH SCALE:1” = 20’-0” L-1 12 12 13 13 8 1 3 4 6 7 2 2 2 7 7 10 11 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 16 15 14 13 8 0’ 5’20’10’10’Aproposed calss IV separated bike lane as part of I-280/Wolfe Road interchange improvments green-backed bike lanes along N Tantau Ave. and Vallco Pkwy. see enlargement area connection to proposed trail hotel bicycle/pedestrian path CALABAZAS CREEKN TAN TAU AVENUE VALLC O P A R K W A YN WO L FE ROAD I-280 Vallco marquee sign P(MP) APPLE 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 33 32 3130292827 26 25 24 23 STATION #5 - Vallco Center to Vallco Pkwy What do you like about this segment of the trail? What can be improved in this segment of the trail? Please rate this segment’s overall desirability: Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities: Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Commuting to work Walking/Jogging/Biking Going to school Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 171Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet 17056_CommunityMeeting#2CommentHandout.indd February 20 and 26, 2018 • Travel to each of the stations and provide your input • Enjoy the refreshments • Ask us lots of questions Junipero Serra Trail February 20 and 26, 2018 1. Did you attend Community Meeting #1? Circle one. Yes No A. B. 3. How would you use the trail? Circle all that apply. Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other: A. B. C. D. E. 4. Do you live or work in Cupertino? Circle one. I live in Cupertino I work in Cupertino I live and work in Cupertino I do not live or work in Cupertino A. B. C. D. Community Meeting #2 Welcome! How to get started I. General Background 2. Do you support a trail at this location? Circle one. Yes No A. B. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study172Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 II. Trail Design 1. Which alternative do you prefer? Circle one. Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither A. B. C. 2. What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative? Please provide your response below. 3. Do you live next to the trail? Circle one. Yes No A. B. THE LOOPCupertinoTrail Sections 17056_TrailSections.indd Public Service Easement City of Cupertino Width Varies 75’- 0” Existing Trail ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-Stor Slope Easement Cupertino Loc-N-StorPublic Service Easement City of Cupertino Width Varies 75’- 0”Slope Easement Existing Trail Residential 12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ. 2’-0”2’-0” Pedestrian Trail Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ. 10’-0” Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree Removal and Grading Will Be Required. Existing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage 12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0” Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 Shoulder, Typ. Asphalt Trail 35’- 0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Existing Proposed Pedestrian Trail +- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 35’- 0” 9’- 0” 2’-0” Shoulder Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 11’- 6”+- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees 35- 0” PG&E Transmission Poll Existing Concrete Lined Drainage Ditch Existing Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B +- +- THE LOOPCupertino Trail Sections 17056_TrailSections.indd Public Service EasementCity of CupertinoWidth Varies 75’- 0”Existing Trail ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-StorSlope Easement Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Public Service Easement City of Cupertino Width Varies 75’- 0” Slope Easement Existing Trail Residential 12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ. 2’-0”2’-0” Pedestrian Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. 10’-0” Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree Removal and Grading Will Be Required. Existing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage 12’-0”2’-0”2’-0” Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 Shoulder, Typ. Asphalt Trail 35’- 0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Existing Proposed Pedestrian Trail +- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 35’- 0” 9’- 0” 2’-0” ShoulderPublic Storage Caltrans R.O.W.I-28011’- 6”+-SCVWD R.O.W.Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees35- 0”PG&E Transmission PollExisting Concrete Lined Drainage DitchExisting Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B+- +- Alternative #1 Open Drainage Ditch, Pedestrian Trail Alternative #2 Covered Drainage Ditch, Class 1 Multi-UseTrail 4. Do you have children that would use this trail? Circle one. Yes No Possibly in the future A. B. C. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 173Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 STATION #3 - Mary Avenue Trail Access THE LOOPCupertino Trail Sections 17056_TrailSections.indd Public Service Easement City of Cupertino Width Varies 75’- 0”Existing Trail ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-Stor Slope Easement Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Public Service Easement City of Cupertino Width Varies 75’- 0” Slope Easement Existing Trail Residential 12’-0”2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. 2’-0”2’-0” Pedestrian Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. 10’-0” Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree Removal and Grading Will Be Required. Existing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage 12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0” Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 Shoulder, Typ. Asphalt Trail 35’- 0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Existing Proposed Pedestrian Trail +- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 35’- 0” 9’- 0” 2’-0” Shoulder Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W.I-28011’- 6”+-SCVWD R.O.W.Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees35- 0”PG&E Transmission PollExisting Concrete Lined Drainage DitchExisting Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B+- +- Alternative #1 Pedestrian Trail Alternative #2 Class 1 Multi-Use Trail III. Mary Avenue 1. Which alternative do you prefer? Circle one. Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither A. B. C. 2. What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative? Please provide your response below 3. Would you use Mary Avenue Bridge to connect to this trail system? Circle one. Yes No Maybe A. B. C. 4. Do you have any additional comments about the Mary Avenue Trail access point? Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study174Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 STATION #3 - Stelling RoadTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Auzerais Ave Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk Open Ditch Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide Undercrossing Example Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. HWY 85 Stevens Cree k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) 1. What crossing type do you prefer? Circle one. A grade-separated crossing under Stelling Road with spur trail access and no crosswalk across Stelling Road A crosswalk across Stelling Road with no grade-separated crossing under Stelling Road or spur trail access Both a grade-separated crossing and crosswalk across Stelling Road with spur trail access A. B. C. Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail segment? Stelling Road Crossing Options IV. Stelling Road Crossing THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Auzerais Ave Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk Open Ditch Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide Undercrossing Example Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. HWY 85 Stevens Cree k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 175Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 STATION #4 - De Anza BoulevardTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Bicycle / Pedestrian Bridge Over-Crossing Examples De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement Bridge Over-CrossingDe Anza BoulevardInterstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide PG&E Tower To Remain Stairs to Bridge Over-Crossing, Typ. Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Trailhead Plaza, Typ. Bridge Over-Crossing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Relocated PG&E Tower PG&E Tower To Be Removed Existing Property Fence, Apple Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) 40 MPH 1. What crossing type do you prefer? Circle one. Bridge over-crossing with crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard Tunnel under-crossing with crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard No grade-separated crossing and maintain existing crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard A. B. C. THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Bicycle / Pedestrian Under-Crossing Examples Stevens Creek Trail Local Example: Stevens Creek Trail, Mountain View Under-Crossing Below El Camino Real With Center Skylight And LightingDe Anza BoulevardDe Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement Tunnel Under-Crossing 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Interstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p PG&E Tower To Be Removed Tunnel Under-Crossing With Skylight For Natural Lighting Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain Tunnel Approach Ramp Tunnel Approach Ramp Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide 40 MPH Reocated PG&E Tower on Caltrans R.O.W. Existing Property Fence, Apple Stairs to Tunnel Under-Crossing, Typ. Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) De Anza Boulevard Bridge Over-Crossing De Anza Boulevard Tunnel Under-Crossing V. De Anza Boulevard Crossing THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Auzerais Ave Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk Open Ditch Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide Undercrossing Example Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. HWY 85 Stevens Cree k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered)THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Auzerais Ave Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk Open Ditch Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide Undercrossing Example Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. HWY 85 Stevens Cree k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) 2. Would you support removal of the existing crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard if the bridge or tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided? Circle one. Yes No Maybe A. B. C. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study176Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 STATION #4 - Blaney RoadTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements / Sections 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 C 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Interstate 280 Blaney AvenueRandy LaneVilla De Anza AvenueProposed Sidewalk To Meet Existing Sidewalk at Olivewood StreetMetal Beam Guardrail At Curve Existing Edge Of Street Proposed Curb Shift, 2’-0” approximately 10’ Width At Pinch Point Blaney Avenue Intersection Enlargement Alternative #1Existing SECTION C Alternative #2 City R.O.W.Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 18’- 6”+- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 40’- 0” Existing Tree Existing Tree Existing Sound Wall PG&E Transmission Pole Lucille Avenue Existing Chainlink Fence Existing Concrete Lined Drainage Ditch PG&E Transmission Lines Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 40’- 0” Varies, 12’-0” Max.2’-0”2’-0” Pedestrian or Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. City R.O.W. Existing Tree To Remain Sound Wall To Remain Guardrail, 4’-6” Tall, Only Where Drop-Off Slope Exceeds 3:1 Concrete Lined Drainage Ditch To RemainLucille Avenue Existing Tree To Remain 3:1 Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0” Tall, With Openings Along Lucille Avenue For Trail Access PG&E Transmission Lines To Remain PG&E Transmission Pole To Remain Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 40’- 0” 12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. City R.O.W. Existing Tree To Remain Sound Wall To Remain Lucille Avenue Existing Tree To Remain Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0” Tall, With Openings Along Lucille Avenue For Trail Access Concrete Box Culvert PG&E Transmission Lines To Remain PG&E Transmission Pole To Remain Planted Stormwater Treatment Area Paved Trail Access Point Guy Anchor To Be Modified, Maintain Min. 10’ Vertical Clearance Over Trail Access manhole at 400’- 0”, typ. Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Trailhead Existing Tree To Remain, Typ.Landscaping, Typ. Existing On-street Parking Seatwall, Typ. Low Split Rail Fence, Typ. Wires Overhead, Typ. D.G. Path Connection, Typ. PG&E Tower, Typ. Proposed Crosswalk and Sidewalk With Ramps 25 MPH Lucille Avenue CEnlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) Do you have any comments about the Station #4 trail segment? VI. Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue Blaney Avenue with Trail Access on Lucille Avenue THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Auzerais Ave Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk Open Ditch Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide Undercrossing Example Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. HWY 85 Stevens Cree k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) 1. Regarding trail access and amenities, which of the following do you support? Circle one. Informal trail access and no trailhead or trail amenities at this location Single trail access point and trailhead with limited trail amenities at this location Multiple trail access points and a trailhead with greater level of amenities at this location A. B. C. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 177Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 0 50 100 200 City Limits Trail Connection Point / Enlargement Area Existing Conditions Trail Types Bike Lanes on Street Existing Connections Bike Route Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Gateway Class 1 Bike Path Covered Ditch, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’-0” minimum Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’-0” minimum Pedestrian Trail, less than 16’-0” Alternative #2 Alternative #1 Standard 17056_AlternativeAlignmentPlan.indd THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Trail - Alternative Alignment Plan CALABAZAS CREEK TAN TAU AV ENUE VALLC O P A R K W A YWOL F E ROAD I-280 Vallco marquee sign APPLE See Hyatt House Hotel Enlargement Vallco / I-280 Interchange Projects Class 1 Multi- Use Trail, 20’ Wide Public Trail Easement Potential Trailhead and Connection to Signalized Intersection DE STATION #5 - Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway Do you have any comments about the Station #5 trail segment? VII. Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway THE LOO P Cupertino Trail Enl a r g e m e n t s 17056_Tra il E n l a r g e m e n t s _ V 2 . i n d d February 2 0 / 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 Auzerais A v e Stelling R o a d I n t e r s e c ti o n E nl a r g e m e n tStelling RoadInterstate 2 8 0 Existing C a l t r a n s F e n c e T o R e m ai n Class 1 M ul ti - U s e T r ail, 1 6’ Wi d e Over Cov e r e d Di t c h West Trail S p u r , 10’ Wide East Trail S p u r, 10’ Wide Class 1 M ul ti - U s e T r ail, 1 6’ Wide Ove r C o v e r e d Di t c h Barrier Rai li n g, Typ. At-grade Hi g h e r Visibility C r o s s w al k Open Dit c h Access C o n t r o l F e n c e A t T r ail E d g e Sloped T r ail U n d e r c r o s si n g, < 5 % Running Sl o p e, Cl a s s 1 M ul t i - U s e Trail, Cro s s S e c ti o n s = 1 6’ Wi d e Undercro s si n g E x a m pl e Trailhead Pl a z a Wi t h Seating, T y p.HWY85Stevens Creek T r a i l Middlefie l d Overhead 0 1 5’ 3 0’ 6 0’ Higher Vi si bili t y C r o s s w al k E x a m pl e 30 MPH Enlargem e n t L e g e n d Primary V ol t a g e O v e r h e a d Seconda r y V ol t a g e O v e r h e a d Drainage Di t c h ( W h e n C o v e r e d) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study178Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 Please return your packet to the sign-in table Thank you for your participation! Please join us again for: Community Meeting #3 Wednesday, June 6, 2018 6:00pm – 8:00pm Cupertino Community Hall 10350 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 Do you have any other comments about the project? Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 179Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #3 Questionnaire 17056_CommMtg#3_Questionnaire.indd June 6, 2018 • Travel to each of the stations • Provide Input • Enjoy the refreshments • Ask us lots of questions Junipero Serra Trail 1. Did you attend Community Meeting #1 or Community Meeting #2? Circle one. Only, Community Meeting #1 Only, Community Meeting #2 Both, Community Meeting #1 and #2 Neither A. B. C. D. 3. How would you use the trail? Circle all that apply. Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other: A. B. C. D. E. 4. Do you live or work in Cupertino? Circle one. I live in Cupertino I work in Cupertino I live and workin Cupertino I do not live orwork in Cupertino A. B. C. D. Community Meeting #3 - Questionnaire How to get started I. General Background II. Input 2. Do you support a trail at this location? Circle one. Yes No A. B. 1. What aspects of the trail design do you like? What do you like about the proposed trail? 2. How can the proposed trail be improved? 3. Do you have any other comments about the project? Please return this questionaire to the sign-in station. Thank you for your participation! June 6, 2018 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study180Appendix this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 181 Input Board for Diwali Festival Pop-Up Booth THE LOOPCupertino Share Your Thoughts! 17056_AlternativesInputQuestions.indd April 21, 2018 Do you support a trail at this location? 1 Yes How would you use the trail? 3 Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other No Do you live next to the trail? 2 Yes No Which trail alternative do you prefer? 4 Alternative #1 Alternative #2 At Stelling Road, what type of crossing do you prefer? 5 Crosswalk On Stelling Rd. At De Anza Boulevard, what type of crossing do you prefer? 6 Both Crossing Options Grade-Separated Crossing Under Stelling Rd. Bridge Crossing Over De Anza Blvd. Existing Crosswalk Across De Anza Blvd. Tunnel Crossing Under De Anza Blvd. Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study182 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 183Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts • Cost: significantly more for alternative #2. Use: Alternative #1 will be used multi-use anyway. • Wider, multi-purpose, dream big - one time cost • Wider trail, safety that someone not going to fall in ditch. • Safety • Multi Use - Bike and Pedestrian • Safety, traffic, parking, noise, lack of privacy, Increase of strangers in the area • No bikes, lighting, noise, less privacy, security • Open Space. It would provide a better experience. • Impact of people and traffic • Aesthetics, Width-allows easier bike + pedestrian traffic • Separation from traffic • Allowing bicycles on the trail is vital in order for the trail to provide a good commuting alternative • Potential users; impact on privacy, security of residents along trail; reversibility; potential impact to water authority activities • More room for ped and bike • Trail width • I like the extra width provided by Alt #2, but I think Alt #1 would be much simpler and less expensive which will help it happen! Would particularly be concerned about limiting water flow or complicating maintenance when covering the ditch. Alt#2 also adds some additional green buffer to neighbors, but I don’t think this will be a problem after it is constructed • Safety, security, noise impact, privacy for those houses impacted • This is the “aging of America” (I don’t think this is being considered). The aged are not going to be riding bicycles (nor walking over bridges/trails) to get to their medical appointments or bring home groceries, etc. We have enough bicycle/access infiltrating our area, bringing in outsiders. These “designs” will impact the quiet enjoyment of our homes even more!! • Walking along a trail built right next to a major highway is not something of great appeal; physical and environmental safety concerns (i.e. fumes from many motor vehicles, noise) will not be great appeal; Building and maintaining such a trail, built next to a major highway will be much more expensive? What is the projected cost? • The proposed trail would run directly behind my house, it would impact my privacy as well as increase the noise level • Safety of existing redwood trees along 280; presence of bikes and pedestrians on same trail - how safe? • For the second alternative, there is more space for people to commute to work, or go on a family walk. For people going to work, it is a longer commute by bike without the trail • It would be cosmetically nicer and it might keep out any random undesirable smells • I am concerned about security for property owners next to the trail. As is, there is graffiti on I-280 sound wall • Multi-use trail more useful than narrow pedestrian only trail • It is wider, it looks nicer, there is more greenery • This is for Apple-only and don’t care about us who live next to the trail • Consistent width, avoids falling in ditches, more visually appealing, avoids conflict with location on PG&E poles, especially in Station #4 area • Width! The wider trail is safer to allow pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, etc. What factors impact your decision selecting a trail alternative? 16% 55% 29% #1 #2 Neither Which alternative do you prefer? Do you live next to the trail? Do you have children that would use the trail? 16% 55% 29% #1 #2 Neither 62% 38% Yes No 19% 72% 9% Possibly in the Future Community Meeting #1 Overall Input Community Meeting #2 Overall Input 26% 35%4% 35% 0% 1. Safety and security 2. Trail access 3. Trail amenities 4. Connections to other bike and pedestrian facilities 5. Other 26% 35%4% 35% 0% 1. Safety and security 2. Trail access 3. Trail amenities 4. Connections to other bike and pedestrian facilities 5. Other 8% 17% 0% 50% 25%1. Never 2. Once a year 3. Once a month 4. Once a week 5. More than once a week 8% 17% 0% 50% 25%1. Never 2. Once a year 3. Once a month 4. Once a week 5. More than once a week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Suitability for Commuting to Work 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Desirablility 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Suitability for Going to School Suitability Going To SchoolSuitability For Commuting To WorkOverall Desirability TRAIL SEGMENT 1 TRAIL SEGMENT 2 TRAIL SEGMENT 3 0 1 2 3 4 5LOW HIGH How would you use this trail? 72% 14% 7% 7% 1. Walking/Jogging/Biking 2. Commuting to work 3. Taking children to school 4. None of the above 72% 14% 7% 7% 1. Walking/Jogging/Biking 2. Commuting to work 3. Taking children to school 4. None of the above How often do you currently use a trail system elsewhere? Regarding trail development, what’s most important to you? Circle all that apply. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5# OF RESPONDENTS58% 42% Yes No Input Packet Yes No Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study184Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts General Project Comments • Great handout! Do this again. • Make it a world class trail. Heart of Silicon Valley must look good. Plant new trees. • Should be trail that represents Cupertino. Home of Apple. Best of best shall be created. • My property backs up to the trail between Mary and Stelling. I currently see the trail used by PG&E. My concerns are: 1. liability - I have tall trees that have dropped branches on the trail. 2. Safety - giving easier access to my back yard. 3. Privacy - I have no fence (just chain link). I am not against the bike/ped path, just want my concerns addressed. • This part of Cupertino has been impacted enough by the freeway, the schools, Apple and it’s employees. • We are very worried about safety, security, privacy. Homestead high school kids jumping the fence (which they do), homeless, smokers, drugs and nuisance. • It’s a shame that Apple can cause such a project to be contemplated that would impact the residents of this area. • I support alternate #2 for Mary to De Anza Blvd. • Very supportive. Good luck! • Please, please build it! This trail would remove a lot of local commuting traffic off the roads (Apple employees between campuses, students to De Anza college…) and provide a great off-street recreational alternative within the city (jogger, dog walkers...). Provide trash cans along trail : dog walkers; drinking fountains at trail ends would be great bonus • Consider if paving is necessary. No lights - encourage dawn to dusk use; Consider Alternative #1 as a pilot which could be expanded if use of trail becomes high. • Seems like there needs to be more thought about intermediate access points. The major points are too far apart. While I favor choices that reduce cost and complexity, I would encourage setting standards for trail width - there are too many narrow pinch points identified already. Please spend the money to widen where needed. • I am extremely concerned about safety, privacy, and noise issues. Currently, we have a lot of people hanging out at 2am during summer nights at the Mary Avenue Bridge trail head, located directly behind my house. 1) I am extremely concerned this trail will add to the noise we experience. 2) Make sure security is enforced after dusk (when officers are not busy with school patrolling). We already clean up broken glass bottles in our yards. 3) We are concerned about any trash, debris items that can be thrown over the fence into our backyards. 4) Can existing bike bridge be used to access 280 per alternative #2 near Mary Avenue? This would perhaps reduce capital costs. • All-in-all, do not think this to be a very worthwhile project. Probably very expensive and lacking in widespread appeal. Walkers, joggers, or cycling along trail next to major highway not very appealing, especially at times of rush-hour traffic. • I am totally opposed to the construction of the trail • Super • Very good graphics and presentation of trail options. Please keep the redwood trees along 280 • Really make sure Apple campus 1 and 2 have good connection to path • Please think about possibly separating bikers and pedestrians if the trail becomes crowded, in the future • Why do I and my neighbors have to suffer because the city can’t say no to Apple • Mile Markers (1/4 mile markers), security cameras in key areas and convex mirrors for blind corners, all for safety. Please make an effort to tie into the new signage style proposed for the City’s Bike Boulevards, including “destination” signs indicating what is near the access points. Post a 25 mph speed limit (or less). Allow E-bikes with 25 mph max speed. Prohibit other motorized vehicles (gas, diesel, etc.). I LIKE HAVING A CROSS- TOWN CONNECTION OFF OF THE BUSY STREET LIKE STEVENS CREEK • When it opens, safety & security has to be very good to “set the tone” of the project. If people think it is not safe they won’t use it or let their kids use it. Prevent Apple bikes from riding 2-3-4 across & taking over the path like we currently see them, do on our neighborhood streets like Vista Drive. (Comments provided via email after both community meetings) • After briefly reviewing the online story boards, I believe that accompanying trail construction, permit parking must be extended to the entirety of Lucille between Blaney and Apple. Lucille already has the occasional Apple employee parking and is used daily for Employees to smoke at the cul de sac at Apple. The neighborhood is permit parking because of the Apple overflow, and active vehicle commuters on Lucille is inconsistent with the trail’s use for the three schools nearby. Also, if smoking is not allowed on the trail, then it somehow should be restricted in the neighborhood. Apple doesn’t allow smoking on their campus, and if they think the trail bordering their property is also non-smoking, they will be driving smokers into the neighborhood which is unacceptable. We already have employees parking on Lucille then coming back to the area to smoke during breaks. • I just learned about a potential bike path along the Junipero Serra Channel. This is exciting, as it would give bicycles a protected way to get from Mary to Tantau. Currently, if you’re near 280, you need to go to Homestead or Stevens Creek to go between Blaney and Wolfe. This change would encourage more bicycling, getting even more cars off the roadways. Hope you find some common ground with the water district and Caltrans to get this done. Of course, it would be great if the road crossings weren’t at grade, but I’ll leave that to the experts. Project Background, Goals and Objectives • Goal 4 - Have the trail access along I-280 be strictly for bike traffic. That way bike riders can travel at a faster speed. This would be good for people commuting on bikes between Apple Campus (Sunnyvale) and Apple Campus 2 (Tantau). • If pedestrian and bikes are on the same trial, the bikes need to go slower and pedestrians need to understand how to go on a trail with bikes Flip Chart Input Packet Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 185Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd • Wider, bike friendly • Do the right thing. If trail is not proper and wide it won’t be usable and people won’t use it. Having wider trail is right idea. • Safety • Multi Use, wider trail • Security, noise, lighting, privacy • Terrible proposal • Width of the trail being better for multiple uses - pedestrian and bicycles; plant a new tree or bush to replace tree removed. • Maintain trees along residences • Slope is more natural and pleasing. In an emergency, trail users can leave the trail by climbing the slope; sharp easement feels walled in. • Security underpass area • Pleasant landscaping • Easier, cheaper, better • Again, making a choice for a simpler solution has a better chance of getting approved and built; I would encourage you to maintain as much natural screening as possible and NOT excavate more to create neighbor isolation; the perception of the negative is greater than the reality • Why can’t the existing Mary Ave. bridge on-ramp be used to access trail? That will reduce the project costs. Alternative 2 is my second choice, do not support Alternative 1 • See former page [Trail Design] • Concerns over expense of such a project versus the benefit to public. Do not believe this project will have a great deal of appeal to most people • I am not in favor of either alternative especially because it will be right behind our house/property. This trail would be an invasion of my privacy. The foot and bike traffic would result in noise and debris left on the trail • Amount of water flowing in ditch • Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have parkour skills, which most people don’t). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and next to a hillside, it would be nicer • It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :) • Multi-use of bicycles • Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail • Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic • Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area. • Restroom, Water station, bench, camera, lighting, mile marker, safety patrol, website to promote • Putting water, parking spaces, lighting, maybe restrooms near parks is a good idea. • You should plan trail on ‘storage’ side at pedestrian bridge • Consider collaborating with residences to improve robustness of fences along trail • Amenities for bikers and walkers here please! Benches and congregating spaces here would be great (mini-park). Keep those away from the neighbors though • Concerns over effects and disruption to the local residents, especially over Alternative #1 • Have police on bike patrol at the Stelling undercrossing to deter loitering and theft and graffiti • Concerned w/ safety for trail users, particularly with potentially being in a secluded area out of plain sight, by the Loc-N-Stor • Safety - it seems secluded. Add mirrors for blind spots. • Amount of water flowing in ditch • Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have parkour skills, which most people don’t). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and next to a hillside, it would be nicer • It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :) • Multi-use of bicycles • Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail • Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic • Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area. What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative (Mary Ave Alternative)? Do you have any additional comments about the Mary Ave Trail access point? Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts 6% 65% 29% #1 #2 Neither At Mary Ave., which alternative do you prefer? Would you use Mary Avenue Bridge to connect to his trail system? 16% 55% 29% #1 #2 Neither 35% 21% 44%#1 #2 Maybe Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard) Input Packet • Pedestrian Trail: concern about buffering Comments on Mary Avenue Bridge Enlargement Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study186Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd • Safety, security #1 issue. Graffiti already there. Had a burglary. • Connect to Stevens Creek Trail to the west? • Trail on north side of 280 • No monitoring of ex. Plaza. Needs monitoring. Use cameras. • Concern about beacon crossing stopping traffic on Stelling. Concern about safety. Low visibility southbound. • Do a soundwall for safety and privacy. • Light for night use. • Amenities, drinking fountains, seating, “dream big” • Security cameras at problem/key areas. • Traffic stacks at Stelling. • Concern over liability of trees dropping branches • Graffiti • Privacy & security • Stats on crime - how will police monitor • Parking will be issue • Leave redwoods • Why paved? Leave gravel • No lights • Homeless, privacy, security • Alt 2 viable? • Do we need a trail? Is demand there? For Apple employees? Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard) Input Packet (cont.) Flip Chart Comments on Trail Segment 1 Plan • This is heavy traffic area, option C is better. Least preferred choice is A. • Stelling is extremely busy at rush hour in morning and evening. A surface crosswalk would be a disaster • Not option B: will cause traffic backups on Stelling. Will cause safety issues. Also the bridge railing when traveling south on Stelling blocks sight line to the trail toward the west making it much less safe. • For biking on busy streets, like Stelling, separation is very important to induce casual/weekend bicyclists • Crosswalk good for pedestrian access and in case of flooding (?) • Traffic on Stelling is heavy and depends on events at De Anza College. A crosswalk is likely to be overlooked (note crosswalk near Quinlan); A Stelling Road entrance to the bike path is likely to influence and impact traffic on Stelling • Very noisy • Very clever solution, if possible and affordable • Both please! Don’t know if Stelling will be a big turning point, the underpass path would obstruct people wanting to get on Stelling. The crosswalk support will be nominal in cost for the benefit • Apple employees have access to trail from campus and not on streets!!! • Security of undercrossing • A crosswalk across Stelling Road will make traffic on Stelling much worse than now. The traffic is bad enough now with traffic from Gardena Dr., Greenleaf, and the apartment complex feeding into Stelling. During peak hours, traffic can back into Hollenbeck in the north and all the way to Stevens Creek Blvd to the south • Both would be great, but any of the options seems workable • For long distance bike riders, it is much faster to have a grade-separated crossing, it is also safer • Very concerned about a crosswalk and the interaction with traffic - especially during school drop-off/pick-up and during rush hour • If you can’t do #1C then do #1A. Do not do just 1B! Add mirrors for blind spots. Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail seg- ment (Stelling Road Crossing)? 36% 8% 56% Grade-separated Crossing Crosswalk Both 36% 8% 56% Grade-separated Crossing Crosswalk Both At Stelling Rd., what crossing type do you prefer? Comments on Stelling Road Crossing Enlargement • Concerns at Lucille Trailhead: • Safety • Parking (unwanted!) • Traffic • Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime) • Apple employees (this project is for Apple only) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 187Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts Trail Segment #2 (De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center) Input Packet 43% 50% 7% Bridge Tunnel Existing At De Anza Blvd., what crossing type do you prefer? Would you support removal of the existing crosswalk across De Anza Blvd, if a bridge or tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided? Regarding trail access and amenities, which of the following do you support? 43% 50% 7% Bridge Tunnel Existing 21% 31% 48% Yes No Maybe 39% 32% 29% Do you have any additional comments abou the Station #4 trail segment? Flip Chart • Concerns at Lucille Trailhead: • Safety • Parking (unwanted!) • Traffic • Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime) • Apple employees (this project is for Apple only) Comments on Trail Segment 2 Plan • Blaney avenue: don’t block • Blaney impacted by traffic • Concern bringing kids through an already congested area. • Keep fence to prohibit access from Lucille • Drive kids to school due to speeding cars • One access point may be ok • No sidewalk • Lucille not under some parking permit. Needs to be included in permit program • Will trail encourage parking on Lucille? • Lots of Apple bikes • Can you provide access here? For Lawson & Apple • Need access to Apple to Trail • Two access points • Speeding traffic to school • Use mirrors for blind spots • Call boxes along trail. Emergency. • Bike runnels at stairs? • Can we have police cameras on the trail • Consider security of users in tunnel crossing • Access for Apple employees to trail & the streets • Would not preclude Alt 2 in the future • Look @ stair channels • Must have direct Apple access (infinite loop) to trail, to reduce bikes on Randy Ln/Larry Way. Limit access points to two: One east of Randy, (just far enough away from Apple to discourage parking) and one at Blaney. This grade-level proposal for crossing at Blaney is great. • Right next to my house. Privacy concerns. Live on Larry/Lucille. • Privacy, parking, traffic are concerns for residents of Lucille, Larry and Randy. 1: Consider wall to help with privacy. 2: Big no to any access points on Lucille Ave. • Not familiar with this section so no comment. • No trail access on Blaney/Lucille • Maintain fence - ideally make opaque for privacy. Make Lucille permitted parking M-F like Randy and Larry. Need frequent garbage clean up. Limited access - far from apple side to prevent parking problems. Maintain access under bridge for car traffic. Need police patrol for safety. • I support none of these. I live here and would be impacted. • Maintenance of trash can emptying would be very important • Multiple access points make the trail more usable for people living in the neighborhood, and would provide trail users route options • Informal trail access could serve as a pilot and could be upgraded if the trail use supports expansion • Some convenience but less cost • I prefer tunnel over bridge at De Anza mainly because of reduced elevation gain/loss; Use box culvert only when needed for trail width • Mostly just need trailhead here; benches would be the only amenities needed • How is security mentioned? Security patrol? How about people using trail for “hanging out”? • Don’t care… • As shown • Get Apple off the streets; safer alternatives for walkers/bikers; be mindful of neighborhood • Section east of Blaney - no soundwall; trail users protection form vehicles leaving the road • Provide access to Portal Ave. through CalWater site • I live next to the trail on Randy Lane; trail would cause such a problem for traffic and people, let alone criminal activity • Consider adding Trailhead/access point at the end of Lucille adjacent to the Apple campus. Work with Apple to create a linkage to Lawson Middle School along the edge of the Apple property, parallel to Larry Way, It would be nice to have some way to go directly from the trail up to the Blaney overpass. • Do not put the additional access points in the middle of Lucille. Trail amenities needed: a map of trail, a beach, mile markers, lighting. Extra security around the main entrance & under the bridge. There has been tagging & dumping (mattresses, etc) in this area. Keep the road (Lucille) open under the bridge. Do not close it. The neighborhood relies on it to get to Homestead without having to cross Blaney. Critical to AM/PM traffic flow & school traffic. Comments on Blaney Ave/ Lucille Ave Crossing Enlargement • Concerns at Lucille Trailhead: • Safety • Parking (unwanted!) • Traffic • Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime) • Apple employees (this project is for Apple only) Multiple Trail Access Pointsand Trailhead withGreater Levels of Amenities Single Trail Access Point and Trailhead with Limited Trail Amenities Informal Trail Access and No Trailheads or Trail Amenities Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study188Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd General Station #5 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 trail segment? • Keep Crossing at Wolfe not competing with cross traffic • This trail is for apple only. What a shame. • Be sure the contractor of Vallco includes space for bikeway • Perhaps stipulate that a proper multi-use trail along the south and east edges of hotel development be included in future development there. • The proposed path behind the new hotel is bad! It’s still under construction - is there a way to create a path (or alternative path) that passes in front of hotel tracing Perimeter Road. • Nice • Have Vallco future pay for access to trail and out of neighborhood!!! Access to trail from Vallco itself not in neighborhood at all! • It is important to keep redwoods along 280 intact behind Hyatt House and property behind the old Macys. Will there be public creek trail along Calabazas Creek from 280 and Calabazas intersection to the Calabazas and Vallco Parkway intersection? One portion of the creek trail mentioned above along the small portion of Calabazas Creek should be both pedestrian and bike. • Provide easy access to hotel for residents and guests. Use CalWater area for access to Portal Ave. • East-west connectivity for bikes between Blaney and Tantau is important, especially with Pruneridge gone • Underpass is good • Make all sections of it as wide as possible to allow lots of multi-uses & improve safety. Add mirrors for blind spots & destination signs. Trail Segment #3 (Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway) Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 Trail Segment? Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts Input Packet Comments on Trail Segment 3 Plan Flip Chart Comments on Stelling Road Crossing Enlargement • Access for Guests & Visitors • No e-bikes (more than 25 mph) • No motorized • Allow e-bikes, speed < 25 mph • Concerns at Lucille Trailhead: • Safety • Parking (unwanted!) • Traffic • Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime) • Apple employees (this project is for Apple only) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 189Appendix Document Review BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email February 26, 2018 MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu FROM: Jana Schwartz, Designer Dave Rubin, Project Manager Callander Associates RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo The Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study is evaluating the feasibility of a trail segment that supports a bicycle and pedestrian connection south of and roughly parallel to Interstate 280 between Mary Avenue and Tantau Avenue. This trail segment is a part of a larger vision plan, called the “Loop”, for a bicycle and pedestrian network within the City of Cupertino, as well as a greater regional planning effort. The study includes providing background on the project history, goals, and relationship to existing plans and other relevant documents. This memo provides a summary of relevance to other planning efforts and describes how the Junipero Serra Trail aligns with previous planning efforts and standards, as well as any additional findings that would affect trail development. Documents Reviewed Standards Reviewed Local Planning Efforts Cupertino General Plan (2015) Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan (2016) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) South Vallco Connectivity Plan (2014) Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Regional Planning Efforts Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study (2015) Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (1995) Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis (2015) VTA Bikeways Map D (Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos) (2016) Santa Clara County I-280 Corridor Study (2017) The trail is envisioned as a 2.88 mile-long off-street, multi-use trail and serve as the City of Cupertino’s first east/west off-street transportation corridor. The City views this trail project as a high-priority and would like to see the trail allow for the shared use of bicycle and pedestrian users. A majority of the trail runs adjacent to a drainage ditch, owned by SCVWD. The proposed trail has a limited number of street crossings, located at Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Wolfe Road. There are underground and overhead utilities, identified by partnering agencies PG&E and CalWater. Overhead transmission lines run roughly parallel to the proposed trail west of Blaney Avenue. Underground utilities, such as water and gas mains have been identified and planned for in the development of the preferred trail alignment. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study190Appendix Document Review Memo RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo February 26, 2018 Page 2 of 4 17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Local planning efforts that correlate with this study include the Cupertino General Plan (Land Use and Community Design, Mobility, Parks and Open Space), City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, Santa Clara County I-280 Corridor Study, and the South Vallco Connectivity Plan. Each of these plans encompasses the geographical study area and includes goals and objectives that have been reviewed and complimented by the study. Each of these plans has overarching goals that hit on two main ideas: 1.Improving connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians by creating a multi-modal transportation network. 2.Enhancing accessibility and safety for bicycles and pedestrians through trail design and maintenance. Each of these plans provides a framework for the trail to align with and contribute towards the City- wide goal of elevating bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The South Vallco Connectivity Plan focuses on a specific section of the study area and provides information about the Vallco redevelopment project. The timeline of this effort coincides with this study and a final decision on the outcome of the Vallco project is unknown. Thus, the study will need to work in parallel with the final plan for the Vallco development to include a trail system as contemplated in this study. Regional planning efforts have created plans that work together to strengthen the regional bicycle and pedestrian network. Documents that were reviewed include the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study, Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Update, Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis, and VTA Bikeways Map D (Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos). To balance the identity and goals of each jurisdiction, many of the regional plans relied on a city’s general plan for city-specific information. The Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study referenced the City of Cupertino General Plan from 2000. Information about City facilities and demographic information has been updated in the recent General Plan from 2015. The other regional plans take a similar snapshot of the Santa Clara County region and highlight bicycle and pedestrian facilities and opportunities to connect and expand the network. Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis summarizes the existing and potential trail reaches. This document, as well as the VTA Bikeways Map D, do not include the study area and only identify the Stevens Creek Trail and on-street connections as major bicycle and pedestrian projects for the City. More recent planning efforts, like the Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan (to be released spring 2018) and VTA’s Santa Clara Countywide Bike Plan (in-progress) have been asked to include the study area in textual and graphic depictions of trail opportunities. Standards that were reviewed are also across jurisdictions and not specific to the City of Cupertino. The review of standards ensures the safety of trail users and compliance with related entities. Since the trail is located in SCVWD right-of-way and includes PG&E facilities, standards related to maintenance and access were reviewed before proposing design alternatives. PG&E Standards 4.4.4 Vertical Clearance Table 4-3, “Vertical Clearance From the Ground on Nonresidential Property,” located below, provides the minimum vertical distance (in feet) from the ground on nonresidential property. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 191Appendix Document Review Memo RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo February 26, 2018 Page 3 of 4 17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Table 4-3 Vertical Clearance From the Ground on Nonresidential Property1 Description Minimum Vertical Distance (In Feet) Over private driveways, lanes, and other areas (e.g., alleys and parking lots) accessible to vehicles. 16 Over areas accessible to pedestrians only. 12 Over buildings and bridges, or over structures (attached or unattached) that do not ordinarily support conductors and on which people can walk.8 1 Clearance requirements may be different than local electrical codes. −4.4.4A-1: Normal radial clearance: a minimum of 24 inches. −4.4.4A-2: Within 15 feet of the point of attachment on a building or structure: the normal radial clearances may be reduced to a minimum of 12 inches. 4.10 Required Vegetation Clearances −4.10.1 General Requirements: For electric distribution, high-voltage lines rated up to 60,000 volts, applicants must establish a 15-foot “low-growth” zone on both sides of all new lines. Also applicants must not plant trees that exceed 25 feet in height at maturity under or within 15 feet of distribution power poles. SCVWD Standards Most of the guidelines and details, which are specifically related to streams, grading and riparian resources, have been excerpted from the document, Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use and Management Guidelines (UD) (April 15, 1999), which was prepared by the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. −To control trail use and prevent environmental damage, the design should include barriers such as fences, vegetation, stiles and fallen trees. (UD – 1.3.1.3) −Use existing maintenance trails, access route and levees wherever possible to minimize impacts of new construction in riparian zones (UD – 1.3.2.3) −Trail use will generally be limited to the hours between dawn and dusk to minimize impacts to wildlife. −Lighting of trails should be avoided. Exceptions include security lighting in downtown commercial and entertainment areas where lighting should be minimized. −Surface water shall be diverted from trails by cross sloping the trail tread between 2 and 3%. (UD – 3.5.4) −Do not locate irrigation systems within 2 feet of the edge of the trail. Irrigation for turf areas around a trail should use only a pop-up variety of irrigation head. To avoid erosion and undercutting of the trail, the irrigation system should be controlled so that only incidental spray might reach the trail surface and edge. (UD – 3.5.6) −Select plants for streamside areas that do not require irrigation beyond an establishment period. −Use permeable pavements where possible. −Where overland direction of drainage away from the creek is constrained, provide positive drainage. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study192Appendix Document Review Memo RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo February 26, 2018 Page 4 of 4 17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. The study area is almost entirely within the City of Cupertino but would have regional and local benefits as a transportation and recreational corridor. Due to the location of the study area, the local planning efforts and the standards provide the most guidance for implementing a trail at this location. The regional planning efforts should include this study area to best illustrate the collective bicycle and pedestrian network. The trail study area does not connect directly with any other regional trail system, but there are potential future connections that may be captured in future development plans. - END - Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 193Appendix Public Outreach Outline BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email September 15, 2017 MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu FROM: Dave Rubin Callander Associates RE: I-280 CHANNEL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY/ Public Outreach Outline Below is an outline of all outreach events, as listed in the project scope. Details for each event are described to help anticipate the necessary materials and preparation. Details with “TBD” shall be discussed and decided on between the City of Cupertino (City) and Callander Associates (CA). Community Events (2) When: 9/17 – 4/18 Where: Pop-up style at City events •Diwali Festival – September 30, 2017 •Earth Day – April 2018 Who: CA, City, Community What: Outreach materials, table banner, map of site/specific sections, meeting newsletter, pop-up tent, link to on-line resources, on-line survey link (?), balloons/eye catcher Why: Generate project interest, publicize upcoming meetings, and discuss project objectives TAC Meeting #1 When: Wednesday Nov. 29, 2017, 630pm to 8pm (scope: 11/27-12/1) Where: Working meeting; City Hall – Conference Room C Who: CA, City, TAC Members What: Review project purpose, background, and Public Meeting #1 materials Why: Gather input and apply edits to materials prior to public meeting, discuss next steps Public Meeting #1 When: Wednesday Dec. 6, 2017, 6pm to 8pm (scope: 12/4-12/8) Where: Quinlan Community Center – Cupertino Room Who: CA, City, Community, Commission and Council Members What: Existing conditions, local/regional context, goals and objectives, opportunity and constraints, initial public reactions, refreshments, on-line survey link Why: Listen to public input, discuss project objectives (short and long term), next steps TAC Meeting #2 When: Monday Feb. 12, 2017, 630pm to 8pm (scope: 2/12-2/16) Where: Working meeting; City Hall – Conference Room C Who: CA, City, TAC Members Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study194Appendix Public Outreach Plan BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email August 22, 2017 MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu FROM: Dave Rubin Callander Associates RE: I-280 CHANNEL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY/ Public Outreach Plan Below is the language to be used on promotional materials for upcoming meetings. Items include, but are not limited to, meeting newsletter, meeting postcard, social media, utility mailer, and NextDoor postings. Dates for these events shall be confirmed by 9/15. Document Text: Large Text: We want to hear from you! Come share your thoughts! Sub Text: Please join us to review trail alignment plans to help build connections in Cupertino. A series of community meetings have been planned for you to provide input on a proposed trail system near I- 280 and participate in improving the pedestrian and bicycle network near you! Upcoming events: Pop-Up Events •West Coast Farmers’ Market | Cupertino Oaks Shopping Center, October 15, 2017 9am to 1 pm •Silicon Valley Fall Festival | Memorial Park in Cupertino, September 9, 2017 from 10am to 5pm Public Meeting #1 •Cupertino Public Library (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|December 5, 2017, 6pm to 8pm Public Meeting #2a •Homestead High School (21370 Homestead Rd, Cupertino, CA 95014)|February 20, 2017, 4pm to 8pm Public Meeting #2b City Hall (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|March 1, 2018, 4pm to 8pm Bike and Pedestrian Commission Meeting #1 City Council Meeting #1 Public Meeting #3 •Cupertino Public Library (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|June 6, 2017, 4pm to 8pm Bike and Pedestrian Commission Meeting #2 Park and Recreation Commission Planning Commission City Council Meeting #2 Thank you. - END - Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 195Appendix this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study196Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo 160 W. Santa Clara Street | Suite 675 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: October 3, 2018 To: David Rubin, Callander Associates Landscape Architects From: Steve Davis, PE, Fehr & Peers Subject: Alternatives Evaluation for Junipero Serra Trail Crossing at De Anza Boulevard Cupertino, California SJ17-1771 The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of a traffic operational analysis conducted to evaluate alternatives for an at-grade crossing of De Anza Boulevard for the proposed Junipero Serra Trail in Cupertino, California. It is our understanding that the City of Cupertino prefers a grade-separated crossing for the Junipero Serra Trail at De Anza Boulevard. However, due to construction and logistical challenges, a grade-separated alternative may not be feasible. The potential at-grade crossing would be provided at the location of the existing crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection of De Anza Boulevard with the Southbound Interstate 280 (I-280) Ramps. EXISTING CONDITIONS The intersection of De Anza Boulevard, which is oriented north-south, and the Southbound I-280 Ramps, which are oriented one-way eastbound, is signalized with crosswalks provided on the east, west, and south legs. The existing lane configuration and turning movement volumes from counts collected in December 2017 during the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours are shown in Figure 1. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 197Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Figure 1: Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configuration Fehr & Peers conducted field reconnaissance at this location to identify signal timing and phasing as well as overall traffic operational characteristics during the AM and PM peak periods as part of the Vallco Specific Plan EIR project. The eastbound approach of the Southbound I-280 Off-ramp operates concurrently with the parallel pedestrian crossing across De Anza Boulevard as depicted in Figure 2. This arrangement is most efficient for vehicle operations given the existing geometry, but results in a high potential for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles since eastbound right turns from two lanes occur during the pedestrian “walk” signal phase. These concurrent movements increase the risk for collisions involving pedestrians as well as rear-end crashes resulting from vehicles unexpectedly stopping to wait for pedestrians. Figure 2: Existing Signal Phase Sequence Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study198Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 3 of 6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Due to the potential for collisions, high level of pedestrian exposure, and anticipated increase in usage of the at-grade crossing with the completion of the Junipero Serra Trail, it is desirable to modify the intersection to minimize interactions between modes. As such, two project alternatives have been developed for consideration: Alternative 1 – No physical improvements would be constructed, but signal phasing would be modified such that the eastbound right-turn movement and pedestrian crossings would not be in conflict. As the eastbound approach has a shared left/through/right-turn lane, all movements on this approach would continue to operate together as a standalone phase and pedestrian crossings of De Anza Boulevard would operate concurrently wit h the southbound left turn as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Proposed Alternative 1 Signal Phase Sequence Alternative 2 – An additional lane would be constructed on the Southbound I-280 Off-ramp, as shown in Attachment A, to provide a left-turn lane, shared left-turn/through lane, and two dedicated right-turn lanes. This change would allow separate signal phases for the right-turn movement and the shared left-turn/through movement, making it possible for the crosswalk phase to operate concurrently with the eastbound left-turn/through movement as shown in Figure 4. Eastbound right turns and southbound left turns would operate concurrently in this alternative. Figure 4: Proposed Alternative 2 Signal Phase Sequence Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 199Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 4 of 6 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic operations were evaluated for the existing (no- build) conditions and two project alternatives using the HCM 2000 methodology included in Synchro 10 software. Level of Service The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, the best operating conditions, to LOS F, the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents “at-capacity” operations. When traffic volumes exceed the intersection capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated as LOS F. The method described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) was used to prepare the level of service calculations for the subject intersection. This level of service method, which is approved by the City of Cupertino and VTA, analyzes a signalized intersection’s operation based on average control delay per vehicle. Control delay includes the initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study200Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 5 of 6 TABLE 1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS USING AVERAGE CONTROL VEHICULAR DELAY Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 55.1 to 80.0 F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, October 2014; VTA Congestion Management Program, June 2003; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Analysis Results The Existing operating conditions as well as anticipated operated conditions for Alternatives 1 and 2 are presented in Table 2. HCM 2000 capacity analysis outputs can be found in Attachment B. As can be seen, the intersection generally operates acceptably in the Existing condition with LOS D or better during both peak periods. Operations would degrade with the implementation of Alternative 1 due to less efficient signal timing constraining overall intersection capacity. Overall delay would remain relatively consistent compared to Existing Conditions with the implementation of Alternative 2 as the reduction in efficiency caused by modified traffic signal phasing is largely offset by the increase in physical capacity associated with ramp widening. Additionally, the separation of left-turn/through and right-turn traffic signal phases in Alternative 2 would allow more efficient signal phasing than proposed in Alternative 1. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 201Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 6 of 6 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Alternative AM PM Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing 38.7 D 34.3 C Alternative 1 78.5 E 48.9 D Alternative 2 38.2 D 35.4 D Source: Fehr & Peers (2018) FINDINGS Based on the analysis the following can be concluded: • This existing intersection configuration at De Anza Boulevard and the Southbound I-280 Ramps, while most efficient for vehicle operations, results in a high potential for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles since eastbound right turns from two lanes occur during the parallel pedestrian “walk” signal phase. • Alternative 1 would not include any physical improvements, but signal phasing would be modified such that the eastbound right turn and pedestrian crossings would not be in conflict. It is anticipated this would result in a degradation of traffic operations at the intersection. • Alternative 2 would include the construction of an additional lane on the Southbound I- 280 Off-ramp, resulting in a left-turn lane, shared left-turn/through lane, and two dedicated right-turn lanes. This change would allow separate signal phases for the right-turn movement and the shared left-turn/through movement, making it possible for the crosswalk phase to operate concurrently with the eastbound left-turn/through movement. Overall intersection delay would remain relatively consistent with Existing Conditions in this scenario. • As a result of the above, Fehr & Peers recommends Alternative 2 should an at-grade crossing be pursued for the Junipero Serra Trail at De Anza Boulevard. Attachment A – Proposed Alternative 2 Concept Attachment B – HCM 2000 Capacity Analysis Outputs Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study202Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 2, 2018 Attachment A Proposed Alternative 2 Concept AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 203 De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study204 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 205Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 2, 2018 Attachment B HCM 2000 Capacity Analysis Outputs Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study206Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Configuration 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1452 1448 7471 1443 3400 5036 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1452 1448 7471 1443 3400 5036 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 26 0 0 0 0 0 282 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 517 477 447 0 0 0 0 1636 142 619 1554 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 6 52 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 48.4 48.4 48.4 43.6 43.6 26.0 73.6 Effective Green, g (s) 48.4 48.4 48.4 43.6 43.6 26.0 73.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.34 0.20 0.57 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 619 540 539 2505 483 680 2851 v/s Ratio Prot 0.31 c0.33 c0.22 c0.18 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.88 0.83 0.65 0.29 0.91 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 37.2 38.2 37.0 36.8 31.9 50.9 17.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 15.7 10.2 1.3 1.5 18.4 0.8 Delay (s)46.7 53.8 47.2 38.1 33.4 69.3 18.4 Level of Service D D D DCEB Approach Delay (s)49.2 0.0 37.1 32.9 Approach LOS D A D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 207Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Existing PM Exisiting Configuration 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 0.94 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1430 1413 7544 1514 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1430 1413 7544 1514 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 303 270 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 6 52 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 54.0 54.0 36.0 94.0 Effective Green, g (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 54.0 54.0 36.0 94.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.39 0.39 0.26 0.67 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 456 388 383 2909 583 882 3414 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.21 0.26 0.13 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 c0.35 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.78 0.70 0.68 0.92 0.50 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 47.2 45.9 35.9 40.9 44.3 13.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 9.8 5.8 1.3 21.7 2.0 0.9 Delay (s)51.0 57.0 51.7 37.2 62.6 46.4 14.1 Level of Service D E D DEDB Approach Delay (s)53.2 0.0 42.6 19.5 Approach LOS D A D B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study208Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Existing AM Option 1 Configuration 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1443 1435 7471 1443 3400 5036 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1443 1435 7471 1443 3400 5036 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 64 371 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 517 426 102 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 3 6 5 8 2 Permitted Phases 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.0 28.0 28.0 41.7 41.7 48.3 50.7 Effective Green, g (s) 28.0 28.0 28.0 41.7 41.7 48.3 50.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.39 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 358 310 309 2396 462 1263 1964 v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 0.29 0.22 c0.18 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.29 v/c Ratio 1.44 1.37 0.33 0.68 0.92 0.49 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 51.0 43.1 38.4 42.5 31.4 35.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 215.1 187.1 0.6 1.6 25.7 0.3 3.4 Delay (s)266.1 238.1 43.7 40.0 68.2 31.7 38.3 Level of Service F F D DECD Approach Delay (s)185.7 0.0 45.8 36.4 Approach LOS F A D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 78.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Alternative 1 AM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 209Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Existing PM Option 1 with Extended Cycle Length 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.93 0.90 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1388 1355 7544 1514 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1388 1355 7544 1514 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 69 247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 240 51 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 3 6 5 8 2 Permitted Phases 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 57.6 57.6 46.4 66.6 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 57.6 57.6 46.4 66.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.33 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 288 237 232 3103 622 1137 2419 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.17 0.26 c0.13 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.35 v/c Ratio 1.12 1.01 0.22 0.64 0.86 0.39 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 58.0 58.0 49.9 32.9 37.5 35.9 33.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 89.8 62.0 0.5 1.0 14.5 0.2 5.7 Delay (s)147.8 120.0 50.4 34.0 52.0 36.1 39.2 Level of Service F F D CDDD Approach Delay (s)107.4 0.0 37.8 38.7 Approach LOS F A D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Alternative 1 PM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study210Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Option 2 Existing AM 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1669 2760 7471 1443 3400 5036 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1669 2760 7471 1443 3400 5036 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 652 0 0 0 0 0 241 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 331 334 163 0 0 0 0 1636 183 619 1554 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Split NA custom NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 1!6!5! 2! Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 26.0 56.0 56.0 26.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 26.0 56.0 56.0 26.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.43 0.43 0.20 0.43 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 461 462 552 3218 621 680 2169 v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.20 0.06 0.22 c0.18 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.30 0.51 0.29 0.91 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 42.5 44.2 27.0 24.1 50.9 30.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.3 5.5 1.4 0.6 1.2 18.4 2.1 Delay (s)47.7 48.0 45.6 27.5 25.3 69.3 32.5 Level of Service D D D CCEC Approach Delay (s)46.6 0.0 27.1 43.0 Approach LOS D A C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Alternative 2 AM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 211Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Existing PM Option 2 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1696 2787 7544 1514 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1696 2787 7544 1514 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 206 97 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12 Turn Type Split NA custom NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 1!6!5! 2! Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.6 32.6 26.0 69.4 69.4 26.0 69.4 Effective Green, g (s) 32.6 32.6 26.0 69.4 69.4 26.0 69.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.50 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 391 394 517 3739 750 637 2520 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.12 0.03 0.26 c0.13 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.52 0.19 0.53 0.71 0.69 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 46.8 46.9 48.1 24.2 27.5 53.3 31.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.5 5.7 6.1 4.1 Delay (s)47.9 48.2 48.9 24.7 33.3 59.4 35.1 Level of Service D D D CCED Approach Delay (s)48.5 0.0 26.5 39.2 Approach LOS D A C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Alternative 2 PM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study212Appendix this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 213 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al A Pr o j ec t St ar t -Up 1.Bonding and mobilization 8%LS Allow $118,452 Allow $121,184 Allow $76,128 2.Construction staking $10,000.00 LS Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 3.Temporary construction fencing $5.00 LF 200 $1,000 460 $2,300 1,440 $7,200 4.Traffic control $20,000.00 LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 5.Tree protection and pruning Allow LS Allow $5,000 Allow $5,000 Allow $2,500 $154,450 $158,480 $115,830 $428,760 B Dem o l i t io n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 70,000 $52,500 70,400 $52,800 68,800 $51,600 2.Chain link fence $10.00 LF 35 $350 1,050 $10,500 20 $200 3.Wood fence at Mary Ave $10.00 LF 490 $4,900 0 $0 0 $0 4.Chain link gate $500.00 EA 3 $1,500 4 $2,000 2 $1,000 5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 7 $5,250 0 $0 0 $0 $64,500 $65,300 $52,800 $182,600 C Gr ad i n g & Dr ai n ag e 1.Rough grading, 8" depth $30.00 CY 1,730 $51,900 1,750 $52,500 1,670 $50,100 2.Adjust manholes and vaults to grade $25,000.00 LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 3.Soil off haul, 8" depth min.$50.00 CY 1,730 $86,500 1,750 $87,500 1,670 $83,500 $163,400 $165,000 $158,600 $487,000 D Er o s i o n Co n t r o l 1.Temporary construction entrance $3,000.00 LS Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 2.Fiber rolls $4.00 LF 5,100 $20,400 4,000 $16,000 3,500 $14,000 3.SWPPP maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 $48,400 $44,000 $42,000 $134,400 E Tr ai l & Sit e Fu r n i s h i n g s 1.Asphalt path including base rock, 10' average width $5.00 SF 52,230 $261,150 52,860 $264,300 51,600 $258,000 2.Asphalt shoulder, 2' wide both sides $5.00 LF 6,200 $31,000 4,400 $22,000 7,000 $35,000 3.Striping, on-trail $2.00 LF 5,600 $11,200 4,400 $8,800 4,300 $8,600 4.Decorative concrete pavement at trailhead $30.00 SF 480 $14,400 2,700 $81,000 2,300 $69,000 5.Retaining curb $50.00 LF 5,100 $255,000 4,400 $220,000 4,000 $200,000 6.Retaining wall (height varies, see plan)$200.00 LF 375 $75,000 0 $0 0 $0 7.Concrete seatwall at trailhead $300.00 LF 30 $9,000 120 $36,000 70 $21,000 8.Signal timing upgrades at De Anza (base project)Allow LS 0 $0 1 $30,000 0 $0 9.Flashing beacon and crosswalk at Stelling (base project) $50,000.00 EA 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 10.Intersection modifications at Vallco Parkway trailhead Allow LS 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 11.Curb and gutter $45.00 LF 0 $0 400 $18,000 160 $7,200 12.Curb ramp $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 1 $3,500 Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #1 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y 17056_CE_Alt#1.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.1 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study214 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 215 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #1 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y 13.Interpretive sign $6,000.00 EA 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 14.Dog waste bag dispenser $1,200.00 EA 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 15.Trash receptacle $1,500.00 EA 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 16.Trail directional signage $500.00 EA 2 $1,000 2 $1,000 2 $1,000 17.Security and privacy wood fence, 8'$100,000.00 LS Allow $100,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $0 18.Barrier railing, 4'$60.00 LF 5,600 $336,000 5,400 $324,000 0 $0 19.Chainlink fence, 6'$60.00 LF 70 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0 20.Vehicular crash barrier $100.00 LF 0 $0 75 $7,500 0 $0 21.Trail map sign $2,000.00 EA 2 $4,000 2 $4,000 2 $4,000 22.Collapsible bollard $1,000.00 EA 3 $3,000 4 $4,000 3 $3,000 $1,174,850 $1,140,500 $673,200 $2,988,550 F Pl an t i n g & Ir r i g at io n 1.Soil preparation, irrigation, planting, maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $25,000 2.Tree, 24" box $500.00 EA 9 $4,500 0 $0 0 $0 $29,500 $100,000 $25,000 $154,500 G Co n s t r u c t i o n Su b -To t al , B as e Pr o j ec t $1,635,100 $1,673,280 $1,067,430 $4,375,810 H Des i g n Co n t i n g en c y 15%LS Allow $245,265 Allow $250,992 Allow $160,115 $245,270 $250,990 $160,110 $656,370 I ANTICIPATED L OW B ID, B as e Pr o j ec t $1,880,370 $1,924,270 $1,227,540 $5,032,180 J Co n s t r u c t i o n Co n t i n g en c y 10%LS Allow $188,037 Allow $192,427 Allow $122,754 $188,040 $192,430 $122,750 $503,220 K Es c al at io n (3% p er yr f o r 3 y ear s )9%LS Allow $169,233 Allow $173,184 Allow $110,479 $169,230 $173,180 $110,480 $452,890 L TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS, B ASE PROJ ECT $2,237,640 $2,289,880 $1,460,770 $5,988,290 M Pr o f es s i o n al Ser v ic es , B as e Pr o j ec t 1.Topographic survey Allow LS Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 2.Geotechnical services Allow LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 3.Design development 3%LS Allow $67,129 Allow $68,696 Allow $43,823 17056_CE_Alt#1.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.2 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study216 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 217 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un it Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #1 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 4.Construction documents and permitting 8%LS Allow $179,011 Allow $183,190 Allow $116,862 5.Bidding and construction administration 3%LS Allow $67,129 Allow $68,696 Allow $43,823 6.Testing and special inspection 1%LS Allow $22,376 Allow $22,899 Allow $14,608 7.Environmental documentation (MND), assumes no NEPA Allow LS Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 $405,650 $413,480 $289,120 $1,108,250 N TOTAL B ASE PROJ ECT COSTS $2,643,290 $2,703,360 $1,749,890 $7,096,540 O St el l i n g Un d er c r o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 13,380 $10,035 0 $0 0 $0 2.Chain link fence removal $50.00 LF 30 $1,500 0 $0 0 $0 3.Tree removal $750.00 EA 10 $7,500 0 $0 0 $0 4.Rough grading, 8" depth $50.00 CY 250 $12,500 0 $0 0 $0 5.Soil off-haul, 8" depth $100.00 CY 250 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0 6.Barrier fence $100.00 LF 460 $46,000 0 $0 0 $0 7.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 4,600 $115,000 0 $0 0 $0 8.Retaining wall $400.00 LF 840 $336,000 0 $0 0 $0 9.Striping, on-trail $5.00 LF 840 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0 10.Security lighting $40,000.00 LS Allow $40,000 0 $0 0 $0 11.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0 12.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $59,774 Allow $0 Allow $0 13.Inflation 9%LS Allow $53,796 Allow $0 Allow $0 14.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0 $890,630 $0 $0 $890,630 P De An za Ped es t r i an B r i d g e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 19,700 $14,775 0 $0 2.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 12 $9,000 0 $0 3.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0 4.Pedestrian bridge, approaches, stairs, support columns and railing $8,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $8,000,000 0 $0 5.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 730 $912,500 0 $0 17056_CE_Alt#1.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.3 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study218 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 219 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #1 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y 6.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10' wide $5.25 SF 0 $0 7,300 $38,325 0 $0 7.Security lighting $60,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $60,000 0 $0 8.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0 9.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,003,460 Allow $0 10.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $903,114 Allow $0 11.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0 $0 $14,951,550 $0 $14,951,550 Q DeAn za Tu n n el Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 16,900 $12,675 0 $0 2.Chain link fence removal $10.00 LF 0 $0 170 $1,700 0 $0 3.Underground utility relocation $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0 4.Tunnel drainage $150,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $150,000 Allow $0 5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0 6.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0 7.Tunnel, stairs, approaches, railings $12,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $12,000,000 0 $0 8.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 450 $562,500 0 $0 9.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10' wide $5.25 SF 0 $0 4,500 $23,625 0 $0 10.Skylight $10,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $10,000 0 $0 11.Chain link fence $60.00 LF 0 $0 200 $12,000 0 $0 12.Property acquisition costs $8,000,000.00 Acre 0 $0 0.05 $400,000 0 $0 13.Security lighting $200,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $200,000 0 $0 14.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0 15.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,487,400 Allow $0 16.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,338,660 Allow $0 17.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0 $0 $22,162,260 $0 $22,162,260 R DeAn za At -g r ad e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 6,550 $4,913 0 $0 2.Curb removal $15.00 LF 0 $0 220 $3,300 0 $0 3.Concrete removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 1,500 $4,500 0 $0 4.Asphalt removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 480 $1,440 0 $0 5.Sawcut $5.00 LF 0 $0 280 $1,400 0 $0 17056_CE_Alt#1.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.4 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study220 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 221 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #1 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y 6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0 7.Traffic signal modification $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0 8.Traffic sign relocation $7,500.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $7,500 0 $0 9.Asphalt pavement $5.00 SF 0 $0 5,200 $26,000 0 $0 10.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 0 $0 3,400 $85,000 0 $0 11.Concrete ramp $2,500.00 EA 0 $0 4 $10,000 0 $0 12.Concrete curb and gutter $70.00 LF 0 $0 200 $14,000 0 $0 13.Retaining wall, max. 4'$500.00 LF 0 $0 360 $180,000 0 $0 14.Traffic striping $5,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $5,000 0 $0 15.Relocate irrigation $25,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $25,000 0 $0 16.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0 17.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $86,955 Allow $0 18.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $78,260 Allow $0 19.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0 $0 $1,295,630 $0 $1,295,630 The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices. B as ed o n d r aw i n g s en t it l ed "Al t er n at i v e Al i g n m en t Pl an ", d at ed "2/20/2018" 17056_CE_Alt#1.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.5 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study222 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 223 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al A Pr o j ec t St ar t -Up 1.Bonding and mobilization 8%LS Allow $471,460 Allow $817,824 Allow $77,536 2.Construction staking $10,000.00 LS Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 3.Temporary construction fencing $5.00 LF 200 $1,000 460 $2,300 1,440 $7,200 4.Traffic control $20,000.00 LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 5.Tree protection and pruning Allow LS Allow $5,000 Allow $5,000 Allow $2,500 $507,460 $855,120 $117,240 $1,479,820 B Dem o l i t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 67,800 $50,850 70,400 $52,800 68,800 $51,600 2.Concrete lined ditch $30.00 LF 5,260 $157,800 5,030 $150,900 0 $0 3.Chain link fence $10.00 LF 35 $350 1,050 $10,500 20 $200 4.Wood fence at Mary Ave $10.00 LF 490 $4,900 0 $0 0 $0 5.Chain link gate $500.00 EA 3 $1,500 4 $2,000 2 $1,000 6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 7 $5,250 0 $0 0 $0 $220,650 $216,200 $52,800 $489,650 C Gr ad i n g & Dr ai n ag e 1.Rough grading, 8" depth $30.00 CY 1,680 $50,400 1,750 $52,500 1,670 $50,100 2.Adjust manholes and vaults to grade $25,000.00 LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 3.Earthwork at box culvert Allow LS Allow $50,000 Allow $50,000 Allow $0 4.Drainage re-connections to box culvert Allow LS Allow $50,000 Allow $50,000 Allow $0 5.Soil off haul, 8" depth min.$50.00 CY 1,680 $84,000 1,750 $87,500 1,670 $83,500 $259,400 $265,000 $158,600 $683,000 D Er o s i o n Co n t r o l 1.Temporary construction entrance $3,000.00 LS Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 2.Fiber rolls $4.00 LF 5,100 $20,400 4,000 $16,000 3,500 $14,000 3.SWPPP maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 $48,400 $44,000 $42,000 $134,400 E Tr ai l & Si t e Fu r n i s h i n g s 1.Asphalt lift over box culvert, 4" deep $2.50 SF 62,940 $157,350 52,800 $132,000 8,400 $21,000 2.Asphalt pavement over agg base $5.00 SF 4,230 $21,150 8,800 $44,000 43,800 $219,000 3.DG shoulder, 2' wide both sides $4.00 LF 22,400 $89,600 17,600 $70,400 17,200 $68,800 4.4'x4' box culvert $500.00 LF 2,710 $1,355,000 0 $0 0 $0 5.5'x8' box culvert $1,250.00 LF 2,550 $3,187,500 0 $0 0 $0 6.6'x10' box culvert $1,750.00 LF 0 $0 5,030 $8,802,500 0 $0 7.Striping, on-trail $2.00 LF 5,600 $11,200 4,400 $8,800 4,300 $8,600 8.Decorative concrete pavement at trailhead $30.00 SF 480 $14,400 2,700 $81,000 2,300 $69,000 9.Retaining curb $50.00 LF 5,100 $255,000 4,400 $220,000 4,000 $200,000 10.Retaining wall (height varies)$200.00 LF 220 $44,000 0 $0 0 $0 11.Concrete seatwall at trailhead $300.00 LF 30 $9,000 120 $36,000 70 $21,000 12.Signal timing upgrades at De Anza (base project)Allow LS 0 $0 1 $30,000 0 $0 Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #2 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B lv d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 17056_CE_Alt#2.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.1 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study224 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 225 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #2 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 13.Flashing beacon and crosswalk at Stelling (base project) $50,000.00 EA 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 14.Intersection modifications at Vallco Parkway trailhead Allow LS 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 15.Curb and gutter $45.00 LF 0 $0 400 $18,000 0 $0 16.Curb ramp $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 1 $3,500 17.Interpretive sign $6,000.00 EA 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 18.Dog waste bag dispenser $1,200.00 EA 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 19.Trash receptacle $1,500.00 EA 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 20.Trail directional signage $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 21.Security and privacy wood fence, 8' tall $100,000.00 LS Allow $100,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $0 22.Chainlink fence, 6'$60.00 LF 70 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0 23.Vehicular crash barrier $200.00 LF 0 $0 75 $15,000 0 $0 24.Trail map sign $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 25.Collapsible bollard $1,000.00 EA 3 $3,000 6 $6,000 3 $3,000 $5,335,300 $9,597,600 $690,800 $15,623,700 F Pl an t i n g & Ir r i g at i o n 1.Soil preparation, irrigation, planting, maintenance Allow LS 25,000 $25,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $25,000 2.Tree, 24" box $500.00 EA 9 $4,500 0 $0 0 $0 $29,500 $100,000 $25,000 $154,500 G Co n s t r u c t i o n Su b -To t al , B as e Pr o j ec t $6,400,710 $11,077,920 $1,086,440 $18,565,070 H Des i g n Co n t i n g en c y 15%LS Allow $960,107 Allow $1,661,688 Allow $162,966 $960,110 $1,661,690 $162,970 $2,784,770 I ANTICIPATED L OW B ID, B as e Pr o j ec t $7,360,820 $12,739,610 $1,249,410 $21,349,840 J Co n s t r u c t i o n Co n t i n g en c y 10%LS Allow $736,082 Allow $1,273,961 Allow $124,941 $736,080 $1,273,960 $124,940 $2,134,980 K Es c al at i o n (3% p er y r f o r 3 y ear s )9%LS Allow $662,474 Allow $1,146,565 Allow $112,447 $662,470 $1,146,560 $112,450 $1,921,480 L TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS, B ASE PROJ ECT $8,759,370 $15,160,130 $1,486,800 $25,406,300 M Pr o f es s i o n al Ser v i c es , B as e Pr o j ec t 17056_CE_Alt#2.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.2 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study226 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 227 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #2 Mar y Av e t o De An za B lv d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 1.Topographic survey Allow LS Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 2.Geotechnical services Allow LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 3.Design development 3%LS Allow $262,781 Allow $454,804 Allow $44,604 4.Construction documents and permitting 8%LS Allow $700,750 Allow $1,212,810 Allow $118,944 5.Bidding and construction administration 3%LS Allow $262,781 Allow $454,804 Allow $44,604 6.Testing and special inspection 1%LS Allow $87,594 Allow $151,601 Allow $14,868 7.Environmental documentation (MND), assumes no NEPA Allow LS Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 $1,383,910 $2,344,020 $293,020 $4,020,950 N TOTAL B ASE PROJ ECT COSTS $10,143,280 $17,504,150 $1,779,820 $29,427,250 O St el l i n g Un d er c r o s s in g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 13,380 $10,035 0 $0 0 $0 2.Chain link fence removal $50.00 LF 30 $1,500 0 $0 0 $0 3.Tree removal $750.00 EA 10 $7,500 0 $0 0 $0 4.Rough grading, 8" depth $50.00 CY 250 $12,500 0 $0 0 $0 5.Soil off-haul, 8" depth $100.00 CY 250 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0 6.Barrier fence $100.00 LF 460 $46,000 0 $0 0 $0 7.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 4,600 $115,000 0 $0 0 $0 8.Retaining wall $400.00 LF 840 $336,000 0 $0 0 $0 9.Striping, on-trail $5.00 LF 840 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0 10.Security lighting $40,000.00 LS Allow $40,000 0 $0 0 $0 11.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0 12.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $59,774 Allow $0 Allow $0 13.Inflation 9%LS Allow $53,796 Allow $0 Allow $0 14.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0 $890,630 $0 $0 $890,630 P De An za Ped es t r i an B r i d g e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 19,700 $14,775 0 $0 2.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 12 $9,000 0 $0 3.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0 4.Pedestrian bridge, approaches, stairs, support columns and railing $8,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $8,000,000 0 $0 17056_CE_Alt#2.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.3 of 5 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study228 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 229 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #2 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 5.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 730 $912,500 0 $0 6.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10' wide $5.25 SF 0 $0 7,300 $38,325 0 $0 7.Security lighting $60,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $60,000 0 $0 8.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0 9.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,003,460 Allow $0 10.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $903,114 Allow $0 11.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0 $0 $14,951,550 $0 $14,951,550 Q DeAn za Tu n n el Cr o s s i n g Op t io n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 16,900 $12,675 0 $0 2.Chain link fence removal $10.00 LF 0 $0 170 $1,700 0 $0 3.Underground utility relocation $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0 4.Tunnel drainage $150,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $150,000 Allow $0 5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0 6.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0 7.Tunnel, stairs, approaches, railings $12,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $12,000,000 0 $0 8.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 450 $562,500 0 $0 9.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10' wide $5.25 SF 0 $0 4,500 $23,625 0 $0 10.Skylight $10,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $10,000 0 $0 11.Chain link fence $60.00 LF 0 $0 200 $12,000 0 $0 12.Property acquisition costs $8,000,000.00 Acre 0 $0 0.05 $400,000 0 $0 12.Security lighting $200,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $200,000 0 $0 13.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0 14.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,487,400 Allow $0 15.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,338,660 Allow $0 16.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0 $0 $22,162,260 $0 $22,162,260 R DeAn za At -g r ad e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 6,550 $4,913 0 $0 2.Curb removal $15.00 LF 0 $0 220 $3,300 0 $0 3.Concrete removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 1,500 $4,500 0 $0 17056_CE_Alt#2.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.4 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study230 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 231 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #2 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 4.Asphalt removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 480 $1,440 0 $0 5.Sawcut $5.00 LF 0 $0 280 $1,400 0 $0 6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0 7.Traffic signal modification $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0 8.Traffic sign relocation $7,500.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $7,500 0 $0 9.Asphalt pavement $5.00 SF 0 $0 5,200 $26,000 0 $0 10.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 0 $0 3,400 $85,000 0 $0 11.Concrete ramp $2,500.00 EA 0 $0 4 $10,000 0 $0 12.Concrete curb and gutter $70.00 LF 0 $0 200 $14,000 0 $0 13.Retaining wall, max. 4'$500.00 LF 0 $0 360 $180,000 0 $0 14.Traffic striping $5,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $5,000 0 $0 15.Relocate irrigation $25,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $25,000 0 $0 16.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0 17.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $86,955 Allow $0 18.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $78,260 Allow $0 19.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0 $0 $1,295,630 $0 $1,295,630 The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices. B as ed o n d r aw i n g s en t i t l ed "Al t er n at i v e Al i g n m en t Pl an ", d at ed "2/20/2018" 17056_CE_Alt#2.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.5 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study232 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 233Appendix Engineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for Box Culvert for Alternative #2 Date:24-Apr-18 Project #:617052 Project:I-280 Channel trail Prepared By:DPH Engineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount 1 Earthwork (subgrade prep)SF 53240 $0.50 $26,620 TOTAL $26,620 Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount 2 4'x4' Box Culvert LF 2686 $500.00 $1,343,000 3 8'x5' Box Culvert LF 2532 $1,250.00 $3,165,000 4 10'x6' Box Culvert LF 2224 $1,750.00 $3,892,000 TOTAL $8,400,000 Notes: EARTHWORK STORM DRAINAGE 1. This Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs should be used only as a guide. There is no responsibility assumed for fluctuations in cost or quantity of material, labor or components. 1 of 1 X:\P\617052\(4) ENGINEERING\(1) DOCUMENTS\STUDIES & REPORTS\2018-04-24 I280 Cost Estimate.xlsx Date:24-Apr-18Project #:617052Project:I-280 Channel trailPrepared By:DPHEngineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount 1 Earthwork (subgrade prep)SF 53240 $0.50 $26,620 TOTAL $26,620 Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount 2 4'x4' Box Culvert LF 2686 $500.00 $1,343,000 3 8'x5' Box Culvert LF 2532 $1,250.00 $3,165,000 4 10'x6' Box Culvert LF 2224 $1,750.00 $3,892,000 TOTAL $8,400,000 Notes: EARTHWORK STORM DRAINAGE 1. This Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs should be used only as a guide. There is no responsibility assumed for fluctuations in cost or quantity of material, labor or components. 1 of 1 X:\P\617052\(4) ENGINEERING\(1) DOCUMENTS\STUDIES & REPORTS\2018-04-24 I280 Cost Estimate.xlsx Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study234Appendix this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 235 Enlargement LegendDe Anza BoulevardInterstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p 0 15’30’60’ Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide PG&E Tower To Remain PG&E Tower To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide Caltrans Easement Stairs to Bridge Over-Crossing, Typ. Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Trailhead Plaza, Typ. Bridge Over-Crossing Traffic Light to be Relocated Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide Over Covered Channel Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Utility Box to be Relocated Pull Out to be Removed Cobra Light to be Relocated Existing Property Fence, Apple 40 MPH Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Centerline Culvert Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to Remain Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study236 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 237 Enlargement Legend 0 15’30’60’ Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Centerline Culvert Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to be Removed De Anza BoulevardInterstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide PG&E Tower To Remain Stairs to Bridge Over-Crossing, Typ. Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Trailhead Plaza, Typ. Bridge Over-Crossing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Relocated PG&E Tower PG&E Tower To Be Removed Existing Property Fence, Apple 40 MPH Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study238 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 239Appendix City of Sunnyvale Comments November 12, 2018 Jennifer Chu, Associate Civil Engineer City of Cupertino Public Works 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Comments for the Draft Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Dear Jennifer: Thank you for allowing the City of Sunnyvale to review and provide comments for the Draft Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study in the City of Cupertino. Comments concerning the draft feasibility study are as follows: 1. On pages 15 and 17, the City Limits symbol shown on the legend do not match the City Limits show on the figures. We truly appreciate your consideration of our comments in this matter. Please keep us up-to-date on any trail development. You can reach me by email at ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov or by phone at 408-730-7556. Sincerely, Lillian Tsang, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer Division of Transportation and Traffic Department of Public Work Cc: Shahid Abbas, Transportation and Traffic Manager Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study240Appendix Caltrans Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 241Appendix Caltrans Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study242Appendix Caltrans Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 243Appendix Caltrans Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study244Appendix SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 245Appendix SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study246Appendix SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 247Appendix SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study248Appendix December 18, 2018 Ms. Lillian Tsang, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer City of Sunnyvale, Public Works 456 W Olive Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Response Letter to City of Sunnyvale 11/12/18 Comments Dear Ms. Tsang, The City of Cupertino would like to thank City of Sunnyvale staff for their participation in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and guidance provided throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. We look forward to continuing to work with Sunnyvale as this project moves forward. Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address Sunnyvale comments which were received on November 12, 2018. The City has provided the following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made. Sunnyvale comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics. 1)On Pages 15 and 17, the City Limits symbol shown on the legend do not match the City Limits shown on the figures. The City Limits have been revised to match. Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237. Sincerely, Jennifer Chu, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Public Works Department Reponse to City of Sunnyvale Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 249Appendix Reponse to City of Sunnyvale Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 2 cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman City of Sunnyvale – Shahid Abbas Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study250Appendix Reponse to Caltrans Comments December 18, 2018 Mr. Sergio Ruiz Pedestrian & Bicycle Coordinator, Branch Chief Caltrans District 4 111 Grand Ave Oakland, CA 94612 Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Response Letter to Caltrans 11/13/18 Comments Dear Mr. Ruiz, The City of Cupertino would like to thank Caltrans District 4 staff for their participation in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and guidance provided throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. We look forward to continuing to work with Caltrans as this project moves forward. Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address Caltrans comments which were received on November 13, 2018. The City has provided the following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made. Caltrans comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics. 1)What signal timing and phasing was set up in the model? Were demand volumes inputted into the traffic operations analysis model or are intersection output counts being used only? Traffic models require demand volumes as input. This area looks pretty congested so intersection output counts may not give you the true demand that is trying to use this intersection and the delay and LOS could be worse than what is being stated here. In addition, include the 95th percentile queuing results for existing and with project conditions in the report. If adjacent intersection operations or ramp meters are affecting the traffic flow at this intersection, then this would also need to be captured as a system analysis using the SimTraffic software model in order to reflect the true operations of this intersection. The preliminary traffic evaluation referenced in the feasibility study was performed utilizing traffic signal timing measured during on-site observations during the morning and afternoon peak periods. Volumes utilized for this effort were Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 251Appendix Reponse to Caltrans Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 2 intersection output counts and only the study intersection was included for the purpose of evaluating high-level feasibility for an at-grade crossing solution where the proposed trail intersects De Anza Blvd. City staff is anticipating to seek City Council approval of the study in February 2019. Should City Council decide to approve the study and fund the engineering design of the trail to include an at-grade crossing solution at De Anza Blvd, then the City understands that design, and ultimately implementation, of geometric modifications would require the completion of traffic operations analyses scoped in coordination with Caltrans staff. Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237. Sincerely, Jennifer Chu, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Public Works Department cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study252Appendix Reponse to SCVWD Comments December 18, 2018 Ms. Yvonne Arroyo Associate Engineer, Community Projects Review Unit Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Response Letter to SCVWD 11/26/18 Comments Dear Ms. Arroyo, The City of Cupertino would like to thank Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff for their participation in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and guidance provided throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. We look forward to continuing to work with the District as this project moves forward. Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address the District comments which were received on November 26, 2018. The City has provided the following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made. District comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics. 1)Page 1, “Executive Summary”: The executive summary states that Alternative #2 is the preferred alternative. Alternative #2 would enclose Junipero Serra Channel in a box culvert. District staff has preliminarily agreed to this concept if the City accepts all right of way and maintenance of the facility as part of the City storm drain system prior to construction of any improvements, subject to approval from the District's Board of Directors. This section has been revised as noted. 2)Page 22, "Trail Access": This section states "Direct access to the trail may be desired by Apple for its employees." For the portion of the trail along Calabazas Creek, public access should be limited to the trailhead at Vallco Parkway (Figure 3-15) in order that the District may control public access to the creek during operation and maintenance Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 253Appendix Reponse to SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 2 activities. Additionally, if Alternative 2 is not chosen, then similar controlled public access points should be provided along the Junipero Serra Channel. This section has been revised as noted. 3)Page 23, "CalTrans": This section should also mention that Caltrans reserved ingress- egress rights over the District's fee title right of way for Junipero Serra Channel when they transferred the right of way to the District. Caltrans may need to also review and approve any plans that could affect their ingress-egress rights. This section has been revised as noted. 4)Page 26, "Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD):" This section should reflect that the proposed guard rail barrier or fencing along Junipero Serra Channel in Alternative #1 is not acceptable to the District due to the significant adverse effects on maintenance operations, rather than just a concern. Other alternatives to address any safety concerns should be explored. This section has been revised as noted. City staff is anticipating to seek City Council approval of the study in February 2019. Should City Council decide to approve the study and fund the engineering design phase of the trail to include Alternative #1, then City staff will continue to work with SCVWD staff for alternative edge treatments for pedestrian protection. For this reason, the guard rails are still shown in all Alternative #1 graphics. The discussion on alternative #2 should be revised to reflect that SCVWD staff has preliminarily agreed to alternative #2 upon the condition that the City of Cupertino (City) assume full ownership and maintenance of Junipero Serra Channel as part of the city storm drain system prior to any modifications being implemented. The transfer of the District's right of way and Junipero Serra Channel to the city is subject to prior approval by the District's Board of Directors. Additionally, regulatory approval will be needed from regulatory agencies, including US Army Corps of Engineers, California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section has been revised as noted. 5)Page 28, "Santa Clara Valley Water District": Please revise the second bullet point to reflect that the District will not approve physical barriers along Junipero Serra Channel, rather than it being a preference. This section has been revised as noted. 6)Page 29, "CalTrans": Caltrans approval may also be required for any changes to the District's fee title right of way for Junipero Serra Channel where they reserved ingress- egress easement. This section has been revised as noted. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study254Appendix Reponse to SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 3 7)Page 30, Trail Criteria and Standards: This section should include the trail design standards contained in the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and the District's Water Resources Protection Manual for portions of the trail on District right of way. This section has been revised as noted. 8)Page 40, Pedestrian Trail Alternative #1: Please see comment 4, above, for comments on Alternative #1. See response to Comment #4. 9)Page 40, Class I Multi-Use Trail Alternative #2: The text states "SCVWD has indicated that they do not maintain box culverts and that the City would need to assume maintenance and responsibility." This sentence should be revised to state "Maintenance of enclosed culverts or channels is not the District's expertise. If Alternative #2 is pursued by the city, the District will request that the city accept ownership and maintenance responsibility prior to project construction." The District suggests that the text and/or figures include the sizing of the box culvert and describe the maintenance activities that will be needed. This section has been revised as noted. 10)Page 40, Figure 4-3: On the portion of Junipero Serra Channel, generally east of Wolfe Road, where the channel is not proposed to be enclosed as part of Alternative #2, the District may still not allow guard railing or fencing along the top of bank where it would reduce the width of our maintenance road unacceptably or inhibit access to the channel for maintenance operations. Understood. The proposed guard rails are removed along the trail segment east of Wolfe Rd. 11)Page 41, Figure 4-4: Please see comment 4, above, for comments on Alternative #1. See response to Comment #4. 12)Page 51, Figure 4-9: The figure shows a proposed trail connection to the Junipero Serra Channel "within existing roadway easement." The alignment of the trail connection appears to be very similar to the alignment of a road easement the District previously quitclaimed in 1975 in exchange for a new ingress-egress easement through assessor parcel number 326-06-050. If the City has its own road easement at this location, then there is no issue. However, if the roadway easement is referring to our prior easement, then the trail connection will need to be redesigned or new right of way will need to be acquired by the City. Cupertino Loc-N-Stor (APN 326-06-050) is proposing to improve their property and has submitted preliminary plans for City review. This section has been revised to clarify that any improvements made to the Cupertino Loc-N-Stor property will not preclude trail development. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 255Appendix Reponse to SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 4 13)Page 72, Figure 4-29, Alternative 1: Please see comment 4, above, for comments on Alternative #1. See response to Comment #4. 14)Page 77, Segment 3-Vallco to Vallco Parkway: This section runs along Junipero Serra Channel from Wolfe Road to the Calabazas Creek confluence and then along the west bank of Calabazas Creek to Vallco Parkway. There is only one proposed alternative in this section due to the maintenance access road width of 14 feet or greater. The proposed channel and creek are to remain as is, but there are still fences or guard rails proposed along the bank in areas where the bank is steeper than 3:1 slope. Comment 4, above, is still applicable for the area along Junipero Serra Channel. The District's as- builts for Calabazas Creek show the bank was constructed at 3:1 between Highway 280 and Vallco Parkway, so the study should be revised to reflect this condition and remove reference to fencing. Additionally, District studies indicate the maintenance road along Calabazas Creek is below top of bank of the creek and subject to inundation approximately during 10-year storm events and greater. Improvements to the Calabazas Creek maintenance road will require approvals from regulatory agencies, including California State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section has been revised as noted and the proposed guard rails are removed from the graphics shown along the trail segment east of Wolfe Rd. 15)Page 84, Guard Rail Adjacent to Open Ditch: Again, please see comment 4 and 14 for comments regarding fencing and/or guard rails adjacent to Junipero Serra Channel or Calabazas Creek. See response to Comment #4 and #14. 16)Page 87, Summary Recommendations: This section states that a joint use agreement is only necessary if SCVWD retains ownership. This appears to be a reference to Alternative 2. However, even Alternative 2 includes a portion of Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek which will not be placed in a culvert and is assumed to be retained by the District (please clarify if that is not the City's understanding). Therefore, in any alternative, a joint use agreement with the District will be necessary. The City is in agreement with this understanding. This section has been revised to specify a joint use agreement with the District will be necessary in any alternative. 17)Page 97, TAC Meeting #1 Summary, Item 5: The District would like to clarify that the loss of access at Wolfe Road was due to the installation of a concrete guard rail, not a fallen tree. The meeting summary has been revised as noted. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study256Appendix Reponse to SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 5 Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237. Sincerely, Jennifer Chu, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Public Works Department cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman SCVWD – Usha Chatwani, Devin Mody, Cody Houston, Jennifer Codianne, Chad Grande Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 257Appendix this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study92Appendix Meeting Summaries Start Up Meeting Summary SCVWD Meeting Summary TAC Meeting #1 Summary Staff Meeting Summary Community Meeting #1 Summary CalWater Meeting Summary PG&E Meeting Summary CalTrans Meeting Summary TAC Meeting #2 Summary Community Meeting #2 Summary Community Meeting #3 Summary 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes Outreach Materials City Flier City Postcard City Door Hanger City Door Hanger for Portal Ave Residents CALA Hand Out Apple R.O.W. Acquisition Exhibit Sandis - Surveyor Box Culvert E-mail CalTrans Box Culvert Notes De Anza Blvd Overhead Wires Survey Input Materials Community Meeting #1 Input Packet Community Meeting #2 Input Packet Community Meeting #3 Questionnaire Input Board for Diwali Festival 94 94 96 98 102 104 112 114 116 118 122 136 148 152 152 153 154 155 156 157 159 159 163 165 167 167 171 179 181 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 93Appendix 6 183 183 189 189 193 194 196 213 213 223 233 235 235 237 239 239 240 244 248 248 250 252 Community Meeting #3 Materials What We Heard Boards Memos Document Review Public Outreach Outline Public Outreach Plan De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Cost Estimate Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Engineering Option of Probable Construction Costs for Box Culvert for Alternative #2 Draft De Anza Boulevard Crossings Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to Remain Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to be Removed TAC Comments on Draft Study City of Sunnyvale Comments Caltrans Comments SCVWD Comments City of Cupertino Responses to TAC Comments Response to City of Sunnyvale Comments Response to Caltrans Comments Response to SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study94Appendix Start Up Meeting Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via E-mail Only August 23, 2017 Meeting Summary I-280 Channel Trail Feasibility Study RE: Project Start-Up Meeting Date: Tuesday, 8/22/17 Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Site Walk: 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.) Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com A meeting was held to kick-off the project, review background information and materials needed, discuss project goals and objectives, and review the City’s preliminary thoughts on public outreach, branding, and TAC coordination. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in bold identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Discussed 1)City to send back executed agreement by 8/29 or soon after, CA submitted signed agreement to JC at meeting on 8/22. 2)Roles and Responsibilities a)CA to correspond through JC and copy DS b)City to correspond through DR and copy JS 3)Project Materials a)JC to request 2016 contours and aerial by 8/25 (received by CA on 8/23) b)CA to send link for contours and aerial to Sandis by 8/29 and ensure files are AutoCAD compatible c)JC to send link to assessors maps by 8/25 (received by CA on 8/23) d)CA to ask Sandis about materials needed by 8/25 and correspond with City e)Other planning efforts underway include: •Pedestrian Trail Guidelines (expected adoption later this year) •Countywide Bicycle Plan by VTA (late 2017) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 95Appendix Start Up Meeting Summary I-280 Channel Trail Feasibility Study RE: Project Start-Up Meeting August 22, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_StartUpMtg © copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Discussed •City to provide input from Parks and Recreation Master Plan (in-progress) f)CA to review City standard details, suggested by City 4)TAC Formation a)CA to separate invite for TAC and businesses/private owners, TAC will be agencies only b)DS to correspond with businesses/private owners •Likely businesses/private owners: −Apple −Loc-N-Stor −Vallco −HOAs c)CA to create directory by 9/30 for TAC and businesses/private owners 5)Public Outreach Plan a)City/CA to staff 2 community events (Diwali Festival-Sep., Earth Day-Apr.) b)Consider small community events (i.e. Farmers’ markets, Bike to Work Day) throughout study period to promote project. These would be attended by City staff c)City to select outreach dates/locations by 9/15 and reserve space for events d)CA to get notices out by 9/20, before Diwali Festival e)CA to send examples of prior notices/flyers by 8/23 for City to review 6)Branding a)City to review and provide feedback on branding by 8/30 •City to meet on 8/28 to review/discuss branding for the trail •City to discuss use of “The Loop” •City to suggest use of branding colors, font, graphic style from other City-signage programs b)City to send wayfinding signage example to CA from bike boulevard project (received by CA on 8/23) c)CA to provide branding alternatives by 9/13 for City to review and to incorporate in outreach materials - END - The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study96Appendix SCVWD Meeting Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 1, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: SCVWD Review Meeting Date: November 28, 2017 Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Attendees: SCVWD : Sue Tippets (ST), SCVWD, stippets@valleywater.org Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org Cody Houston (CH), SCVWD, chouston@valleywater.org Devin Mody (DM), SCVWD, dmody@valleywater.org Consultants: Jon Cacciotti (JCa), HMHca, jcacciotti@hmhca.com Jodi Starbird (JS), DJP, jstarbird@davidjpowers.com City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with SCVWD, gather technical input, and discuss design alternative options for the drainage ditch that runs parallel to the trail alignment study area. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take 1.SCVWD generally prefers no barrier between trails/maintenance roads and creeks. However, if there is a severe drop they would consider a low open barrier. CA to study edge conditions 2.SCVWD discussed the desire for "permeable pavement" use however during further discussion the intent is for more natural looking pavements. They talked about a recent project that Google did near Crittenden Bridge. CA to review example project Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 97Appendix SCVWD Meeting Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: SCVWD Review Meeting December 1, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_SCVWDMtg.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. 3.The Junipero Serra Creek was never a creek. The drainage ditch was constructed when I-280 was built. It was constructed by Caltrans then transferred over to the Water District. CA to remove “creek” from all materials 4.Would be open to considering an option that would replace the ditch with a closed pipe and buried. This should not be the only option studied. SCVWD expressed some hesitance with the maintenance of a closed pipe as they are more comfortable with maintaining open channels. CA to include covered and open alternative options -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study98Appendix TAC Meeting #1 Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 1, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #1 Date: November 29, 2017 Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Attendees: TAC Member: Richard Tanaka (RT), CSD/Mark Thomas, rtanaka@markthomas.com Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org Lauren Ledbetter (LL), VTA, lauren.ledbetter@vta.org Lillian Tsang (LT), City of Sunnyvale, ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org Ben Fu (BF), Planning, benjaminf@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review the project background and existing conditions of the site, discuss the trail alignment locations, and gather technical input and documents from the TAC members. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take 1.The Junipero Serra Trail (trail) has been identified as a high priority by City Council. The trail would be a recreational/transportation corridor. Apple has a large bicycle population that would likely use it. The trail supports Cupertino’s interconnectivity. Noted 2.SCVWD refers to the waterway in the corridor as a “drainage ditch”, it is not a natural channel. It was constructed in conjunction with the construction of I-280. Noted Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 99Appendix TAC Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #1 December 1, 2017 Page 2 of 3 17056_SUM_TACMtg#1.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 3. LL noted personal security concerns, lack of access points. Access points are identified on the site assessment plans; an access point at the CalWater facility is to be evaluated. Stevens Creek is a trail that also has limited access points, high volumes of users makes it feel safe. CA to review project with CalWater by 12/15 4. Treatment of trail crossings over major streets: Stelling is an on- street crossing with possible beacons; City is encouraging grade- separated crossing at De Anza; Blaney has a curve that creates pinch point; Vallco will be coordinated with concurrent planning projects. Noted 5. SCVWD has maintenance requirements in the corridor; need access for maintenance and vegetation management; installation of a concrete guard rail closed off access near Wolfe Rd. recently. Noted 6. Caltrans should have a hydraulic report available for I-280 that would elaborate on the drainage ditch. It is believed that the ditch was constructed to accommodate 100 year storm from overland flows, from the neighborhoods, intercepted before flowing onto the freeway. Waters from I-280 are not believed to be flowing into the drainage ditch. Caltrans turned responsibility over to SCVWD. CA to request hydraulic report and drawings for the ditch from Caltrans by 12/8 7. RT discussed CalWater 14” ACP water line at the confluence of the drainage ditch and the Calabazas Creek. Location of facilities is unknown. CalWater crosses the creek at image #30. Check 14’-0” trail width availability. CA to discuss with CalWater by 12/15 8. There is a sanitary easement adjacent to the SCVWD property in the vicinity of the Apple campus (photo images #13 - #20). There is an undersized 8” sewer line within the easement that the Sanitary District to upgrade to at least 12”. They are studying options. CA to review by 12/15 9. Sanitary District needs width of 8’-0” (HydroFlush truck capabilities); SCVWD will inform CA of width requirements/preference. UC to provide width requirements by 12/15 10. VTA is updating the Countywide Bike Plan now (available February 2018); trail eligible for 2016 Measure B, Safe Routes to School, and ATP funding. CA to review funding options with VTA and include in report estimate Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study100Appendix TAC Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #1 December 1, 2017 Page 3 of 3 17056_SUM_TACMtg#1.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 11.SCVWD is seeing a lot of challenges in dealing with trails – people want them available 24/7, but SCVWD has to occasionally close trail for maintenance. SCVWD has noticed impacts to riparian areas and trails are getting more constrained. There is a trend towards evaluating trails policy (CSJ developing Toolkit). SCVWD wants to review VTA Countywide Bike Plan when available to include SCVWD policies. SCVWD wants to stay away from lighting and bridge crossings. Noted 12.RT asked if the City would consider ownership of R.O.W. where trail is being proposed; it would be a multi-use trail over a drainage facility, not a flood control facility. City to review 13.VTA is managing Wolfe interchange project with HMH. No plans available yet; in environmental review phase (15-18 month timeline); not fully funded. Noted -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 101Appendix this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study102Appendix Staff Meeting Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 1, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Staff Meeting, Phone Call Date: November 30, 2017 Time: 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review TAC Meeting #1 and prepare for Community Meeting #1. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take TAC Meeting #1 1.VTA funding sources for the Junipero Serra Trail is a part of the County-wide bicycle plan. Funding sources will be incorporated into the estimates for the feasibility study. CA to email VTA (Lauren Ledbetter) by 12/8 2.Need to better understand the structure of the drainage ditch and how stormwater intercepted. In a covered alternative, consider appropriate pipe sizing/capacity. Access and maintenance requirements will also need to be accounted for. CA to review with Caltrans by 12/15 3.Need to show a non-covered alternative for the trail alignment. Alternatives show cost difference and ability to accommodate class 1 facilities. CA to include in alternatives 4.Send email with TAC meeting materials to non-attendees (Caltrans, Cal Water, PG&E) and schedule follow-up call/meeting to discuss project purpose/objective and agency concerns. JS to send draft email text and materials to City. City to send email by 11/30 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 103Appendix Staff Meeting Summary Meeting Summary Juniper0 Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Staff Meeting, Phone Call December 1, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_StaffMtg_171130.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 5.Send Doodle poll to TAC members to coordinate time for next TAC meeting (February). JC to send Doodle by 12/8 Community Meeting #1 6.Room layout for event has attendees visiting 7 stations and recording input in a handout. CA created diagrammatic layout of the Cupertino Room with table/chair layout and the purpose for each station. JC to send layout to City staff by 12/1 for room preparation 7.City staff includes Jenn, David, and Erick. CA will be positioned at segment stations; City staff will be positioned at sign-in, goals + objectives, background, and floating around the room. Noted 8.Finalize all materials for the meeting and bring to event. Remove “creek” on all materials. CA to bring materials to event 9.Refreshments to be provided at community meeting CA to provide -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Community Meeting #1 Summary SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate 311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 12, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 Location: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room Date: December 6, 2017 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Number of people who signed-in: 29 Number of people who turned-in an input packet: 13 Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com Community Meeting #1 was open house style where participants were invited to arrive at any time during the event window (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and provide individual feedback on the trail project. Community members were notified about the event through the following methods: •City’s website •City Channel •Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter) •Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest •Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall •Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents •Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter The meeting included six stations for community participants to provide their input at their own pace. Station #1 was the welcome table, where participants were greeted by City staff and provided an input packet to record comments as they traveled between stations. The five additional stations included project background and goals and objectives (Station #2), Stations #3, 4, 5 were for the three segments of the proposed trail, and refreshments (Station #6). Participants were asked to return their input packets to Station #1 before leaving so that their comments could be recorded. The next sections review the input methodology and summarize the input received at the meeting. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study104Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 2 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Commenting Material Community Meeting #1 included several opportunities to provide written input and have that input recorded. Input methods included the input packet, the trail segment plans, and large flip charts. Participants were not limited to one commenting method and everyone was encouraged to document their input. Below is a description of each input method available: Input Packet The input packet included the same two open-ended questions for each trail segment. Community members were asked to respond to these questions as they traveled to each of the trail segments. •Questions 1: What do you like about this segment of the trail? •Question 2: What can be improved in this segment of the trail? Trail Segment Comments The trail was divided into three segments and set up at three separate stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Each trail segment plan was printed at a large scale to help community members identify neighborhood features and the proximity of the trail to community resources (i.e., schools and businesses). Participants were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback on each trail segment. Commenting directly onto the large plans is a useful tool for input because context can be applied to a specific comment and ideas can be drawn and documented. Each of the trail segments provided this input method, but the geographic differences between each segment generated unique comments from the community. •Trail Segment #1 – Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard This segment includes the connection to Mary Avenue Bridge and the on-street bicycle network that connects to Garden Gate Elementary School. This segment includes a street crossing at Stelling Road. •Trail Segment #2 – De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center This segment is in close proximity to Lawson Middle School and runs along the northern edge of the Infinite Loop. This segment includes a street crossing at De Anza Boulevard and would have the trail running under Blaney Avenue. •Trail Segment #3 – Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway This segment is near the Vallco Center and runs along the northern edge of to the new Hyatt Hotel and Apple. The trail runs under Wolfe Road and terminates at Vallco Parkway and Calabazas Creek. Flip Charts Flip Charts were placed at Station #2 and each of the three trail segment stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Flip charts did not include a prompted question, all feedback provided was open-ended. Not all Stations with flip charts received comments. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 105Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 3 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Input Received Station #2 - Project Background and Goals and Objectives Flip Chart •Please keep redwood trees along I-280 frontage. Do not cut down. They run the length of I-280 from Los Altos to San Jose so the provide a greenbelt along the freeway and buffer residential from the freeway. Redwoods also clean impurities from the air. Station #3 – Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard) Input Packet – Question #1 •I would like to have lights on the way, some benches to sit, a water station, restroom facility •Connecting the trail to the bridge is great! •No stoplights (well almost) •Minimal cross streets •The bike bridge •Everything •Good access to western areas in the city •It's a trail •Less car traffic for students going to De Anza College •Easy connection to Mary Ave. bridge and avoids Stevens Creek Blvd. •Connectivity to Mary Avenue Bridge •Takes you to Mountain View •Connection to Mary Avenue Bridge Input Packet – Question #2 •Protect bikes from falling into ditches •Have a camera at the main junctions •Put up signs (dog on-leash, no loitering, speed limit) •Stelling Rd. crossing needs bridge over •Need mile markers •Access to the trail via Stelling Rd. is too dangerous for kids •Take it along the wall all the way to De Anza College; use the City maintenance land to go from Mary Ave back to the sound wall here •Put underground crossing under Stevens Creek Blvd to De Anza College •Have the City buy a house along [Flora Vista Ave.] to allow Lawson students to access the trail (Garden Gate Elem. feeds into Lawson Middle) •Need access near [photo] #4; buy a house, tear it down, provide access •A glass sound wall so Teslas stuck in traffic can see how fast bikes go •East end of bike bridge (Homestead Rd and Mary Ave) needs to be reconfigured •Need grade separation (prefer underpass) for trail at Stelling Rd. •Improve Stelling Rd. crossing if possible •Safety and security of residence and businesses - how are we going to protect our business and homes along the path? Need regular monitoring for security concerns! •Parents will still drive kids to neighborhood regardless Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study106Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 4 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Crossing at Stelling Rd. should be above or below street, no crosswalk is near the access point right now •Widen 14' for multi-use •All segments use over or under grade crossings to major streets •Extend via bridge or tunnel to De Anza College and across 85 with dedicated bridge protected from cars/ramps •Traffic light or bridge tunnel between [picture] #6 and #7 •Prefer the route be closer to storage, as it would have less impact on the residents and it is wider •Safety and security of the trail while maintaining safety, security and privacy for the residents impacted by the trail Trail Segment Plan Comments •This speed table [on Meteor Dr.] will drive cars to Amulet then Nathanson Ave. •Median on Meteor Dr. slows traffic and is a good thing •Nobody stops at Nathanson Ave. turning onto Meteor Dr. •Some late night noise at trail head [Mary Avenue Bridge] •Hit by car at Glenbrook •Mini-store employee concern about vandalism and homeless •Purchase property at curve of Castine Ave. to Gardena Dr. •Pedestrian bridge would be great between image #7 and #8 (Stelling Rd.) [other response] - or tunnel •Suggest 20' minimum width to accommodate bikes, strollers, etc. Flip Chart Comments •Deter vehicular speed •Drivers don't respect hawk signals •Steven's Creek Blvd and Homestead Rd are existing east-west on-street connections •Fencing for neighbors •Trail is very isolated Station #4 – Trail Segment #2 (De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center) Input Packet – Question #1 •Keep the existing trees and plant some new trees •IDEA: Give property owners a cut in their property taxes to allow a portion of their land for the trail is selected cases. Bar Harbor along their harbor does this •Spur to Lawson Middle along the east edge of Apple's property •Will help Apple and it’s near my house :) •Everything •This is a great connector across the city without riding/walking on busy streets •It's a trail •Less vehicle traffic •Avoids Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza Blvd Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 107Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study108Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 5 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Good east-west trail through Cupertino Input Packet – Question #2 •Under/over bridge at the De Anza Blvd. crossing •Add underground crossing under De Anza Blvd. •Do not remove car access under Blaney Ave. bridge, it is used heavily •Do not remove parking on Lucille Ave because it is used by PBC Church, apartment tenants, and Apple •Take trail UNDER De Anza Blvd., look at Loveland, CO for examples! •Removing vegetation to put trail in will increase sound from freeway, please put sound considerations high on design list •Use negotiations with Apple to get Lawson students off the street [arrow pointed to east edge of Apple property] •A wide, bright tunnel at [image] #17 •Suggest oaks with hairy leaves that will filter the freeway soot (East PA has done this) •Pedestrian/bike undercrossing at De Anza Blvd. •Add connection along Apple sound wall (parallel to Larry Way) to permit direct route to Lawson Middle and Merrit Way bike boulevard •De Anza Blvd. crossing •Safety of bikes •Widen 14' for multi-use •De Anza Blvd crossing should be above or below street level •Make access for Garden Gate Elementary •Reduce conflict between north-bound De Anza Blvd. to south-bound I-280 vs. crossing Trail Segment Plan Comments •Suggest a tunnel or bridge (built by Apple of glass and chrome…) •Evening backup on I-280 south-bound on-ramp at De Anza Blvd. •Will this trail connect to De Anza Blvd. bike lanes? Optimize the crossing •Loveland, CO has lots of underpass connections •Bar Harbor - gave a cut in property taxes to allow for trail •Could there be a spur [east side of infinite loop Apple property], provide connection to school and bike boulevard [other response] - yes! •[Between image #15 and #16] Church parking, don't take parking away •Add label for all BQ zoned properties •When apartments are full [between Blaney Ave. and Randy Ln.] they park on street •Don't close the loop under Blaney Ave. •[Behind Mini-Stor] - Lots of graffiti when fence comes down; •Wolfe improvements get tagged, may have taken another chain-link fence •If trail is narrower than full width, is it harder to obtain funding? •I would use [the trail] on commute and evening walks •Look at Santa Clara Agilent property - proposed trail Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 109Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 6 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Flip Chart Comments •No comments provided at this station Station #5 – Trail Segment #3 (Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway) Input Packet – Question #1 •Overall love this idea of Cupertino Loop; can't wait to start running on the trail •Will help Vallco and retail, when it's built •Everything •Utilization of existing Wolfe underpass at Vallco •Access to Main Street and future Vallco activities and shopping •It's a trail •Less Apple traffic •Wolfe crossing is not at street level •Allows access to Vallco and Main Street •Scenic •Connection to Main Street, hotels, Apple Input Packet – Question #2 •Add emergency blue poles throughout the trail •Vegetation all along wall helps with freeway pollution and sound reduction, please consider this when designing the entire trail •Bridge trail over Wolfe Rd. •Overall, I suggest a 20' minimum width to accommodate a wide range of transportation preferences; trees, trees, trees (large species) •Why not a full width new trail around "Section A"? [Hyatt Hotel Trail segment] •Make sure bicycles abide by same rules as road users •Make SHP developer incorporate bike access to trails •Nothing •Turning left onto Vallco Pkwy. on a bicycle is impossible/dangerous/requires using sidewalk? Trail Segment Plan Comments •Why not go across? [keep trail parallel to I-280, cut through Wolfe Rd. interchange and hook into trail at the Hyatt Hotel] •Make the new trail at the hotel property wider, it's new •Bridge over Wolfe Rd.? [Where underpass is currently] •Is Perimeter Rd. public or private; is there an easement? •Be aware of how a dotted melted strip bike lane feels on 110 psi bike tires •Radius of speed hump should exceed that of 27" bike wheel! •Traffic volume will increase at Vallco Pkwy. and Tantau Ave. intersection •Continue trail across I-280 [follow Calabazas Creek] and connect at Tantau Ave. •Add button for cyclists well ahead of intersection with priority timing [Idea is to be able to hit the button while on your bike and the light will be green by the time cyclist gets to the intersection] •[At the Vallco Pkwy. trailhead] - What happens when you want to turn left onto Vallco Pkwy.? Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study110Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 7 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Add roundabout at Tantau Ave./Vallco Pkwy. intersection [other response] - I would be scared to use that Flip Chart Comments •No comments provided at this station Community Meeting #1 Images This section illustrates images captured from the meeting. Sign-in and Input Packet Pick-Up Trail Section Background and Goals and Objectives Background and Goals and Objectives Trail Section Input Packet Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 111Appendix Community Meeting #1 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #1 December 12, 2017 Page 8 of 8 17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days. Submitted by: Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates cc: All attendees Attachments: 1.Input Packet Response Data Presentation 2.Notification Flyers CalWater Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study112Appendix BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 7, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: CalWater Review Meeting, Phone Call Date: December 6, 2017 Time: 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Attendees: California Water Service (CalWater): Chris Wilson (CW), CalWater, cwilson@calwater.com City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with CalWater and gather technical input. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take 1.CalWater is supportive of the project. There are certain security measures to consider in implementing a trail next to their facilities, mostly concerning access control. Noted 2.CalWater is adding concertina wire to address intrusion issues. CalWater has vandalism and trash dumping in the past. Noted 3.CalWater has an underground tank at this site that serves a large portion of Cupertino. Noted 4.CalWater supports a wider trail for maintenance purposes. Currentl they access corridor from N. Portal Avenue. Noted 5.CalWater is open to the idea of providing access through their site to access the trail. CA to consider CalWater site as a potential trail access point. -END- CalWater Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 113Appendix Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: CalWater Review Meeting, Phone Call December 7, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_CalWaterMtg.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study114Appendix PG&E Meeting Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 14, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: PG&E Review Meeting (Conference Call) Date: December 12, 2017 Time: 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Attendees: PG&E: Jessy Borges (JB), PG&E, jy16@pge.com Ramiro Coronel (RC), PG&E, RSC7@pge.com Ted Quach (TQ), PG&E, tpq1@pge.com Albert Le (AL), PG&E, ahla@pge.com City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with PG&E, gather technical input, and discuss initial design alternative options for the study area. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take 1.PG&E noted the presence of gas lines near the drainage ditch. There are gas lines at Stelling Rd. City to request gas facilities throughout project limits. 2.115kv overhead electrical transmission lines run along the project limits. City to request electrical facilities throughout project limits. 3.PG&E needs a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to provide mapping information. City to coordinate with PG&E. 4.Maintenance road would need to support line trucks, trucks weigh approximately 80 tons. Noted. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 115Appendix PG&E Meeting Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: PG&E Review Meeting (Conference Call) December 14, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_PGEMtg.docx © copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 5.Wire height will need to be verified. The voltage goes up as the height increases. PG&E to verify wire clearances. 6.Identify locations where poles potentially conflict with trail alignments. CA to mark up and send exhibit to City. -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees CalTrans Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study116Appendix BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only December 22, 2017 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Caltrans Review Meeting (Conference Call) Date: December 20, 2017 Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Attendees: Caltrans: Sergio Ruiz (SR), Caltrans, sergio.ruiz@dot.ca.gov City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with Caltrans, gather technical input, and discuss initial design alternative options for the study area. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take 1.SR has requested drainage ditch As-Builts from the hydraulic team and has not heard back. SR will follow-up with the design team to get turn-around time for drawings. SR to request drainage ditch As- Builts within the project limits. 2.The road segment under the Blaney Rd. overpass (on Lucille) is Caltrans R.O.W., but Caltrans believes that segment has a maintenance agreement with the City. SR to locate the maintenance agreement and send to JC. 3.An encroachment permit would be needed for any trail development on Caltrans R.O.W. Access control review may be needed if the trail alignment moves onto the north side of the sound wall. The review process is dependent on the size of the project. Caltrans can review the drawings once a trail alignment is decided. Noted. CalTrans Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 117Appendix Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Caltrans Review Meeting (Conference Call) December 22, 2017 Page 2 of 2 17056_SUM_CalTransMtg.docx © copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 4.Caltrans will make their draft Bicycle Plan available. SR to provide draft plan. -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study118Appendix TAC Meeting #2 Summary BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only February 6, 2018 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #2 Date: January 31, 2018 Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Attendees: TAC Member: Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org Lauren Ledbetter (LL), VTA, lauren.ledbetter@vta.org Lillian Tsang (LT), City of Sunnyvale, ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov Ted Quach (TQ), PG&E, tpq1@pge.com Albert Le (AL), PG&E, ahla@pge.com Chris Wilson (CW), CalWater, cwilson@calwater.com Steve Davis (SD), Fehr&Peers, s.davis@fehrandpeers.com T. Saadati (TS), Walk Bike Cupertino, tsaadati@sbcglobal.net Dianne Yee (DY), Caltrans, dianne.yee@dot.ca.gov City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com The purpose of this meeting was to review input received from Community Meeting #1, discuss the trail alignment plan alternatives, and gather technical input and documents from the TAC members. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible. Item Action to take Segment 1 – Mary Avenue Bridge to De Anza Boulevard 1.The public storage facility near De Anza Boulevard may include a public access easement as a part of a redevelopment project. Plans should identify easement and review impacts. CA and City to review by 2/14 2.JC asked what “covering the ditch” means. Is the action to cover or to rebuild? The design assumes a box culvert. Noted Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 119Appendix TAC Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #2 February 6, 2018 Page 2 of 3 17056_SUM_TACMtg#2.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 3.LL asked how the alternative route for maintenance closures was selected. It is based on existing bike/ped facilities and directness. Noted 4.All development projects are subject to PG&E review. Noted 5.How much is the undercrossing encroaching on Caltrans R.O.W? CA to review and provide to Caltrans by 2/14 6.There is a water main along Stelling Road (unknown if the line runs through the bridge or under I-280). CW sent drawings on 2/6 Segment 2 – De Anza Boulevard to the Vallco Shopping Center 7.The guy anchor near trail entrance at the curve of Lucille Road can be repositioned for vertical clearance. Noted 8.If the ditch stays open (along Lucille) versus a closed ditch, amenities shown in the enlargement (i.e. bioswale retention, a continuous class 1 facility, etc.) will not be included. Noted (this is true for all alternative #1 scenarios) 9.Relocating a steel transmission pole is expensive (~$1 million). Noted 10.If the crosswalk is removed across De Anza Boulevard, people will still cross and additional treatments may be required. CA to review with the City by 2/14 11.LL asked about bicycle behavior in response to the circuitous route at De Anza Boulevard with the stair and ramp approaches. Noted 12.SCVWD asked how the bridge will be supported and still preserve maintenance access? CA to review by 2/14 13.TS asked if there is an option to move the spur trail onto Caltrans R.O.W. for the tunnel crossing scenario. CA to review by 2/14 14.There is a CalWater water main along De Anza Boulevard (through tunnel option) and one behind Apple’s Infinite Loop. CW sent drawings on 2/6 15.What are the lighting requirements for the trail? Are there CMAQ requirements? The lighting may be dawn/dusk or 24 hours. CA to review by 2/14 16.Clearance from PG&E wires is still unknown. SCVWD requires 15’-0” vertical clearance for maintenance vehicles. Noted Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study120Appendix TAC Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: TAC Meeting #2 February 6, 2018 Page 3 of 3 17056_SUM_TACMtg#2.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Item Action to take 17.5% grade might be too steep for bridge and tunnel approaches; consider switchbacks or reducing the grade. Noted Segment 3 – Vallco Shopping Center to Vallco Parkway 18.Identify and preserve access gate for SCVWD near the Hyatt Hotel (at I-280 on-ramp); hotel plans do not show access for SCVWD. Noted 19.CalWater has a water main that crosses I-280 and moves towards Vallco Parkway. CW sent drawings on 2/6 20.Incorporate design recommendations from this feasibility study into the Wolfe Road / I-280 / Vallco Plans Noted 21.Design a better transition at the Vallco Parkway trailhead. Noted -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. Submitted by: Dave Rubin Callander Associates cc: All attendees Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 121Appendix this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study122Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate 311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only March 5, 2018 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #2a and 2b Meeting #2a Location: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room Date: February 20, 2018 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Meeting #2b Location: Community Hall, Cupertino Civic Center Date: February 26, 2018 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Total number of people who signed-in: 37 Total number of people who turned-in an input packet: 37* *5 packets were provided by a neighbor for others who could not attend either meeting Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org Julie Chiu (JCh), Public Works, juliec@cupertino.org Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com Community Meeting #2 was held on two separate dates at two separate locations to provide an opportunity for the community to attend one of the meetings and provide input. Community Meeting #2a was held in the Cupertino Room at the Quinlan Community Center on February 20th and Community Meeting #2b was held in the Community Hall at the Cupertino Civic Center on February 26th. Community members were notified about the event through the following methods: •City’s website •City Channel •Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter) •Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest •Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall •Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 123Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 2 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter •Postcard mailings to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents including residents/businesses within 300 feet of a proposed trailhead •Email notifications to subscribers of the “Bicycle Transportation Plan” email list •Email notification to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the nearby surrounding neighborhoods The format of the meetings, as well as the project displays and the questions asked of the community, were the same at both meetings. Each meeting was open house style where participants were invited to arrive at any time during the event window and provide individual feedback on the trail project. Six stations were set up for participants to visit at their own pace. Station #1 was the welcome table, where participants were greeted by City staff and provided an input packet to record comments as they traveled between stations. The five remaining stations included: •Project background and goals and objectives (Station #2) •The three segments of the proposed trail (Stations #3, 4, 5) •Refreshments (Station #6) Participants were asked to return their input packets at Station #1 before leaving so that their comments could be recorded. The following summarizes input received for both meetings, including from input packets, flip charts, and comments applied onto the trail segment plans, enlargements, and sections. Input Packet The input packet included seven sections of questions, and was comprised of general questions, trail design alternative questions, and segment-specific questions. The following organizes the comments received from the public in the order they appear in the input packet. Multiple choice questions are summarized to show the percentage breakdown of the answers received. Questions that had an open ended answer include the individual comments received. I. General Background Question 1: Did you attend Community Meeting #1? Yes No 37% 63% Question 2: Do you support a trail at this location? Yes No 62% 38% Question 3: How would you use the trail? (circle all that apply) Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other 40% 10% 33% 4% 13% Answers under “Other” include: •Would not use it •Not at all •Not at all! Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study124Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 3 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Wouldn’t use it! •Not •To walk to restaurants and stores •To shops and restaurants Question 4: Do you live or work in Cupertino? Live Work Live and Work Do not Live or Work 77% 0% 14% 9% II. Trail Design Question 1: Which alternative do you prefer? Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither 16% 55% 29% Question 2: What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative? •Cost: significantly more for alternative #2. Use: Alternative #1 will be used multi-use anyway. •Wider, multi-purpose, dream big - one time cost •Wider trail, safety that someone not going to fall in ditch. •Safety •Multi Use - Bike and Pedestrian •Safety, traffic, parking, noise, lack of privacy, Increase of strangers in the area •No bikes, lighting, noise, less privacy, security •Open Space. It would provide a better experience. •Impact of people and traffic •Aesthetics, Width-allows easier bike + pedestrian traffic •Separation from traffic •Allowing bicycles on the trail is vital in order for the trail to provide a good commuting alternative •Potential users; impact on privacy, security of residents along trail; reversibility; potential impact to water authority activities •More room for ped and bike •Trail width •I like the extra width provided by Alt #2, but I think Alt #1 would be much simpler and less expensive which will help it happen! Would particularly be concerned about limiting water flow or complicating maintenance when covering the ditch. Alt#2 also adds some additional green buffer to neighbors, but I don't think this will be a problem after it is constructed •Safety, security, noise impact, privacy for those houses impacted •This is the "aging of America" (I don't think this is being considered). The aged are not going to be riding bicycles (nor walking over bridges/trails) to get to their medical appointments or bring home groceries, etc. We have enough bicycle/access infiltrating our area, bringing in outsiders. These "designs" will impact the quiet enjoyment of our homes even more!! •Walking along a trail built right next to a major highway is not something of great appeal; physical and environmental safety concerns (i.e. fumes from many motor vehicles, noise) will Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 125Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 4 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. not be great appeal; Building and maintaining such a trail, built next to a major highway will be much more expensive? What is the projected cost? •The proposed trail would run directly behind my house, it would impact my privacy as well as increase the noise level •Safety of existing redwood trees along 280; presence of bikes and pedestrians on same trail - how safe? •For the second alternative, there is more space for people to commute to work, or go on a family walk. For people going to work, it is a longer commute by bike without the trail •It would be cosmetically nicer and it might keep out any random undesirable smells •I am concerned about security for property owners next to the trail. As is, there is graffiti on I- 280 sound wall •Multi-use trail more useful than narrow pedestrian only trail •It is wider, it looks nicer, there is more greenery •This is for Apple-only and don't care about us who live next to the trail •Consistent width, avoids falling in ditches, more visually appealing, avoids conflict with location on PG&E poles, especially in Station #4 area •Width! The wider trail is safer to allow pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, etc. Question 3: Do you live next to the trail? Yes No 58% 42% Question 4: Do you have children that would use the trail? Yes No Possibly in the Future 19% 72% 9% Station #3 (Trail Segment 1 – Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard) III. Mary Avenue Question 1: Which alternative do you prefer? Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither 6% 65% 29% Question 2: What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative? •Wider, bike friendly •Do the right thing. If trail is not proper and wide it won't be usable and people won't use it. Having wider trail is right idea. •Safety •Multi Use, wider trail •Security, noise, lighting, privacy •Terrible proposal •Width of the trail being better for multiple uses - pedestrian and bicycles; plant a new tree or bush to replace tree removed. •Maintain trees along residences Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study126Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 5 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Slope is more natural and pleasing. In an emergency, trail users can leave the trail by climbing the slope; sharp easement feels walled in. •Security underpass area •Pleasant landscaping •Easier, cheaper, better •Again, making a choice for a simpler solution has a better chance of getting approved and built; I would encourage you to maintain as much natural screening as possible and NOT excavate more to create neighbor isolation; the perception of the negative is greater than the reality •Why can't the existing Mary Ave. bridge on-ramp be used to access trail? That will reduce the project costs. Alternative 2 is my second choice, do not support Alternative 1 •See former page [Trail Design] •Concerns over expense of such a project versus the benefit to public. Do not believe this project will have a great deal of appeal to most people •I am not in favor of either alternative especially because it will be right behind our house/property. This trail would be an invasion of my privacy. The foot and bike traffic would result in noise and debris left on the trail •Amount of water flowing in ditch •Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have parkour skills, which most people don't). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and next to a hillside, it would be nicer •It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :) •Multi-use of bicycles •Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail •Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic •Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area. Question 3: Would you use Mary Avenue Bridge to connect to this trail system? Yes No Maybe 35% 44% 21% Question 4: Do you have any additional comments about the Mary Avenue Trail access point? •Restroom, Water station, bench, camera, lighting, mile marker, safety patrol, website to promote •Putting water, parking spaces, lighting, maybe restrooms near parks is a good idea. •You should plan trail on 'storage' side at pedestrian bridge •Consider collaborating with residences to improve robustness of fences along trail •Amenities for bikers and walkers here please! Benches and congregating spaces here would be great (mini-park). Keep those away from the neighbors though •Concerns over effects and disruption to the local residents, especially over Alternative #1 •Have police on bike patrol at the Stelling undercrossing to deter loitering and theft and graffiti •Concerned w/ safety for trail users, particularly with potentially being in a secluded area out of plain sight, by the Loc-N-Stor •Safety - it seems secluded. Add mirrors for blind spots. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 127Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 6 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. IV. Stelling Road Crossing Question 1: What type of crossing do you prefer? Grade-Separated Crossing Under Stelling Road with Spur Trail Access and No Crosswalk Across Stelling Road Crosswalk Across Stelling Road and No Grade- Separated Crossing under Stelling Road or Spur Trail Access Both a Grade-Separated Crossing Under Stelling Road with Spur Trail Access and a crosswalk Across Stelling Road 36% 8% 56% General Station #3 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail segment? •This is heavy traffic area, option C is better. Least preferred choice is A. •Stelling is extremely busy at rush hour in morning and evening. A surface crosswalk would be a disaster •Not option B: will cause traffic backups on Stelling. Will cause safety issues. Also the bridge railing when traveling south on Stelling blocks sight line to the trail toward the west making it much less safe. •For biking on busy streets, like Stelling, separation is very important to induce casual/weekend bicyclists •Crosswalk good for pedestrian access and in case of flooding (?) •Traffic on Stelling is heavy and depends on events at De Anza College. A crosswalk is likely to be overlooked (note crosswalk near Quinlan); A Stelling Road entrance to the bike path is likely to influence and impact traffic on Stelling •Very noisy •Very clever solution, if possible and affordable •Both please! Don't know if Stelling will be a big turning point, the underpass path would obstruct people wanting to get on Stelling. The crosswalk support will be nominal in cost for the benefit •Apple employees have access to trail from campus and not on streets!!! •Security of undercrossing •A crosswalk across Stelling Road will make traffic on Stelling much worse than now. The traffic is bad enough now with traffic from Gardena Dr., Greenleaf, and the apartment complex feeding into Stelling. During peak hours, traffic can back into Hollenbeck in the north and all the way to Stevens Creek Blvd to the south •Both would be great, but any of the options seems workable •For long distance bike riders, it is much faster to have a grade-separated crossing, it is also safer •Very concerned about a crosswalk and the interaction with traffic - especially during school drop-off/pick-up and during rush hour •If you can't do #1C then do #1A. Do not do just 1B! Add mirrors for blind spots. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study128Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 7 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Station #4 (Trail Segment 2 –De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center) V. De Anza Boulevard Crossing Question 1: What type of crossing do you prefer? Bridge Over-Crossing with Crosswalk Across De Anza Boulevard Tunnel Under-Crossing with Crosswalk Across De Anza Boulevard No Grade-Separated Crossing and Maintain Existing Crosswalk Across De Anza Boulevard 43% 50% 7% Two people who voted for the bridge option said either the tunnel or bridge option would be fine. Question 2: Would you support removal of the existing crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard if the bridge of tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided? Yes No Maybe 48% 21% 31% VI. Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue Question 1: Regarding trail access and amenities, which of the following do you support? Informal Trail Access and No Trailhead or Trail Amenities Single Trail Access Point and Trailhead with Limited Trail Amenities Multiple Trail Access Points and a Trailhead with Greater Level of Amenities 29% 32% 39% General Station #4 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #4 trail segment? •Must have direct Apple access (infinite loop) to trail, to reduce bikes on Randy Ln/Larry Way. Limit access points to two: One east of Randy, (just far enough away from Apple to discourage parking) and one at Blaney. This grade-level proposal for crossing at Blaney is great. •Right next to my house. Privacy concerns. Live on Larry/Lucille. •Privacy, parking, traffic are concerns for residents of Lucille, Larry and Randy. 1: Consider wall to help with privacy. 2: Big no to any access points on Lucille Ave. •Not familiar with this section so no comment. •No trail access on Blaney/Lucille •Maintain fence - ideally make opaque for privacy. Make Lucille permitted parking M-F like Randy and Larry. Need frequent garbage clean up. Limited access - far from apple side to prevent parking problems. Maintain access under bridge for car traffic. Need police patrol for safety. •I support none of these. I live here and would be impacted. •Maintenance of trash can emptying would be very important •Multiple access points make the trail more usable for people living in the neighborhood, and would provide trail users route options •Informal trail access could serve as a pilot and could be upgraded if the trail use supports expansion •Some convenience but less cost •I prefer tunnel over bridge at De Anza mainly because of reduced elevation gain/loss; Use box culvert only when needed for trail width Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 129Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 8 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Mostly just need trailhead here; benches would be the only amenities needed •How is security mentioned? Security patrol? How about people using trail for "hanging out"? •Don't care… •As shown •Get Apple off the streets; safer alternatives for walkers/bikers; be mindful of neighborhood •Section east of Blaney - no soundwall; trail users protection form vehicles leaving the road •Provide access to Portal Ave. through CalWater site •I live next to the trail on Randy Lane; trail would cause such a problem for traffic and people, let alone criminal activity •Consider adding Trailhead/access point at the end of Lucille adjacent to the Apple campus. Work with Apple to create a linkage to Lawson Middle School along the edge of the Apple property, parallel to Larry Way, It would be nice to have some way to go directly from the trail up to the Blaney overpass. •Do not put the additional access points in the middle of Lucille. Trail amenities needed: a map of trail, a beach, mile markers, lighting. Extra security around the main entrance & under the bridge. There has been tagging & dumping (mattresses, etc) in this area. Keep the road (Lucille) open under the bridge. Do not close it. The neighborhood relies on it to get to Homestead without having to cross Blaney. Critical to AM/PM traffic flow & school traffic. VII. Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway General Station #5 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 trail segment? •Keep Crossing at Wolfe not competing with cross traffic •This trail is for apple only. What a shame. •Be sure the contractor of Vallco includes space for bikeway •Perhaps stipulate that a proper multi-use trail along the south and east edges of hotel development be included in future development there. •The proposed path behind the new hotel is bad! It's still under construction - is there a way to create a path (or alternative path) that passes in front of hotel tracing Perimeter Road. •Nice •Have Vallco future pay for access to trail and out of neighborhood!!! Access to trail from Vallco itself not in neighborhood at all! •It is important to keep redwoods along 280 intact behind Hyatt House and property behind the old Macys. Will there be public creek trail along Calabazas Creek from 280 and Calabazas intersection to the Calabazas and Vallco Parkway intersection? One portion of the creek trail mentioned above along the small portion of Calabazas Creek should be both pedestrian and bike. •Provide easy access to hotel for residents and guests. Use CalWater area for access to Portal Ave. •East-west connectivity for bikes between Blaney and Tantau is important, especially with Pruneridge gone •Underpass is good •Make all sections of it as wide as possible to allow lots of multi-uses & improve safety. Add mirrors for blind spots & destination signs. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study130Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 9 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. General Project Comments (end of input packet) •Great handout! Do this again. •Make it a world class trail. Heart of Silicon Valley must look good. Plant new trees. •Should be trail that represents Cupertino. Home of Apple. Best of best shall be created. •My property backs up to the trail between Mary and Stelling. I currently see the trail used by PG&E. My concerns are: 1. liability - I have tall trees that have dropped branches on the trail. 2. Safety - giving easier access to my back yard. 3. Privacy - I have no fence (just chain link). I am not against the bike/ped path, just want my concerns addressed. •This part of Cupertino has been impacted enough by the freeway, the schools, Apple and it's employees. •We are very worried about safety, security, privacy. Homestead high school kids jumping the fence (which they do), homeless, smokers, drugs and nuisance. •It's a shame that Apple can cause such a project to be contemplated that would impact the residents of this area. •I support alternate #2 for Mary to De Anza Blvd. •Very supportive. Good luck! •Please, please build it! This trail would remove a lot of local commuting traffic off the roads (Apple employees between campuses, students to De Anza college…) and provide a great off- street recreational alternative within the city (jogger, dog walkers...). Provide trash cans along trail : dog walkers; drinking fountains at trail ends would be great bonus •Consider if paving is necessary. No lights - encourage dawn to dusk use; Consider Alternative #1 as a pilot which could be expanded if use of trail becomes high. •Seems like there needs to be more thought about intermediate access points. The major points are too far apart. While I favor choices that reduce cost and complexity, I would encourage setting standards for trail width - there are too many narrow pinch points identified already. Please spend the money to widen where needed. •I am extremely concerned about safety, privacy, and noise issues. Currently, we have a lot of people hanging out at 2am during summer nights at the Mary Avenue Bridge trail head, located directly behind my house. 1) I am extremely concerned this trail will add to the noise we experience. 2) Make sure security is enforced after dusk (when officers are not busy with school patrolling). We already clean up broken glass bottles in our yards. 3) We are concerned about any trash, debris items that can be thrown over the fence into our backyards. 4) Can existing bike bridge be used to access 280 per alternative #2 near Mary Avenue? This would perhaps reduce capital costs. •All-in-all, do not think this to be a very worthwhile project. Probably very expensive and lacking in widespread appeal. Walkers, joggers, or cycling along trail next to major highway not very appealing, especially at times of rush-hour traffic. •I am totally opposed to the construction of the trail •Super •Very good graphics and presentation of trail options. Please keep the redwood trees along 280 •Really make sure Apple campus 1 and 2 have good connection to path •Please think about possibly separating bikers and pedestrians if the trail becomes crowded, in the future •Why do I and my neighbors have to suffer because the city can't say no to Apple Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 131Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 10 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Mile Markers (1/4 mile markers), security cameras in key areas and convex mirrors for blind corners, all for safety. Please make an effort to tie into the new signage style proposed for the City's Bike Boulevards, including "destination" signs indicating what is near the access points. Post a 25 mph speed limit (or less). Allow E-bikes with 25 mph max speed. Prohibit other motorized vehicles (gas, diesel, etc.). I LIKE HAVING A CROSS-TOWN CONNECTION OFF OF THE BUSY STREET LIKE STEVENS CREEK •When it opens, safety & security has to be very good to "set the tone" of the project. If people think it is not safe they won't use it or let their kids use it. Prevent Apple bikes from riding 2-3-4 across & taking over the path like we currently see them, do on our neighborhood streets like Vista Drive. (Comments provided via email after both community meetings) •After briefly reviewing the online story boards, I believe that accompanying trail construction, permit parking must be extended to the entirety of Lucille between Blaney and Apple. Lucille already has the occasional Apple employee parking and is used daily for Employees to smoke at the cul de sac at Apple. The neighborhood is permit parking because of the Apple overflow, and active vehicle commuters on Lucille is inconsistent with the trail’s use for the three schools nearby. Also, if smoking is not allowed on the trail, then it somehow should be restricted in the neighborhood. Apple doesn’t allow smoking on their campus, and if they think the trail bordering their property is also non-smoking, they will be driving smokers into the neighborhood which is unacceptable. We already have employees parking on Lucille then coming back to the area to smoke during breaks. •I just learned about a potential bike path along the Junipero Serra Channel. This is exciting, as it would give bicycles a protected way to get from Mary to Tantau. Currently, if you're near 280, you need to go to Homestead or Stevens Creek to go between Blaney and Wolfe. This change would encourage more bicycling, getting even more cars off the roadways. Hope you find some common ground with the water district and Caltrans to get this done. Of course, it would be great if the road crossings weren't at grade, but I'll leave that to the experts. Flip Charts Flip Charts were placed at Station #2 and each of the three trail segment stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Flip charts did not include a prompted question, all feedback provided was open-ended. Not all Stations with flip charts received comments. Project Background And Goals and Objectives – Station 2: •Goal 4 - Have the trail access along I-280 be strictly for bike traffic. That way bike riders can travel at a faster speed. This would be good for people commuting on bikes between Apple Campus (Sunnyvale) and Apple Campus 2 (Tantau). •If pedestrian and bikes are on the same trial, the bikes need to go slower and pedestrians need to understand how to go on a trail with bikes Trail Segment 1 – Station 3: •Safety, security #1 issue. Graffiti already there. Had a burglary. •Connect to Stevens Creek Trail to the west? Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study132Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 11 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Trail on north side of 280 •No monitoring of ex. Plaza. Needs monitoring. Use cameras. •Concern about beacon crossing stopping traffic on Stelling. Concern about safety. Low visibility southbound. •Do a soundwall for safety and privacy. •Light for night use. •Amenities, drinking fountains, seating, "dream big" •Security cameras at problem/key areas. •Traffic stacks at Stelling. Trail Segment 2 – Station 4: •Concerns at Lucille Trailhead: •Safety •Parking (unwanted!) •Traffic •Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime) •Apple employees (this project is for Apple only) Trail Segment 3 – Station 5: •No e-bikes (more than 25 mph) •No motorized •Allow e-bikes, speed < 25 mph Trail Segment Plans Trail segment plans were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment. Trail Segment 1 – Station 3: •Concern over liability of trees dropping branches •Graffiti •Privacy & security •Stats on crime - how will police monitor •Parking will be issue •Leave redwoods •Why paved? Leave gravel •No lights •Homeless, privacy, security •Alt 2 viable? •Do we need a trail? Is demand there? For Apple employees? Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 133Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 12 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Trail Segment 2 – Station 4: •Blaney avenue: don't block •Blaney impacted by traffic •Concern bringing kids through an already congested area. •Keep fence to prohibit access from Lucille •Drive kids to school due to speeding cars •One access point may be ok •No sidewalk •Lucille not under some parking permit. Needs to be included in permit program •Will trail encourage parking on Lucille? •Lots of Apple bikes •Can you provide access here? For Lawson & Apple •Need access to Apple to Trail •Two access points •Speeding traffic to school •Use mirrors for blind spots •Call boxes along trail. Emergency. •Bike runnels at stairs? •Can we have police cameras on the trail •Consider security of users in tunnel crossing •Access for Apple employees to trail & the streets •Would not preclude Alt 2 in the future •Look @ stair channels Trail Segment 3 – Station 5: •Access for Guests & Visitors Trail Enlargements/Sections Mary Avenue Bridge •Pedestrian Trail: concern about buffering Stelling Road Crossing •Would people loiter here? Sheriffs need to patrol trail. Presence. •Heavy traffic on Stelling Rd •Lights in ground too •No loitering Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue •Might not be feasible •Moving trucks double park and isn't safe •Shift road to enable consistent class I Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study134Appendix Community Meeting #2 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b February 20 and 26, 2018 Page 13 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Prohibit access in this area...not safe •Add mirrors •Redwood trees @ curb •Trash & homeless •Cut through lots of trash •Hiding spot under bridge •Homeless living in ex tunnel •Taggers •Can you put a sidewalk here? •Parking concerns •Safety - can you have call boxes? Mile markers •Car theft (Lucille ave) •Consider alternative fencing - that provides features of existing chainlink (e.g. animal/pedestrian control) -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days. Submitted by: Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates cc: All attendees Attachments: 1.Input Packet Response Data Presentation 2.Meeting notification material Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 135Appendix this page intentionally left blank SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate 311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email Only June 18, 2018 Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meeting #3 Location: Cupertino Civic Center, Community Hall Date: June 6, 2018 Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Total number of people who signed-in: 19 Total number of people who turned-in an input packet: 13 Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org Santa Clara County Sergeant Jason Brown (JB), jason.brown@shf.sccgov.org Sheriff’s Office: Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com Kelly Kong (KK), kkong@callanderassociates.com Community members were notified about the event through the following methods (refer to the end of the report for example outreach materials): •City’s website •City Channel •Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter) •Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest •Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall •Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents •Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter •Postcard mailings to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents including residents/businesses within 300 feet of a proposed trailhead •Email notifications to subscribers of the “Bicycle Transportation Plan” email list •Email notification to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the nearby surrounding neighborhoods Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study136Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 2 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. The format of the meeting was an open house style where participants were invited to arrive at any time during the event window and provide individual feedback on the trail project. Sergeant Brown was present to address concerns about safety and security along the potential trail. Six stations were set up for participants to visit at their own pace. Station #1 was the welcome table, where participants were greeted by City staff and provided a questionnaire to record comments as they traveled between stations. The five remaining stations included: •Project background and goals and objectives (Station #2) •The three segments of the proposed trail (Stations #3, 4, 5) •Refreshments (Station #6) Participants were asked to return their questionnaire at Station #1 before leaving so that their comments could be recorded. The following summarizes input received at and after the meeting, including from questionnaires, flip charts, comments written onto the trail segment plans, enlargements, sections, and follow-up e-mails. Questionnaire The questionnaire included two sections of questions and was comprised of general questions and more specific input. The following organizes the comments received from the public in the order they appear in the questionnaire. Multiple choice questions are summarized to show the percentage breakdown of the answers received. Questions that had an open-ended answer include the individual comments received. I. General Background Question 1: Did you attend Community Meeting #1 or Community Meeting #2? Only #1 Only #2 Both #1 and #2 Neither 8% 17% 17% 58% Written Comment: •#1 or #2 Question 2: Do you support a trail at this location? Yes No 75% 25% Written Comment: •Maybe only if its Alternative #2 on Mary Question 3: How would you use the trail? (circle all that apply) Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other 21% 21% 53% 0% 5% Answers under “Other” include: •Getting around town! Question 4: Do you live or work in Cupertino? Live Work Live and Work Do not Live or Work 50% 0% 50% 0% Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 137Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 3 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. II. Input Question 1: What aspects of the trail design do you like? What do you like about the proposed trail? •Very nicely done. •The bridge concept. Definitely is superior in my opinion. Aspects of safety, aesthetics, cost etc. are best. I totally don’t like the tunnel concept. Not good for safety, cost, etc. •Thank you for listening to people’s comments. •It’s a trail, where neighbor kids can ride/scooter/run safely. It’s an off-street cross route for the non-motorized. If there’s a problem with homeless encampment, it would probably help. •In Alt 2 I like the buffer of increased space = plantings to have trail impact residents less. I like how this would connect Apple’s campus making biking easier & safer between campus. Like the idea of walking trail. •Connect Apple to Apple relieving city streets of dangerous bikes. Safer bike/vehicle separation is preferred. Trail option #2 east of De Anza is the only acceptable option. •Enclosed culvert with trail on top. Undercrossing at De Anza and Stelling (and Wolfe). At Mary, prefer trail NOT adjacent to home (Alt 2) •Under grade coming at Stelling bridge at De Anza Blvd •The design where the trail sits on top of the drainage Question 2: How can the proposed trail be improved? •Don’t like the current plans for De Anza Blvd. Overcrossing or undercrossing. •A beautiful designed bridge is the ideal. •Mitigation for encroaching homeless and crime. •Can’t think of anything in particular. The consultants have some good ideas, albeit expensive. •Add lighting. Lighting that does not impact homes, but low enough to highlight misuse during darkness. Trail heads official physical closure from dawn to dusk. Need more parking at trailhead on Mary. It’s not realistic to say that people won’t park at the trailhead. •More parking would be needed at trailheads. Trail needs official closure from Sherriff’s office and needs to be actively enforced. Lighting needs to be added. It should be low profile as to not cause light pollution onto resident homes. •Apple employees who will use this trail need access from their own campus to get on trail. Having them come down onto the neighborhood to access trail is unacceptable to Linwood Acres residents. No access point at end of Randy. Too many bikes – pedestrians at this busy Apple school neighborhood. •Vehicle barrier between Blaney overpass and Wolfe = dangerously close pedestrian/homeless access to freeway and trail. As proposed no grade or vertical barrier protecting path. •Add the access from N Portal along Calwater Property. Add access on Apple side of wall adjacent to homes on Larry way with a spur to Lawson Middle School. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study138Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 4 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •It good enough •Mary Ave @ Bridge: prefer Alt #2 because it’s away from residents and allows trail users to get on bridge faster. Blaney Ave Intersection – prefer Alt #2 because the width can be 12’ fixed rather than varying, there’s more plantings bordering Lucille to buffer sound of freeway and trail users, safer for all users because it will be wider. •Remove all access points on Lucille except one by the Blaney overpass bridge and one at the other end of Lucille at the cul de sac. •It is critical to have an access point to this trail from Apple Infinity Loop to get Apple employees off the streets and encourage them to use the trail. •Negotiate a spur from the trail to Lawson Middle School on the Apple side of the wall bordering residents on Larry Way. Question 3: Do you have any other comments about the project? •It is nice you can plan this even when we don’t know what will happen at Vallco. •I do not like the trail across De Anza Blvd. I live in the condominium at the SW corner of 280 and De Anza. Very impressed with the crew here on 3rd community night. •What is the upside for homeowners along Gardena and Mary? The trail will bring security and privacy invasions with no apparent benefit to these residents. Reevaluate necessity with existing bike boulevards. •The wider you can make the path the safer it will be because bikes, peds, strollers, skateboard, dogs, etc. will use it. Wider means fewer collisions. •Good work with it! •Is this a project that will be put up for a vote by the community or does the community not have a say? Gardena Drive will become even more dangerous with a greater influx of commuters commuting to the start of the trailhead on Mary. •This project should be put to an official vote. It negatively impacts several residents while benefitting mostly Apple employees that want to bike to work. These meetings are tough to make it to when you work outside of Cupertino. Every neighbor that I have personally talks to is very against this project. I reside on the proposed trail path. •Prefer Alternative 2 – Why is Apple not yet involved as this literally will connect its 2 campuses? Prefer lots of trees where the trail impacts neighborhoods to mitigate noise, trash impact. •The lack of detail between Randy and De Anza does not build public trust. A failure to document access to Apple from the North and East, which does not exist now, and which would have an immediate impact on neighborhood, is unacceptable. Apple controls its own fences, and without documenting city barrier intent, all that exists currently is Apple fence. •Keep going! Negotiate to have Apple access point to trail that does not require Apple bikes to ride through neighborhood streets to access trail. •Mary Avenue – Use Alt #2/Segment 1 – Use Alt #2 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 139Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 5 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Bridge over De Anza looks good •Alternative #1 on Mary is right behind our house. I strongly oppose it. It would impact our privacy, safety and potentially other issues such as more noise, obstructed views. If at all, Alternative #2 should be evaluated for this project and the only option. Please take the homeowners along the trail @ Mary in consideration & big negative impact it has with Alternative #1. •The proposed 8 ft fence (wood) maintenance should also be the City’s responsibility. Control area bike use should also be established which is not evident in the I-280 overpass. •Mary Ave @ Bridge – prefer Alt #2 because its away from residents & allows trail users to get on bridge faster •Blaney Ave Intersection – prefer, Alt #2 because: 1.The width can be 12’ fixed rather than varying 2.There are more plantings bordering Lucille to buffer sound of freeway and trail users 3.Safer for all users because it will be wider •Remove all access points on Lucille expect one by the Blaney overpass bridge and one at the other end of Lucille at the cul-de-sac •It is critical to have an access point to this trail from Apple Infinity Loop to get Apple employees off the streets and encourage them to the trail •Negotiate a spur from the trail to Lawson Middle School on the Apple side of the wall bordering residents on Larry Way Alternative Alignment Plan: Alternative Alignment plans were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment. •Conduct sensibility of parking for those who will drive to Mary entrance •Privacy and security concern for residents along path •Consider mitigation for crime during non-use hours •No tunnel – feels unsafe •No at-grade crossing – most dangerous •Trail safety critical for everyone •Apple access point? Connect to Apple Park campus. •Blaney: homeless •Blaney intersection: wall? What We Heard: What We Heard boards were placed at stations 2 through 5. Participants were invited to draw and write on each board to provide comments on what we heard from previous meetings. •Alternative #1 too close to fence. No privacy. Alt #2 •Like’s Alt #2 @ Mary. Less impact to privacy. •Establish rules of the road. Prepare a document explaining how shared use trail works. Public outreach. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study140Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 6 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •Series of public presentations in the City Hall to discuss proper trail etiquette. This means what type of behavior is expected of pedestrians and bicyclists on the Loop Trail. Flip Charts Flip Charts were placed at stations 2 through 5. Participants were invited to draw and write on each flip chart to provide feedback for each station where there was a flip chart. Bike path across De Anza Blvd. (Sunnyvale – Saratoga): •Issue with the bike bridge over Sunnyvale – Saratoga Ave. This is a good idea, but it is visual clutter and makes the whole area look like the middle of a big freeway going over Sunnyvale – Saratoga Rd. This design detracts from the beauty of the Apple I campus and the trees and the other buildings. Too much clutter. •On other view of having an underground tunnel in lieu of the bike bridge over Sunnyvale – Saratoga Avenue, the current tunnel as presented is dark and scarey [sic] and looks like it would not be safe to walk in. There could be pick-pockets and purse snatchers. There is too much enclosed area in the tunnel and as a woman I would not feel safe walking or bicycling in that dark tunnel with no one else around. •Can you come up with a better plan? •Underground is good, but currently it is too dark and scarey [sic] and unsafe. •Remove multiple access points on Lucille and keep only one at Blaney overpass and one at Apple parking lot corner (possibly open on both Apple and Lucille sides) •Negotiate with Apple to add a spur along edge of parking lot adjacent to homes on Larry Way to provide off street parking access to Lawson Middle School and Apple employees •Homelessness concern: What mitigations will be taken if homelessness does become a problem after the trail is built? •Connections Map: Show access points to trail! Trail Enlargements/Sections Trail Enlargements and Sections were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment. Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue •Apple access is very important •Would rather have parking •Flashing beacon •Can a flashing sign be put here to alert cars of peds? •Trash concerns •Keep existing redwoods and water valve & existing boxes •New landscape •Informal trail •Lots of litter Stelling Rd Under Crossing: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 141Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 7 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. •More solid @ bottom of fence •Deterrent to potential homeless camp •Close •Signage for cyclists Community E-mails Some community members who were not able to attend the community meeting sent Jennifer comments about the project via e-mail. E-mail #1: Jennifer, It was good meeting with you during last meeting in this topic. I won't be in town to participate in person. As expressed during our meeting I am reiterating my points, 1. Our primary stance is "complete No- No for this initiative." The reason is we are very seriously concerned with Security, privacy as well Our safety. In addition, unknown people hanging around and noise are concerns as well. I had expressed similar concerns during Mary avenue bridge. City officials were deaf to our concerns. We continue to suffer from late night noise, some illegal acts, unknowns hanging around in the area between our backyard and empty area off Bridge. 2. However if city officials still continue to take same stance ( as in the past )and build a trail, here are options, 1. Trail will be used only for walking/ Jogging. 2. No bike access / Skate boarders. 3. Strict access control to Homestead high students. 4. City officials Meeting with neighbors every quarter for any concerns. I also insist on following, 1. We need 10 feet solid wood fence to be built. This will be maintained and managed by city. 2. No access to trail after 7 pm till 7 am. 3. More cops and police to monitor trail access and faster response in case of any issues or concerns. 4. 24x7, monitoring Cameras to be installed at the trail entrance. Alarms in case of access after 7 PM till 7 AM. 5. Strict control policy on noise level. Currently we have several days the year people hanging around bridge area making loud noises, chatting which goes on till late night. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study142Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 8 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Lastly, we need guarantee from city on our safety, security concerns are, if not a firm commitment from city and owning responsibility for any issues / concerns arising from such incidences as well being legally liable. Please ensure our concerns and voice is heard clear and loud in any further planning. Thank you, ”Name Omitted for Privacy” E-mail #2: Dear Jennifer, As 20+ year residents of Cupertino, we would like to voice our support for the Junipero Serra bike trail. ”Name Omitted for Privacy” -END- The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days. Submitted by: Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates cc: File Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 143Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 9 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Pictures of Community Meeting #3 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study144Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 11 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Door Hanger: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 145Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 12 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Door Hanger for Residents Around Portal Avenue: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study146Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Meeting Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study RE: Community Meetings #3 June 6, 2018 Page 13 of 13 17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Meeting Postcard: (Front of Postcard) (Back of Postcard) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 147Appendix Community Meeting #3 Summary Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study148Appendix 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 149Appendix 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study150Appendix 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 151Appendix 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study152Appendix Outreach Materials - City Flier Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 153Appendix Outreach Materials - City Postcard Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study154Appendix Outreach Materials - City Door Hanger Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 155Appendix Outreach Materials - City Door Hanger for Portal Ave Residents Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study156Appendix Outreach Materials - Hand Out AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 157 Apple R.O.W. Aquisition Exhibit Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study158 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 159Appendix Sandis - Box Culvert E-mail Jana Schwartz <j.schwartz@callanderassociates.com> Box Culvert Information - Junipero Serra Trail 1 message David Rubin <drubin@callanderassociates.com>Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:07 PM To: Jennifer Chu <JenniferC@cupertino.org>, David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Cc: Jana Schwartz <jschwartz@callanderassociates.com>, Brian Fletcher <bfletcher@callanderassociates.com> Jenn/David, I wanted to follow up on your questions yesterday regarding the box culvert. I was able to connect with Sandis and get some additional information. Below is the email from Jenner Phillips at Sandis regarding sizing of the culvert. Also, attached to this email are Caltrans details for box culverts, similar to what we'd propose here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I suspect the channel was designed for the full build-out condition as well as to accommodate the 100-yr storm. Assuming everything from Stevens Creek Blvd flows north into the channel, I roughly calculate a 100-yr flow rate of 1329 cu-ft/sec. This is based on a composite run-off coefficient of 0.64 for a drainage area of 940 acres. I then compared that to the flow capacities of different parts of the channel. The box culvert (10ft wide x 6ft tall) just before the naturalized channel at Wolfe has a roughly calculated capacity of approximately 1340 cu-ft/sec. Based on our conversations to cover the culvert to gain more space for the path, I think a good option might be to replace the trapezoidal channel with a box culvert where the top of the culvert could be the top of the path (or at least a part of the path) with direct manhole access for maintenance personnel. The following segments of could be changed per the following: Mary to Stelling – 4’x4’ Box Culvert; Stelling to De Anza – 8’x5’ Box Culvert; De Anza to Wolfe – 10’x6’ Box Culvert; Wolfe to Calabazas Creek – Remain Unlined Trapezoidal. The unlined channel will very likely have to remain unlined. I doubt the Waterboards will allow a naturalized channel to be paved. They actively try to do the reverse. Drain inlets should be installed along the length to allow surface water to flow in and culvert water to flow out if the channel floods. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional information regarding access and maintenance: Q: How is culvert accessed and how far apart are access points? A: Can cast the manhole access flush with the top of the culvert or add a riser if there is fill above. Typically manholes are either 300 or 400 ft apart. It depends on maintenance preferences and costs. Either end of the culvert will need bars or something to restrict access. Q: How big are the access locations? A: Typical 2' manhole access. Q: What kind of equipment is needed to maintain culvert? A: Smaller sections probably need to be flushed clean similar to circular pipe sections, larger sections could allow a crew inside with equipment (power washers, brooms, shovels, etc…). The box culverts are designed to handle H-20 loading Lastly, alternative #2 means converting 10,100 linear feet of ditch from Mary Ave. to Wolfe Rd to box culvert (or about 1.91 miles). The last section east of Wolfe would remain unlined as it is today. I hope this helps and please let me know if you need anything else regarding the culverts. Thanks, Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study160Appendix this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 161 Sandis - CalTrans Box Culvert Notes Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study162 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 163 Sandis - CalTrans Box Culvert Notes Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study164 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 165 Sandis - De Anza Blvd Overhead Wires Survey Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study166 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 167Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet 17056_CommunityMeeting#1CommentHandout.indd December 6, 2017 • Travel to each of the stations and provide your input • Enjoy the refreshments • Ask us lots of questions Junipero Serra Trail December 6, 2017 How would you use this trail? Circle all that apply. Walking/Jogging/Biking Commuting to Work Taking children to school None of the above 1. 2. 3. 4. How often do you currently use a trail system elsewhere? Circle one. Never Once a year Once a month Once a week More than once a week 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Regarding trail development, what’s most important to you? Circle all that apply. Safety and security Trail access Trail amenities Connections to other bike and pedestrian facilities Other: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Community Meeting #1 Welcome! How to get started Tell us what you think Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study168Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1 Available Width, less than 14’-0” (does not meet class 1 multi-use standards) City Limits Available Width, 14’-0” minimum (meets class 1 multi-use standards) Trail Connection Point Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Public Building (BA) Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor General Commercial (CG) Office/Planned Office (OA/OP) Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor Agricultural Residential (A1) Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element) (BA) (CG, ML) (BA) (BQ, Mini-Stor) *residential zoning is not shown Bike Lanes on Street Existing Connections Bike Route Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Overhead Utilities Gateway Class 1 Bike Path Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP) (BA) (BQ) THE LOOPCupertino 0 50 100 200 17056_SiteAnalysis.indd Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis HOMESTEAD HIGH SCHOOL GARDEN GATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Mary Avenue Bridge MARY AVENUESTELLING ROADI-280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 STATION #3 - Mary Ave to De Anza Blvd What do you like about this segment of the trail? What can be improved in this segment of the trail? Please rate this segment’s overall desirability: Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities: Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Commuting to work Walking/Jogging/Biking Going to school Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 169Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1 B(CG, ML, OA)(BQ) (R2, Mini-Stor) (A1) Available Width, less than 14’-0” (does not meet class 1 multi-use standards) City Limits Available Width, 14’-0” minimum (meets class 1 multi-use standards) Trail Connection Point Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Public Building (BA) Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor General Commercial (CG) Office/Planned Office (OA/OP) Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor Agricultural Residential (A1) Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element) *residential zoning is not shown Bike Lanes on Street Bike Route Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Overhead Utilities Gateway 0 50 100 200 Existing Connections Class 1 Bike Path Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP) (BQ) 17056_SiteAnalysis.indd THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis APPLE LAWSON MIDDLE SCHOOL BLANEY AVENUEDE ANZA BOULEVARDI-280 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 STATION #4 - De Anza Blvd to Vallco Center What do you like about this segment of the trail? What can be improved in this segment of the trail? Please rate this segment’s overall desirability: Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities: Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Commuting to work Walking/Jogging/Biking Going to school Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study170Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1 HE HE (Regional Shopping) (Heart of the City Specific Plan Area) HE Enlargement Area - Hyatt House Hotel Bike/Ped Path Connection Available Width, less than 14’-0” (does not meet class 1 multi-use standards) City Limits Available Width, 14’-0” minimum (meets class 1 multi-use standards) Trail Connection Point Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area Heart of the City Specific Plan Area Public Building (BA) Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor General Commercial (CG) Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP) Office/Planned Office (OA/OP) Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor Agricultural Residential (A1) Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element) *residential zoning is not shown Bike Lanes on Street Bike Route Class 1 Bike Path Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Overhead Utilities Gateway 0 50 100 200 Existing Connections (Hotel) 17056_SiteAnalysis.indd THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014AADROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA PUBLIC OPEN SPACE OUTDOOR DINING POOL EXISTING TREE SHADE TREE FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE STREET TREE IN GRATE PUBLIC ART DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE) PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK TRASH/RECYCLING BIN STORMWATER PLANTING ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP SCREENED TRANSFORMER LEGEND NORTH SCALE:1” = 20’-0” L-1 12 12 13 13 8 1 3 4 6 7 2 2 2 7 7 10 11 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 16 15 14 13 8 0’ 5’20’10’10’Aproposed calss IV separated bike lane as part of I-280/Wolfe Road interchange improvments green-backed bike lanes along N Tantau Ave. and Vallco Pkwy. see enlargement area connection to proposed trail hotel bicycle/pedestrian path CALABAZAS CREEKN TAN TAU AVENUE VALLC O P A R K W A YN WO L FE ROAD I-280 Vallco marquee sign P(MP) APPLE 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 33 32 3130292827 26 25 24 23 STATION #5 - Vallco Center to Vallco Pkwy What do you like about this segment of the trail? What can be improved in this segment of the trail? Please rate this segment’s overall desirability: Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities: Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Low High 0 1 2 3 4 5 Commuting to work Walking/Jogging/Biking Going to school Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 171Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet 17056_CommunityMeeting#2CommentHandout.indd February 20 and 26, 2018 • Travel to each of the stations and provide your input • Enjoy the refreshments • Ask us lots of questions Junipero Serra Trail February 20 and 26, 2018 1. Did you attend Community Meeting #1? Circle one. Yes No A. B. 3. How would you use the trail? Circle all that apply. Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other: A. B. C. D. E. 4. Do you live or work in Cupertino? Circle one. I live in Cupertino I work in Cupertino I live and work in Cupertino I do not live or work in Cupertino A. B. C. D. Community Meeting #2 Welcome! How to get started I. General Background 2. Do you support a trail at this location? Circle one. Yes No A. B. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study172Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 II. Trail Design 1. Which alternative do you prefer? Circle one. Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither A. B. C. 2. What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative? Please provide your response below. 3. Do you live next to the trail? Circle one. Yes No A. B. THE LOOPCupertinoTrail Sections 17056_TrailSections.indd Public Service Easement City of Cupertino Width Varies 75’- 0” Existing Trail ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-Stor Slope Easement Cupertino Loc-N-StorPublic Service Easement City of Cupertino Width Varies 75’- 0”Slope Easement Existing Trail Residential 12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ. 2’-0”2’-0” Pedestrian Trail Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ. 10’-0” Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree Removal and Grading Will Be Required. Existing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage 12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0” Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 Shoulder, Typ. Asphalt Trail 35’- 0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Existing Proposed Pedestrian Trail +- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 35’- 0” 9’- 0” 2’-0” Shoulder Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 11’- 6”+- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees 35- 0” PG&E Transmission Poll Existing Concrete Lined Drainage Ditch Existing Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B +- +- THE LOOPCupertino Trail Sections 17056_TrailSections.indd Public Service EasementCity of CupertinoWidth Varies 75’- 0”Existing Trail ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-StorSlope Easement Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Public Service Easement City of Cupertino Width Varies 75’- 0” Slope Easement Existing Trail Residential 12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ. 2’-0”2’-0” Pedestrian Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. 10’-0” Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree Removal and Grading Will Be Required. Existing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage 12’-0”2’-0”2’-0” Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 Shoulder, Typ. Asphalt Trail 35’- 0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Existing Proposed Pedestrian Trail +- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 35’- 0” 9’- 0” 2’-0” ShoulderPublic Storage Caltrans R.O.W.I-28011’- 6”+-SCVWD R.O.W.Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees35- 0”PG&E Transmission PollExisting Concrete Lined Drainage DitchExisting Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B+- +- Alternative #1 Open Drainage Ditch, Pedestrian Trail Alternative #2 Covered Drainage Ditch, Class 1 Multi-UseTrail 4. Do you have children that would use this trail? Circle one. Yes No Possibly in the future A. B. C. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 173Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 STATION #3 - Mary Avenue Trail Access THE LOOPCupertino Trail Sections 17056_TrailSections.indd Public Service Easement City of Cupertino Width Varies 75’- 0”Existing Trail ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-Stor Slope Easement Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Public Service Easement City of Cupertino Width Varies 75’- 0” Slope Easement Existing Trail Residential 12’-0”2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. 2’-0”2’-0” Pedestrian Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. 10’-0” Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree Removal and Grading Will Be Required. Existing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage 12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0” Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 Shoulder, Typ. Asphalt Trail 35’- 0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Existing Proposed Pedestrian Trail +- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies +- Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 35’- 0” 9’- 0” 2’-0” Shoulder Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W.I-28011’- 6”+-SCVWD R.O.W.Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees35- 0”PG&E Transmission PollExisting Concrete Lined Drainage DitchExisting Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B+- +- Alternative #1 Pedestrian Trail Alternative #2 Class 1 Multi-Use Trail III. Mary Avenue 1. Which alternative do you prefer? Circle one. Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither A. B. C. 2. What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative? Please provide your response below 3. Would you use Mary Avenue Bridge to connect to this trail system? Circle one. Yes No Maybe A. B. C. 4. Do you have any additional comments about the Mary Avenue Trail access point? Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study174Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 STATION #3 - Stelling RoadTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Auzerais Ave Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk Open Ditch Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide Undercrossing Example Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. HWY 85 Stevens Cree k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) 1. What crossing type do you prefer? Circle one. A grade-separated crossing under Stelling Road with spur trail access and no crosswalk across Stelling Road A crosswalk across Stelling Road with no grade-separated crossing under Stelling Road or spur trail access Both a grade-separated crossing and crosswalk across Stelling Road with spur trail access A. B. C. Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail segment? Stelling Road Crossing Options IV. Stelling Road Crossing THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Auzerais Ave Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk Open Ditch Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide Undercrossing Example Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. HWY 85 Stevens Cree k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 175Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 STATION #4 - De Anza BoulevardTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Bicycle / Pedestrian Bridge Over-Crossing Examples De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement Bridge Over-CrossingDe Anza BoulevardInterstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide PG&E Tower To Remain Stairs to Bridge Over-Crossing, Typ. Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Trailhead Plaza, Typ. Bridge Over-Crossing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Relocated PG&E Tower PG&E Tower To Be Removed Existing Property Fence, Apple Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) 40 MPH 1. What crossing type do you prefer? Circle one. Bridge over-crossing with crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard Tunnel under-crossing with crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard No grade-separated crossing and maintain existing crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard A. B. C. THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Bicycle / Pedestrian Under-Crossing Examples Stevens Creek Trail Local Example: Stevens Creek Trail, Mountain View Under-Crossing Below El Camino Real With Center Skylight And LightingDe Anza BoulevardDe Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement Tunnel Under-Crossing 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Interstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p PG&E Tower To Be Removed Tunnel Under-Crossing With Skylight For Natural Lighting Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain Tunnel Approach Ramp Tunnel Approach Ramp Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide 40 MPH Reocated PG&E Tower on Caltrans R.O.W. Existing Property Fence, Apple Stairs to Tunnel Under-Crossing, Typ. Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) De Anza Boulevard Bridge Over-Crossing De Anza Boulevard Tunnel Under-Crossing V. De Anza Boulevard Crossing THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Auzerais Ave Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk Open Ditch Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide Undercrossing Example Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. HWY 85 Stevens Cree k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered)THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Auzerais Ave Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk Open Ditch Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide Undercrossing Example Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. HWY 85 Stevens Cree k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) 2. Would you support removal of the existing crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard if the bridge or tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided? Circle one. Yes No Maybe A. B. C. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study176Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 STATION #4 - Blaney RoadTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements / Sections 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 C 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Interstate 280 Blaney AvenueRandy LaneVilla De Anza AvenueProposed Sidewalk To Meet Existing Sidewalk at Olivewood StreetMetal Beam Guardrail At Curve Existing Edge Of Street Proposed Curb Shift, 2’-0” approximately 10’ Width At Pinch Point Blaney Avenue Intersection Enlargement Alternative #1Existing SECTION C Alternative #2 City R.O.W.Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 18’- 6”+- SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 40’- 0” Existing Tree Existing Tree Existing Sound Wall PG&E Transmission Pole Lucille Avenue Existing Chainlink Fence Existing Concrete Lined Drainage Ditch PG&E Transmission Lines Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 40’- 0” Varies, 12’-0” Max.2’-0”2’-0” Pedestrian or Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. City R.O.W. Existing Tree To Remain Sound Wall To Remain Guardrail, 4’-6” Tall, Only Where Drop-Off Slope Exceeds 3:1 Concrete Lined Drainage Ditch To RemainLucille Avenue Existing Tree To Remain 3:1 Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0” Tall, With Openings Along Lucille Avenue For Trail Access PG&E Transmission Lines To Remain PG&E Transmission Pole To Remain Caltrans R.O.W. I-280 SCVWD R.O.W. Width Varies 40’- 0” 12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0” Class 1 Multi-Use Trail Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ. City R.O.W. Existing Tree To Remain Sound Wall To Remain Lucille Avenue Existing Tree To Remain Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0” Tall, With Openings Along Lucille Avenue For Trail Access Concrete Box Culvert PG&E Transmission Lines To Remain PG&E Transmission Pole To Remain Planted Stormwater Treatment Area Paved Trail Access Point Guy Anchor To Be Modified, Maintain Min. 10’ Vertical Clearance Over Trail Access manhole at 400’- 0”, typ. Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Trailhead Existing Tree To Remain, Typ.Landscaping, Typ. Existing On-street Parking Seatwall, Typ. Low Split Rail Fence, Typ. Wires Overhead, Typ. D.G. Path Connection, Typ. PG&E Tower, Typ. Proposed Crosswalk and Sidewalk With Ramps 25 MPH Lucille Avenue CEnlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) Do you have any comments about the Station #4 trail segment? VI. Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue Blaney Avenue with Trail Access on Lucille Avenue THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements 17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd February 20/26, 2018 Auzerais Ave Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280 Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Ditch Barrier Railing, Typ. At-grade Higher Visibility Crosswalk Open Ditch Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5% Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide Undercrossing Example Trailhead Plaza With Seating, Typ. HWY 85 Stevens Cree k T r a i l Middlefield Overhead 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example 30 MPH Enlargement Legend Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Ditch (When Covered) 1. Regarding trail access and amenities, which of the following do you support? Circle one. Informal trail access and no trailhead or trail amenities at this location Single trail access point and trailhead with limited trail amenities at this location Multiple trail access points and a trailhead with greater level of amenities at this location A. B. C. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 177Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 0 50 100 200 City Limits Trail Connection Point / Enlargement Area Existing Conditions Trail Types Bike Lanes on Street Existing Connections Bike Route Crosswalk Stop Sign Traffic Signal Gateway Class 1 Bike Path Covered Ditch, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’-0” minimum Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’-0” minimum Pedestrian Trail, less than 16’-0” Alternative #2 Alternative #1 Standard 17056_AlternativeAlignmentPlan.indd THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Trail - Alternative Alignment Plan CALABAZAS CREEK TAN TAU AV ENUE VALLC O P A R K W A YWOL F E ROAD I-280 Vallco marquee sign APPLE See Hyatt House Hotel Enlargement Vallco / I-280 Interchange Projects Class 1 Multi- Use Trail, 20’ Wide Public Trail Easement Potential Trailhead and Connection to Signalized Intersection DE STATION #5 - Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway Do you have any comments about the Station #5 trail segment? VII. Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway THE LOO P Cupertino Trail Enl a r g e m e n t s 17056_Tra il E n l a r g e m e n t s _ V 2 . i n d d February 2 0 / 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 Auzerais A v e Stelling R o a d I n t e r s e c ti o n E nl a r g e m e n tStelling RoadInterstate 2 8 0 Existing C a l t r a n s F e n c e T o R e m ai n Class 1 M ul ti - U s e T r ail, 1 6’ Wi d e Over Cov e r e d Di t c h West Trail S p u r , 10’ Wide East Trail S p u r, 10’ Wide Class 1 M ul ti - U s e T r ail, 1 6’ Wide Ove r C o v e r e d Di t c h Barrier Rai li n g, Typ. At-grade Hi g h e r Visibility C r o s s w al k Open Dit c h Access C o n t r o l F e n c e A t T r ail E d g e Sloped T r ail U n d e r c r o s si n g, < 5 % Running Sl o p e, Cl a s s 1 M ul t i - U s e Trail, Cro s s S e c ti o n s = 1 6’ Wi d e Undercro s si n g E x a m pl e Trailhead Pl a z a Wi t h Seating, T y p.HWY85Stevens Creek T r a i l Middlefie l d Overhead 0 1 5’ 3 0’ 6 0’ Higher Vi si bili t y C r o s s w al k E x a m pl e 30 MPH Enlargem e n t L e g e n d Primary V ol t a g e O v e r h e a d Seconda r y V ol t a g e O v e r h e a d Drainage Di t c h ( W h e n C o v e r e d) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study178Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2 Please return your packet to the sign-in table Thank you for your participation! Please join us again for: Community Meeting #3 Wednesday, June 6, 2018 6:00pm – 8:00pm Cupertino Community Hall 10350 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 Do you have any other comments about the project? Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 179Appendix Input Handout - Community Meeting #3 Questionnaire 17056_CommMtg#3_Questionnaire.indd June 6, 2018 • Travel to each of the stations • Provide Input • Enjoy the refreshments • Ask us lots of questions Junipero Serra Trail 1. Did you attend Community Meeting #1 or Community Meeting #2? Circle one. Only, Community Meeting #1 Only, Community Meeting #2 Both, Community Meeting #1 and #2 Neither A. B. C. D. 3. How would you use the trail? Circle all that apply. Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other: A. B. C. D. E. 4. Do you live or work in Cupertino? Circle one. I live in Cupertino I work in Cupertino I live and workin Cupertino I do not live orwork in Cupertino A. B. C. D. Community Meeting #3 - Questionnaire How to get started I. General Background II. Input 2. Do you support a trail at this location? Circle one. Yes No A. B. 1. What aspects of the trail design do you like? What do you like about the proposed trail? 2. How can the proposed trail be improved? 3. Do you have any other comments about the project? Please return this questionaire to the sign-in station. Thank you for your participation! June 6, 2018 Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study180Appendix this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 181 Input Board for Diwali Festival Pop-Up Booth THE LOOPCupertino Share Your Thoughts! 17056_AlternativesInputQuestions.indd April 21, 2018 Do you support a trail at this location? 1 Yes How would you use the trail? 3 Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other No Do you live next to the trail? 2 Yes No Which trail alternative do you prefer? 4 Alternative #1 Alternative #2 At Stelling Road, what type of crossing do you prefer? 5 Crosswalk On Stelling Rd. At De Anza Boulevard, what type of crossing do you prefer? 6 Both Crossing Options Grade-Separated Crossing Under Stelling Rd. Bridge Crossing Over De Anza Blvd. Existing Crosswalk Across De Anza Blvd. Tunnel Crossing Under De Anza Blvd. Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study182 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 183Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts • Cost: significantly more for alternative #2. Use: Alternative #1 will be used multi-use anyway. • Wider, multi-purpose, dream big - one time cost • Wider trail, safety that someone not going to fall in ditch. • Safety • Multi Use - Bike and Pedestrian • Safety, traffic, parking, noise, lack of privacy, Increase of strangers in the area • No bikes, lighting, noise, less privacy, security • Open Space. It would provide a better experience. • Impact of people and traffic • Aesthetics, Width-allows easier bike + pedestrian traffic • Separation from traffic • Allowing bicycles on the trail is vital in order for the trail to provide a good commuting alternative • Potential users; impact on privacy, security of residents along trail; reversibility; potential impact to water authority activities • More room for ped and bike • Trail width • I like the extra width provided by Alt #2, but I think Alt #1 would be much simpler and less expensive which will help it happen! Would particularly be concerned about limiting water flow or complicating maintenance when covering the ditch. Alt#2 also adds some additional green buffer to neighbors, but I don’t think this will be a problem after it is constructed • Safety, security, noise impact, privacy for those houses impacted • This is the “aging of America” (I don’t think this is being considered). The aged are not going to be riding bicycles (nor walking over bridges/trails) to get to their medical appointments or bring home groceries, etc. We have enough bicycle/access infiltrating our area, bringing in outsiders. These “designs” will impact the quiet enjoyment of our homes even more!! • Walking along a trail built right next to a major highway is not something of great appeal; physical and environmental safety concerns (i.e. fumes from many motor vehicles, noise) will not be great appeal; Building and maintaining such a trail, built next to a major highway will be much more expensive? What is the projected cost? • The proposed trail would run directly behind my house, it would impact my privacy as well as increase the noise level • Safety of existing redwood trees along 280; presence of bikes and pedestrians on same trail - how safe? • For the second alternative, there is more space for people to commute to work, or go on a family walk. For people going to work, it is a longer commute by bike without the trail • It would be cosmetically nicer and it might keep out any random undesirable smells • I am concerned about security for property owners next to the trail. As is, there is graffiti on I-280 sound wall • Multi-use trail more useful than narrow pedestrian only trail • It is wider, it looks nicer, there is more greenery • This is for Apple-only and don’t care about us who live next to the trail • Consistent width, avoids falling in ditches, more visually appealing, avoids conflict with location on PG&E poles, especially in Station #4 area • Width! The wider trail is safer to allow pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, etc. What factors impact your decision selecting a trail alternative? 16% 55% 29% #1 #2 Neither Which alternative do you prefer? Do you live next to the trail? Do you have children that would use the trail? 16% 55% 29% #1 #2 Neither 62% 38% Yes No 19% 72% 9% Possibly in the Future Community Meeting #1 Overall Input Community Meeting #2 Overall Input 26% 35%4% 35% 0% 1. Safety and security 2. Trail access 3. Trail amenities 4. Connections to other bike and pedestrian facilities 5. Other 26% 35%4% 35% 0% 1. Safety and security 2. Trail access 3. Trail amenities 4. Connections to other bike and pedestrian facilities 5. Other 8% 17% 0% 50% 25%1. Never 2. Once a year 3. Once a month 4. Once a week 5. More than once a week 8% 17% 0% 50% 25%1. Never 2. Once a year 3. Once a month 4. Once a week 5. More than once a week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Suitability for Commuting to Work 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Desirablility 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 Suitability for Going to School Suitability Going To SchoolSuitability For Commuting To WorkOverall Desirability TRAIL SEGMENT 1 TRAIL SEGMENT 2 TRAIL SEGMENT 3 0 1 2 3 4 5LOW HIGH How would you use this trail? 72% 14% 7% 7% 1. Walking/Jogging/Biking 2. Commuting to work 3. Taking children to school 4. None of the above 72% 14% 7% 7% 1. Walking/Jogging/Biking 2. Commuting to work 3. Taking children to school 4. None of the above How often do you currently use a trail system elsewhere? Regarding trail development, what’s most important to you? Circle all that apply. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5# OF RESPONDENTS58% 42% Yes No Input Packet Yes No Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study184Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts General Project Comments • Great handout! Do this again. • Make it a world class trail. Heart of Silicon Valley must look good. Plant new trees. • Should be trail that represents Cupertino. Home of Apple. Best of best shall be created. • My property backs up to the trail between Mary and Stelling. I currently see the trail used by PG&E. My concerns are: 1. liability - I have tall trees that have dropped branches on the trail. 2. Safety - giving easier access to my back yard. 3. Privacy - I have no fence (just chain link). I am not against the bike/ped path, just want my concerns addressed. • This part of Cupertino has been impacted enough by the freeway, the schools, Apple and it’s employees. • We are very worried about safety, security, privacy. Homestead high school kids jumping the fence (which they do), homeless, smokers, drugs and nuisance. • It’s a shame that Apple can cause such a project to be contemplated that would impact the residents of this area. • I support alternate #2 for Mary to De Anza Blvd. • Very supportive. Good luck! • Please, please build it! This trail would remove a lot of local commuting traffic off the roads (Apple employees between campuses, students to De Anza college…) and provide a great off-street recreational alternative within the city (jogger, dog walkers...). Provide trash cans along trail : dog walkers; drinking fountains at trail ends would be great bonus • Consider if paving is necessary. No lights - encourage dawn to dusk use; Consider Alternative #1 as a pilot which could be expanded if use of trail becomes high. • Seems like there needs to be more thought about intermediate access points. The major points are too far apart. While I favor choices that reduce cost and complexity, I would encourage setting standards for trail width - there are too many narrow pinch points identified already. Please spend the money to widen where needed. • I am extremely concerned about safety, privacy, and noise issues. Currently, we have a lot of people hanging out at 2am during summer nights at the Mary Avenue Bridge trail head, located directly behind my house. 1) I am extremely concerned this trail will add to the noise we experience. 2) Make sure security is enforced after dusk (when officers are not busy with school patrolling). We already clean up broken glass bottles in our yards. 3) We are concerned about any trash, debris items that can be thrown over the fence into our backyards. 4) Can existing bike bridge be used to access 280 per alternative #2 near Mary Avenue? This would perhaps reduce capital costs. • All-in-all, do not think this to be a very worthwhile project. Probably very expensive and lacking in widespread appeal. Walkers, joggers, or cycling along trail next to major highway not very appealing, especially at times of rush-hour traffic. • I am totally opposed to the construction of the trail • Super • Very good graphics and presentation of trail options. Please keep the redwood trees along 280 • Really make sure Apple campus 1 and 2 have good connection to path • Please think about possibly separating bikers and pedestrians if the trail becomes crowded, in the future • Why do I and my neighbors have to suffer because the city can’t say no to Apple • Mile Markers (1/4 mile markers), security cameras in key areas and convex mirrors for blind corners, all for safety. Please make an effort to tie into the new signage style proposed for the City’s Bike Boulevards, including “destination” signs indicating what is near the access points. Post a 25 mph speed limit (or less). Allow E-bikes with 25 mph max speed. Prohibit other motorized vehicles (gas, diesel, etc.). I LIKE HAVING A CROSS- TOWN CONNECTION OFF OF THE BUSY STREET LIKE STEVENS CREEK • When it opens, safety & security has to be very good to “set the tone” of the project. If people think it is not safe they won’t use it or let their kids use it. Prevent Apple bikes from riding 2-3-4 across & taking over the path like we currently see them, do on our neighborhood streets like Vista Drive. (Comments provided via email after both community meetings) • After briefly reviewing the online story boards, I believe that accompanying trail construction, permit parking must be extended to the entirety of Lucille between Blaney and Apple. Lucille already has the occasional Apple employee parking and is used daily for Employees to smoke at the cul de sac at Apple. The neighborhood is permit parking because of the Apple overflow, and active vehicle commuters on Lucille is inconsistent with the trail’s use for the three schools nearby. Also, if smoking is not allowed on the trail, then it somehow should be restricted in the neighborhood. Apple doesn’t allow smoking on their campus, and if they think the trail bordering their property is also non-smoking, they will be driving smokers into the neighborhood which is unacceptable. We already have employees parking on Lucille then coming back to the area to smoke during breaks. • I just learned about a potential bike path along the Junipero Serra Channel. This is exciting, as it would give bicycles a protected way to get from Mary to Tantau. Currently, if you’re near 280, you need to go to Homestead or Stevens Creek to go between Blaney and Wolfe. This change would encourage more bicycling, getting even more cars off the roadways. Hope you find some common ground with the water district and Caltrans to get this done. Of course, it would be great if the road crossings weren’t at grade, but I’ll leave that to the experts. Project Background, Goals and Objectives • Goal 4 - Have the trail access along I-280 be strictly for bike traffic. That way bike riders can travel at a faster speed. This would be good for people commuting on bikes between Apple Campus (Sunnyvale) and Apple Campus 2 (Tantau). • If pedestrian and bikes are on the same trial, the bikes need to go slower and pedestrians need to understand how to go on a trail with bikes Flip Chart Input Packet Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 185Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd • Wider, bike friendly • Do the right thing. If trail is not proper and wide it won’t be usable and people won’t use it. Having wider trail is right idea. • Safety • Multi Use, wider trail • Security, noise, lighting, privacy • Terrible proposal • Width of the trail being better for multiple uses - pedestrian and bicycles; plant a new tree or bush to replace tree removed. • Maintain trees along residences • Slope is more natural and pleasing. In an emergency, trail users can leave the trail by climbing the slope; sharp easement feels walled in. • Security underpass area • Pleasant landscaping • Easier, cheaper, better • Again, making a choice for a simpler solution has a better chance of getting approved and built; I would encourage you to maintain as much natural screening as possible and NOT excavate more to create neighbor isolation; the perception of the negative is greater than the reality • Why can’t the existing Mary Ave. bridge on-ramp be used to access trail? That will reduce the project costs. Alternative 2 is my second choice, do not support Alternative 1 • See former page [Trail Design] • Concerns over expense of such a project versus the benefit to public. Do not believe this project will have a great deal of appeal to most people • I am not in favor of either alternative especially because it will be right behind our house/property. This trail would be an invasion of my privacy. The foot and bike traffic would result in noise and debris left on the trail • Amount of water flowing in ditch • Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have parkour skills, which most people don’t). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and next to a hillside, it would be nicer • It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :) • Multi-use of bicycles • Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail • Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic • Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area. • Restroom, Water station, bench, camera, lighting, mile marker, safety patrol, website to promote • Putting water, parking spaces, lighting, maybe restrooms near parks is a good idea. • You should plan trail on ‘storage’ side at pedestrian bridge • Consider collaborating with residences to improve robustness of fences along trail • Amenities for bikers and walkers here please! Benches and congregating spaces here would be great (mini-park). Keep those away from the neighbors though • Concerns over effects and disruption to the local residents, especially over Alternative #1 • Have police on bike patrol at the Stelling undercrossing to deter loitering and theft and graffiti • Concerned w/ safety for trail users, particularly with potentially being in a secluded area out of plain sight, by the Loc-N-Stor • Safety - it seems secluded. Add mirrors for blind spots. • Amount of water flowing in ditch • Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have parkour skills, which most people don’t). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and next to a hillside, it would be nicer • It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :) • Multi-use of bicycles • Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail • Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic • Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area. What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative (Mary Ave Alternative)? Do you have any additional comments about the Mary Ave Trail access point? Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts 6% 65% 29% #1 #2 Neither At Mary Ave., which alternative do you prefer? Would you use Mary Avenue Bridge to connect to his trail system? 16% 55% 29% #1 #2 Neither 35% 21% 44%#1 #2 Maybe Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard) Input Packet • Pedestrian Trail: concern about buffering Comments on Mary Avenue Bridge Enlargement Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study186Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd • Safety, security #1 issue. Graffiti already there. Had a burglary. • Connect to Stevens Creek Trail to the west? • Trail on north side of 280 • No monitoring of ex. Plaza. Needs monitoring. Use cameras. • Concern about beacon crossing stopping traffic on Stelling. Concern about safety. Low visibility southbound. • Do a soundwall for safety and privacy. • Light for night use. • Amenities, drinking fountains, seating, “dream big” • Security cameras at problem/key areas. • Traffic stacks at Stelling. • Concern over liability of trees dropping branches • Graffiti • Privacy & security • Stats on crime - how will police monitor • Parking will be issue • Leave redwoods • Why paved? Leave gravel • No lights • Homeless, privacy, security • Alt 2 viable? • Do we need a trail? Is demand there? For Apple employees? Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard) Input Packet (cont.) Flip Chart Comments on Trail Segment 1 Plan • This is heavy traffic area, option C is better. Least preferred choice is A. • Stelling is extremely busy at rush hour in morning and evening. A surface crosswalk would be a disaster • Not option B: will cause traffic backups on Stelling. Will cause safety issues. Also the bridge railing when traveling south on Stelling blocks sight line to the trail toward the west making it much less safe. • For biking on busy streets, like Stelling, separation is very important to induce casual/weekend bicyclists • Crosswalk good for pedestrian access and in case of flooding (?) • Traffic on Stelling is heavy and depends on events at De Anza College. A crosswalk is likely to be overlooked (note crosswalk near Quinlan); A Stelling Road entrance to the bike path is likely to influence and impact traffic on Stelling • Very noisy • Very clever solution, if possible and affordable • Both please! Don’t know if Stelling will be a big turning point, the underpass path would obstruct people wanting to get on Stelling. The crosswalk support will be nominal in cost for the benefit • Apple employees have access to trail from campus and not on streets!!! • Security of undercrossing • A crosswalk across Stelling Road will make traffic on Stelling much worse than now. The traffic is bad enough now with traffic from Gardena Dr., Greenleaf, and the apartment complex feeding into Stelling. During peak hours, traffic can back into Hollenbeck in the north and all the way to Stevens Creek Blvd to the south • Both would be great, but any of the options seems workable • For long distance bike riders, it is much faster to have a grade-separated crossing, it is also safer • Very concerned about a crosswalk and the interaction with traffic - especially during school drop-off/pick-up and during rush hour • If you can’t do #1C then do #1A. Do not do just 1B! Add mirrors for blind spots. Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail seg- ment (Stelling Road Crossing)? 36% 8% 56% Grade-separated Crossing Crosswalk Both 36% 8% 56% Grade-separated Crossing Crosswalk Both At Stelling Rd., what crossing type do you prefer? Comments on Stelling Road Crossing Enlargement • Concerns at Lucille Trailhead: • Safety • Parking (unwanted!) • Traffic • Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime) • Apple employees (this project is for Apple only) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 187Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts Trail Segment #2 (De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center) Input Packet 43% 50% 7% Bridge Tunnel Existing At De Anza Blvd., what crossing type do you prefer? Would you support removal of the existing crosswalk across De Anza Blvd, if a bridge or tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided? Regarding trail access and amenities, which of the following do you support? 43% 50% 7% Bridge Tunnel Existing 21% 31% 48% Yes No Maybe 39% 32% 29% Do you have any additional comments abou the Station #4 trail segment? Flip Chart • Concerns at Lucille Trailhead: • Safety • Parking (unwanted!) • Traffic • Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime) • Apple employees (this project is for Apple only) Comments on Trail Segment 2 Plan • Blaney avenue: don’t block • Blaney impacted by traffic • Concern bringing kids through an already congested area. • Keep fence to prohibit access from Lucille • Drive kids to school due to speeding cars • One access point may be ok • No sidewalk • Lucille not under some parking permit. Needs to be included in permit program • Will trail encourage parking on Lucille? • Lots of Apple bikes • Can you provide access here? For Lawson & Apple • Need access to Apple to Trail • Two access points • Speeding traffic to school • Use mirrors for blind spots • Call boxes along trail. Emergency. • Bike runnels at stairs? • Can we have police cameras on the trail • Consider security of users in tunnel crossing • Access for Apple employees to trail & the streets • Would not preclude Alt 2 in the future • Look @ stair channels • Must have direct Apple access (infinite loop) to trail, to reduce bikes on Randy Ln/Larry Way. Limit access points to two: One east of Randy, (just far enough away from Apple to discourage parking) and one at Blaney. This grade-level proposal for crossing at Blaney is great. • Right next to my house. Privacy concerns. Live on Larry/Lucille. • Privacy, parking, traffic are concerns for residents of Lucille, Larry and Randy. 1: Consider wall to help with privacy. 2: Big no to any access points on Lucille Ave. • Not familiar with this section so no comment. • No trail access on Blaney/Lucille • Maintain fence - ideally make opaque for privacy. Make Lucille permitted parking M-F like Randy and Larry. Need frequent garbage clean up. Limited access - far from apple side to prevent parking problems. Maintain access under bridge for car traffic. Need police patrol for safety. • I support none of these. I live here and would be impacted. • Maintenance of trash can emptying would be very important • Multiple access points make the trail more usable for people living in the neighborhood, and would provide trail users route options • Informal trail access could serve as a pilot and could be upgraded if the trail use supports expansion • Some convenience but less cost • I prefer tunnel over bridge at De Anza mainly because of reduced elevation gain/loss; Use box culvert only when needed for trail width • Mostly just need trailhead here; benches would be the only amenities needed • How is security mentioned? Security patrol? How about people using trail for “hanging out”? • Don’t care… • As shown • Get Apple off the streets; safer alternatives for walkers/bikers; be mindful of neighborhood • Section east of Blaney - no soundwall; trail users protection form vehicles leaving the road • Provide access to Portal Ave. through CalWater site • I live next to the trail on Randy Lane; trail would cause such a problem for traffic and people, let alone criminal activity • Consider adding Trailhead/access point at the end of Lucille adjacent to the Apple campus. Work with Apple to create a linkage to Lawson Middle School along the edge of the Apple property, parallel to Larry Way, It would be nice to have some way to go directly from the trail up to the Blaney overpass. • Do not put the additional access points in the middle of Lucille. Trail amenities needed: a map of trail, a beach, mile markers, lighting. Extra security around the main entrance & under the bridge. There has been tagging & dumping (mattresses, etc) in this area. Keep the road (Lucille) open under the bridge. Do not close it. The neighborhood relies on it to get to Homestead without having to cross Blaney. Critical to AM/PM traffic flow & school traffic. Comments on Blaney Ave/ Lucille Ave Crossing Enlargement • Concerns at Lucille Trailhead: • Safety • Parking (unwanted!) • Traffic • Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime) • Apple employees (this project is for Apple only) Multiple Trail Access Pointsand Trailhead withGreater Levels of Amenities Single Trail Access Point and Trailhead with Limited Trail Amenities Informal Trail Access and No Trailheads or Trail Amenities Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study188Appendix Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard 17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd General Station #5 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 trail segment? • Keep Crossing at Wolfe not competing with cross traffic • This trail is for apple only. What a shame. • Be sure the contractor of Vallco includes space for bikeway • Perhaps stipulate that a proper multi-use trail along the south and east edges of hotel development be included in future development there. • The proposed path behind the new hotel is bad! It’s still under construction - is there a way to create a path (or alternative path) that passes in front of hotel tracing Perimeter Road. • Nice • Have Vallco future pay for access to trail and out of neighborhood!!! Access to trail from Vallco itself not in neighborhood at all! • It is important to keep redwoods along 280 intact behind Hyatt House and property behind the old Macys. Will there be public creek trail along Calabazas Creek from 280 and Calabazas intersection to the Calabazas and Vallco Parkway intersection? One portion of the creek trail mentioned above along the small portion of Calabazas Creek should be both pedestrian and bike. • Provide easy access to hotel for residents and guests. Use CalWater area for access to Portal Ave. • East-west connectivity for bikes between Blaney and Tantau is important, especially with Pruneridge gone • Underpass is good • Make all sections of it as wide as possible to allow lots of multi-uses & improve safety. Add mirrors for blind spots & destination signs. Trail Segment #3 (Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway) Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 Trail Segment? Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2 Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts Input Packet Comments on Trail Segment 3 Plan Flip Chart Comments on Stelling Road Crossing Enlargement • Access for Guests & Visitors • No e-bikes (more than 25 mph) • No motorized • Allow e-bikes, speed < 25 mph • Concerns at Lucille Trailhead: • Safety • Parking (unwanted!) • Traffic • Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime) • Apple employees (this project is for Apple only) Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 189Appendix Document Review BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email February 26, 2018 MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu FROM: Jana Schwartz, Designer Dave Rubin, Project Manager Callander Associates RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo The Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study is evaluating the feasibility of a trail segment that supports a bicycle and pedestrian connection south of and roughly parallel to Interstate 280 between Mary Avenue and Tantau Avenue. This trail segment is a part of a larger vision plan, called the “Loop”, for a bicycle and pedestrian network within the City of Cupertino, as well as a greater regional planning effort. The study includes providing background on the project history, goals, and relationship to existing plans and other relevant documents. This memo provides a summary of relevance to other planning efforts and describes how the Junipero Serra Trail aligns with previous planning efforts and standards, as well as any additional findings that would affect trail development. Documents Reviewed Standards Reviewed Local Planning Efforts Cupertino General Plan (2015) Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan (2016) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) South Vallco Connectivity Plan (2014) Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Regional Planning Efforts Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study (2015) Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (1995) Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis (2015) VTA Bikeways Map D (Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos) (2016) Santa Clara County I-280 Corridor Study (2017) The trail is envisioned as a 2.88 mile-long off-street, multi-use trail and serve as the City of Cupertino’s first east/west off-street transportation corridor. The City views this trail project as a high-priority and would like to see the trail allow for the shared use of bicycle and pedestrian users. A majority of the trail runs adjacent to a drainage ditch, owned by SCVWD. The proposed trail has a limited number of street crossings, located at Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Wolfe Road. There are underground and overhead utilities, identified by partnering agencies PG&E and CalWater. Overhead transmission lines run roughly parallel to the proposed trail west of Blaney Avenue. Underground utilities, such as water and gas mains have been identified and planned for in the development of the preferred trail alignment. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study190Appendix Document Review Memo RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo February 26, 2018 Page 2 of 4 17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Local planning efforts that correlate with this study include the Cupertino General Plan (Land Use and Community Design, Mobility, Parks and Open Space), City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, Santa Clara County I-280 Corridor Study, and the South Vallco Connectivity Plan. Each of these plans encompasses the geographical study area and includes goals and objectives that have been reviewed and complimented by the study. Each of these plans has overarching goals that hit on two main ideas: 1.Improving connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians by creating a multi-modal transportation network. 2.Enhancing accessibility and safety for bicycles and pedestrians through trail design and maintenance. Each of these plans provides a framework for the trail to align with and contribute towards the City- wide goal of elevating bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The South Vallco Connectivity Plan focuses on a specific section of the study area and provides information about the Vallco redevelopment project. The timeline of this effort coincides with this study and a final decision on the outcome of the Vallco project is unknown. Thus, the study will need to work in parallel with the final plan for the Vallco development to include a trail system as contemplated in this study. Regional planning efforts have created plans that work together to strengthen the regional bicycle and pedestrian network. Documents that were reviewed include the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study, Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Update, Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis, and VTA Bikeways Map D (Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos). To balance the identity and goals of each jurisdiction, many of the regional plans relied on a city’s general plan for city-specific information. The Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study referenced the City of Cupertino General Plan from 2000. Information about City facilities and demographic information has been updated in the recent General Plan from 2015. The other regional plans take a similar snapshot of the Santa Clara County region and highlight bicycle and pedestrian facilities and opportunities to connect and expand the network. Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis summarizes the existing and potential trail reaches. This document, as well as the VTA Bikeways Map D, do not include the study area and only identify the Stevens Creek Trail and on-street connections as major bicycle and pedestrian projects for the City. More recent planning efforts, like the Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan (to be released spring 2018) and VTA’s Santa Clara Countywide Bike Plan (in-progress) have been asked to include the study area in textual and graphic depictions of trail opportunities. Standards that were reviewed are also across jurisdictions and not specific to the City of Cupertino. The review of standards ensures the safety of trail users and compliance with related entities. Since the trail is located in SCVWD right-of-way and includes PG&E facilities, standards related to maintenance and access were reviewed before proposing design alternatives. PG&E Standards 4.4.4 Vertical Clearance Table 4-3, “Vertical Clearance From the Ground on Nonresidential Property,” located below, provides the minimum vertical distance (in feet) from the ground on nonresidential property. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 191Appendix Document Review Memo RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo February 26, 2018 Page 3 of 4 17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. Table 4-3 Vertical Clearance From the Ground on Nonresidential Property1 Description Minimum Vertical Distance (In Feet) Over private driveways, lanes, and other areas (e.g., alleys and parking lots) accessible to vehicles. 16 Over areas accessible to pedestrians only. 12 Over buildings and bridges, or over structures (attached or unattached) that do not ordinarily support conductors and on which people can walk.8 1 Clearance requirements may be different than local electrical codes. −4.4.4A-1: Normal radial clearance: a minimum of 24 inches. −4.4.4A-2: Within 15 feet of the point of attachment on a building or structure: the normal radial clearances may be reduced to a minimum of 12 inches. 4.10 Required Vegetation Clearances −4.10.1 General Requirements: For electric distribution, high-voltage lines rated up to 60,000 volts, applicants must establish a 15-foot “low-growth” zone on both sides of all new lines. Also applicants must not plant trees that exceed 25 feet in height at maturity under or within 15 feet of distribution power poles. SCVWD Standards Most of the guidelines and details, which are specifically related to streams, grading and riparian resources, have been excerpted from the document, Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use and Management Guidelines (UD) (April 15, 1999), which was prepared by the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department. −To control trail use and prevent environmental damage, the design should include barriers such as fences, vegetation, stiles and fallen trees. (UD – 1.3.1.3) −Use existing maintenance trails, access route and levees wherever possible to minimize impacts of new construction in riparian zones (UD – 1.3.2.3) −Trail use will generally be limited to the hours between dawn and dusk to minimize impacts to wildlife. −Lighting of trails should be avoided. Exceptions include security lighting in downtown commercial and entertainment areas where lighting should be minimized. −Surface water shall be diverted from trails by cross sloping the trail tread between 2 and 3%. (UD – 3.5.4) −Do not locate irrigation systems within 2 feet of the edge of the trail. Irrigation for turf areas around a trail should use only a pop-up variety of irrigation head. To avoid erosion and undercutting of the trail, the irrigation system should be controlled so that only incidental spray might reach the trail surface and edge. (UD – 3.5.6) −Select plants for streamside areas that do not require irrigation beyond an establishment period. −Use permeable pavements where possible. −Where overland direction of drainage away from the creek is constrained, provide positive drainage. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study192Appendix Document Review Memo RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo February 26, 2018 Page 4 of 4 17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc © copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. The study area is almost entirely within the City of Cupertino but would have regional and local benefits as a transportation and recreational corridor. Due to the location of the study area, the local planning efforts and the standards provide the most guidance for implementing a trail at this location. The regional planning efforts should include this study area to best illustrate the collective bicycle and pedestrian network. The trail study area does not connect directly with any other regional trail system, but there are potential future connections that may be captured in future development plans. - END - Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 193Appendix Public Outreach Outline BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email September 15, 2017 MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu FROM: Dave Rubin Callander Associates RE: I-280 CHANNEL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY/ Public Outreach Outline Below is an outline of all outreach events, as listed in the project scope. Details for each event are described to help anticipate the necessary materials and preparation. Details with “TBD” shall be discussed and decided on between the City of Cupertino (City) and Callander Associates (CA). Community Events (2) When: 9/17 – 4/18 Where: Pop-up style at City events •Diwali Festival – September 30, 2017 •Earth Day – April 2018 Who: CA, City, Community What: Outreach materials, table banner, map of site/specific sections, meeting newsletter, pop-up tent, link to on-line resources, on-line survey link (?), balloons/eye catcher Why: Generate project interest, publicize upcoming meetings, and discuss project objectives TAC Meeting #1 When: Wednesday Nov. 29, 2017, 630pm to 8pm (scope: 11/27-12/1) Where: Working meeting; City Hall – Conference Room C Who: CA, City, TAC Members What: Review project purpose, background, and Public Meeting #1 materials Why: Gather input and apply edits to materials prior to public meeting, discuss next steps Public Meeting #1 When: Wednesday Dec. 6, 2017, 6pm to 8pm (scope: 12/4-12/8) Where: Quinlan Community Center – Cupertino Room Who: CA, City, Community, Commission and Council Members What: Existing conditions, local/regional context, goals and objectives, opportunity and constraints, initial public reactions, refreshments, on-line survey link Why: Listen to public input, discuss project objectives (short and long term), next steps TAC Meeting #2 When: Monday Feb. 12, 2017, 630pm to 8pm (scope: 2/12-2/16) Where: Working meeting; City Hall – Conference Room C Who: CA, City, TAC Members Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study194Appendix Public Outreach Plan BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate 1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain www.callanderassociates.com Via Email August 22, 2017 MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu FROM: Dave Rubin Callander Associates RE: I-280 CHANNEL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY/ Public Outreach Plan Below is the language to be used on promotional materials for upcoming meetings. Items include, but are not limited to, meeting newsletter, meeting postcard, social media, utility mailer, and NextDoor postings. Dates for these events shall be confirmed by 9/15. Document Text: Large Text: We want to hear from you! Come share your thoughts! Sub Text: Please join us to review trail alignment plans to help build connections in Cupertino. A series of community meetings have been planned for you to provide input on a proposed trail system near I- 280 and participate in improving the pedestrian and bicycle network near you! Upcoming events: Pop-Up Events •West Coast Farmers’ Market | Cupertino Oaks Shopping Center, October 15, 2017 9am to 1 pm •Silicon Valley Fall Festival | Memorial Park in Cupertino, September 9, 2017 from 10am to 5pm Public Meeting #1 •Cupertino Public Library (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|December 5, 2017, 6pm to 8pm Public Meeting #2a •Homestead High School (21370 Homestead Rd, Cupertino, CA 95014)|February 20, 2017, 4pm to 8pm Public Meeting #2b City Hall (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|March 1, 2018, 4pm to 8pm Bike and Pedestrian Commission Meeting #1 City Council Meeting #1 Public Meeting #3 •Cupertino Public Library (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|June 6, 2017, 4pm to 8pm Bike and Pedestrian Commission Meeting #2 Park and Recreation Commission Planning Commission City Council Meeting #2 Thank you. - END - Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 195Appendix this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study196Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo 160 W. Santa Clara Street | Suite 675 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com MEMORANDUM Date: October 3, 2018 To: David Rubin, Callander Associates Landscape Architects From: Steve Davis, PE, Fehr & Peers Subject: Alternatives Evaluation for Junipero Serra Trail Crossing at De Anza Boulevard Cupertino, California SJ17-1771 The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of a traffic operational analysis conducted to evaluate alternatives for an at-grade crossing of De Anza Boulevard for the proposed Junipero Serra Trail in Cupertino, California. It is our understanding that the City of Cupertino prefers a grade-separated crossing for the Junipero Serra Trail at De Anza Boulevard. However, due to construction and logistical challenges, a grade-separated alternative may not be feasible. The potential at-grade crossing would be provided at the location of the existing crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection of De Anza Boulevard with the Southbound Interstate 280 (I-280) Ramps. EXISTING CONDITIONS The intersection of De Anza Boulevard, which is oriented north-south, and the Southbound I-280 Ramps, which are oriented one-way eastbound, is signalized with crosswalks provided on the east, west, and south legs. The existing lane configuration and turning movement volumes from counts collected in December 2017 during the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours are shown in Figure 1. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 197Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Figure 1: Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configuration Fehr & Peers conducted field reconnaissance at this location to identify signal timing and phasing as well as overall traffic operational characteristics during the AM and PM peak periods as part of the Vallco Specific Plan EIR project. The eastbound approach of the Southbound I-280 Off-ramp operates concurrently with the parallel pedestrian crossing across De Anza Boulevard as depicted in Figure 2. This arrangement is most efficient for vehicle operations given the existing geometry, but results in a high potential for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles since eastbound right turns from two lanes occur during the pedestrian “walk” signal phase. These concurrent movements increase the risk for collisions involving pedestrians as well as rear-end crashes resulting from vehicles unexpectedly stopping to wait for pedestrians. Figure 2: Existing Signal Phase Sequence Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study198Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 3 of 6 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Due to the potential for collisions, high level of pedestrian exposure, and anticipated increase in usage of the at-grade crossing with the completion of the Junipero Serra Trail, it is desirable to modify the intersection to minimize interactions between modes. As such, two project alternatives have been developed for consideration: Alternative 1 – No physical improvements would be constructed, but signal phasing would be modified such that the eastbound right-turn movement and pedestrian crossings would not be in conflict. As the eastbound approach has a shared left/through/right-turn lane, all movements on this approach would continue to operate together as a standalone phase and pedestrian crossings of De Anza Boulevard would operate concurrently wit h the southbound left turn as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Proposed Alternative 1 Signal Phase Sequence Alternative 2 – An additional lane would be constructed on the Southbound I-280 Off-ramp, as shown in Attachment A, to provide a left-turn lane, shared left-turn/through lane, and two dedicated right-turn lanes. This change would allow separate signal phases for the right-turn movement and the shared left-turn/through movement, making it possible for the crosswalk phase to operate concurrently with the eastbound left-turn/through movement as shown in Figure 4. Eastbound right turns and southbound left turns would operate concurrently in this alternative. Figure 4: Proposed Alternative 2 Signal Phase Sequence Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 199Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 4 of 6 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS Weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic operations were evaluated for the existing (no- build) conditions and two project alternatives using the HCM 2000 methodology included in Synchro 10 software. Level of Service The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, the best operating conditions, to LOS F, the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents “at-capacity” operations. When traffic volumes exceed the intersection capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated as LOS F. The method described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) was used to prepare the level of service calculations for the subject intersection. This level of service method, which is approved by the City of Cupertino and VTA, analyzes a signalized intersection’s operation based on average control delay per vehicle. Control delay includes the initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study200Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 5 of 6 TABLE 1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS USING AVERAGE CONTROL VEHICULAR DELAY Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 35.1 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 55.1 to 80.0 F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, October 2014; VTA Congestion Management Program, June 2003; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Analysis Results The Existing operating conditions as well as anticipated operated conditions for Alternatives 1 and 2 are presented in Table 2. HCM 2000 capacity analysis outputs can be found in Attachment B. As can be seen, the intersection generally operates acceptably in the Existing condition with LOS D or better during both peak periods. Operations would degrade with the implementation of Alternative 1 due to less efficient signal timing constraining overall intersection capacity. Overall delay would remain relatively consistent compared to Existing Conditions with the implementation of Alternative 2 as the reduction in efficiency caused by modified traffic signal phasing is largely offset by the increase in physical capacity associated with ramp widening. Additionally, the separation of left-turn/through and right-turn traffic signal phases in Alternative 2 would allow more efficient signal phasing than proposed in Alternative 1. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 201Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 6 of 6 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Alternative AM PM Delay LOS Delay LOS Existing 38.7 D 34.3 C Alternative 1 78.5 E 48.9 D Alternative 2 38.2 D 35.4 D Source: Fehr & Peers (2018) FINDINGS Based on the analysis the following can be concluded: • This existing intersection configuration at De Anza Boulevard and the Southbound I-280 Ramps, while most efficient for vehicle operations, results in a high potential for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles since eastbound right turns from two lanes occur during the parallel pedestrian “walk” signal phase. • Alternative 1 would not include any physical improvements, but signal phasing would be modified such that the eastbound right turn and pedestrian crossings would not be in conflict. It is anticipated this would result in a degradation of traffic operations at the intersection. • Alternative 2 would include the construction of an additional lane on the Southbound I- 280 Off-ramp, resulting in a left-turn lane, shared left-turn/through lane, and two dedicated right-turn lanes. This change would allow separate signal phases for the right-turn movement and the shared left-turn/through movement, making it possible for the crosswalk phase to operate concurrently with the eastbound left-turn/through movement. Overall intersection delay would remain relatively consistent with Existing Conditions in this scenario. • As a result of the above, Fehr & Peers recommends Alternative 2 should an at-grade crossing be pursued for the Junipero Serra Trail at De Anza Boulevard. Attachment A – Proposed Alternative 2 Concept Attachment B – HCM 2000 Capacity Analysis Outputs Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study202Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 2, 2018 Attachment A Proposed Alternative 2 Concept AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 203 De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study204 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 205Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo David Rubin October 2, 2018 Attachment B HCM 2000 Capacity Analysis Outputs Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study206Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Configuration 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1452 1448 7471 1443 3400 5036 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1452 1448 7471 1443 3400 5036 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 26 0 0 0 0 0 282 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 517 477 447 0 0 0 0 1636 142 619 1554 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 6 52 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 48.4 48.4 48.4 43.6 43.6 26.0 73.6 Effective Green, g (s) 48.4 48.4 48.4 43.6 43.6 26.0 73.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.34 0.20 0.57 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 619 540 539 2505 483 680 2851 v/s Ratio Prot 0.31 c0.33 c0.22 c0.18 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.88 0.83 0.65 0.29 0.91 0.55 Uniform Delay, d1 37.2 38.2 37.0 36.8 31.9 50.9 17.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 15.7 10.2 1.3 1.5 18.4 0.8 Delay (s)46.7 53.8 47.2 38.1 33.4 69.3 18.4 Level of Service D D D DCEB Approach Delay (s)49.2 0.0 37.1 32.9 Approach LOS D A D C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 207Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Existing PM Exisiting Configuration 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 0.94 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1430 1413 7544 1514 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1430 1413 7544 1514 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 303 270 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 6 52 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 54.0 54.0 36.0 94.0 Effective Green, g (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 54.0 54.0 36.0 94.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.39 0.39 0.26 0.67 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 456 388 383 2909 583 882 3414 v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.21 0.26 0.13 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 c0.35 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.78 0.70 0.68 0.92 0.50 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 47.2 45.9 35.9 40.9 44.3 13.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 9.8 5.8 1.3 21.7 2.0 0.9 Delay (s)51.0 57.0 51.7 37.2 62.6 46.4 14.1 Level of Service D E D DEDB Approach Delay (s)53.2 0.0 42.6 19.5 Approach LOS D A D B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study208Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Existing AM Option 1 Configuration 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1443 1435 7471 1443 3400 5036 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1443 1435 7471 1443 3400 5036 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 64 371 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 517 426 102 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 3 6 5 8 2 Permitted Phases 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.0 28.0 28.0 41.7 41.7 48.3 50.7 Effective Green, g (s) 28.0 28.0 28.0 41.7 41.7 48.3 50.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.39 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 358 310 309 2396 462 1263 1964 v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 0.29 0.22 c0.18 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.29 v/c Ratio 1.44 1.37 0.33 0.68 0.92 0.49 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 51.0 43.1 38.4 42.5 31.4 35.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 215.1 187.1 0.6 1.6 25.7 0.3 3.4 Delay (s)266.1 238.1 43.7 40.0 68.2 31.7 38.3 Level of Service F F D DECD Approach Delay (s)185.7 0.0 45.8 36.4 Approach LOS F A D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 78.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Alternative 1 AM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 209Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Existing PM Option 1 with Extended Cycle Length 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.93 0.90 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1388 1355 7544 1514 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1388 1355 7544 1514 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 69 247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 240 51 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12 Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 3 3 6 5 8 2 Permitted Phases 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 57.6 57.6 46.4 66.6 Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 57.6 57.6 46.4 66.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.33 0.48 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 288 237 232 3103 622 1137 2419 v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.17 0.26 c0.13 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.35 v/c Ratio 1.12 1.01 0.22 0.64 0.86 0.39 0.90 Uniform Delay, d1 58.0 58.0 49.9 32.9 37.5 35.9 33.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 89.8 62.0 0.5 1.0 14.5 0.2 5.7 Delay (s)147.8 120.0 50.4 34.0 52.0 36.1 39.2 Level of Service F F D CDDD Approach Delay (s)107.4 0.0 37.8 38.7 Approach LOS F A D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Alternative 1 PM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study210Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Option 2 Existing AM 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1669 2760 7471 1443 3400 5036 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1669 2760 7471 1443 3400 5036 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 652 0 0 0 0 0 241 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 331 334 163 0 0 0 0 1636 183 619 1554 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14 Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Turn Type Split NA custom NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 1!6!5! 2! Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 26.0 56.0 56.0 26.0 56.0 Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 26.0 56.0 56.0 26.0 56.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.43 0.43 0.20 0.43 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 461 462 552 3218 621 680 2169 v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.20 0.06 0.22 c0.18 c0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.30 0.51 0.29 0.91 0.72 Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 42.5 44.2 27.0 24.1 50.9 30.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.3 5.5 1.4 0.6 1.2 18.4 2.1 Delay (s)47.7 48.0 45.6 27.5 25.3 69.3 32.5 Level of Service D D D CCEC Approach Delay (s)46.6 0.0 27.1 43.0 Approach LOS D A C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Alternative 2 AM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 211Appendix De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo Existing PM Option 2 1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp Synchro 10 Report Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1696 2787 7544 1514 3433 5085 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1696 2787 7544 1514 3433 5085 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 206 97 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12 Turn Type Split NA custom NA Perm Prot NA Protected Phases 8 8 1!6!5! 2! Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.6 32.6 26.0 69.4 69.4 26.0 69.4 Effective Green, g (s) 32.6 32.6 26.0 69.4 69.4 26.0 69.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.50 Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 391 394 517 3739 750 637 2520 v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.12 0.03 0.26 c0.13 c0.43 v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.52 0.19 0.53 0.71 0.69 0.86 Uniform Delay, d1 46.8 46.9 48.1 24.2 27.5 53.3 31.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.5 5.7 6.1 4.1 Delay (s)47.9 48.2 48.9 24.7 33.3 59.4 35.1 Level of Service D D D CCED Approach Delay (s)48.5 0.0 26.5 39.2 Approach LOS D A C D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 ! Phase conflict between lane groups. c Critical Lane Group HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps Alternative 2 PM Peak Hour Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study212Appendix this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 213 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al A Pr o j ec t St ar t -Up 1.Bonding and mobilization 8% LS Allow $118,452 Allow $121,184 Allow $76,128 2.Construction staking $10,000.00 LS Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 3.Temporary construction fencing $5.00 LF 200 $1,000 460 $2,300 1,440 $7,200 4.Traffic control $20,000.00 LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 5.Tree protection and pruning Allow LS Allow $5,000 Allow $5,000 Allow $2,500 $154,450 $158,480 $115,830 $428,760 B Dem o l i t io n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 70,000 $52,500 70,400 $52,800 68,800 $51,600 2.Chain link fence $10.00 LF 35 $350 1,050 $10,500 20 $200 3.Wood fence at Mary Ave $10.00 LF 490 $4,900 0 $0 0 $0 4.Chain link gate $500.00 EA 3 $1,500 4 $2,000 2 $1,000 5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 7 $5,250 0 $0 0 $0 $64,500 $65,300 $52,800 $182,600 C Gr ad i n g & Dr ai n ag e 1.Rough grading, 8" depth $30.00 CY 1,730 $51,900 1,750 $52,500 1,670 $50,100 2.Adjust manholes and vaults to grade $25,000.00 LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 3.Soil off haul, 8" depth min.$50.00 CY 1,730 $86,500 1,750 $87,500 1,670 $83,500 $163,400 $165,000 $158,600 $487,000 D Er o s i o n Co n t r o l 1.Temporary construction entrance $3,000.00 LS Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 2.Fiber rolls $4.00 LF 5,100 $20,400 4,000 $16,000 3,500 $14,000 3.SWPPP maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 $48,400 $44,000 $42,000 $134,400 E Tr ai l & Sit e Fu r n i s h i n g s 1.Asphalt path including base rock, 10' average width $5.00 SF 52,230 $261,150 52,860 $264,300 51,600 $258,000 2.Asphalt shoulder, 2' wide both sides $5.00 LF 6,200 $31,000 4,400 $22,000 7,000 $35,000 3.Striping, on-trail $2.00 LF 5,600 $11,200 4,400 $8,800 4,300 $8,600 4.Decorative concrete pavement at trailhead $30.00 SF 480 $14,400 2,700 $81,000 2,300 $69,000 5.Retaining curb $50.00 LF 5,100 $255,000 4,400 $220,000 4,000 $200,000 6.Retaining wall (height varies, see plan)$200.00 LF 375 $75,000 0 $0 0 $0 7.Concrete seatwall at trailhead $300.00 LF 30 $9,000 120 $36,000 70 $21,000 8.Signal timing upgrades at De Anza (base project)Allow LS 0 $0 1 $30,000 0 $0 9.Flashing beacon and crosswalk at Stelling (base project) $50,000.00 EA 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 10.Intersection modifications at Vallco Parkway trailhead Allow LS 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 11.Curb and gutter $45.00 LF 0 $0 400 $18,000 160 $7,200 12.Curb ramp $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 1 $3,500 Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #1 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y 17056_CE_Alt#1.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.1 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study214 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 215 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #1 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y 13.Interpretive sign $6,000.00 EA 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 14.Dog waste bag dispenser $1,200.00 EA 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 15.Trash receptacle $1,500.00 EA 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 16.Trail directional signage $500.00 EA 2 $1,000 2 $1,000 2 $1,000 17.Security and privacy wood fence, 8'$100,000.00 LS Allow $100,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $0 18.Barrier railing, 4'$60.00 LF 5,600 $336,000 5,400 $324,000 0 $0 19.Chainlink fence, 6'$60.00 LF 70 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0 20.Vehicular crash barrier $100.00 LF 0 $0 75 $7,500 0 $0 21.Trail map sign $2,000.00 EA 2 $4,000 2 $4,000 2 $4,000 22.Collapsible bollard $1,000.00 EA 3 $3,000 4 $4,000 3 $3,000 $1,174,850 $1,140,500 $673,200 $2,988,550 F Pl an t i n g & Ir r i g at io n 1.Soil preparation, irrigation, planting, maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $25,000 2.Tree, 24" box $500.00 EA 9 $4,500 0 $0 0 $0 $29,500 $100,000 $25,000 $154,500 G Co n s t r u c t i o n Su b -To t al , B as e Pr o j ec t $1,635,100 $1,673,280 $1,067,430 $4,375,810 H Des i g n Co n t i n g en c y 15%LS Allow $245,265 Allow $250,992 Allow $160,115 $245,270 $250,990 $160,110 $656,370 I ANTICIPATED L OW B ID, B as e Pr o j ec t $1,880,370 $1,924,270 $1,227,540 $5,032,180 J Co n s t r u c t i o n Co n t i n g en c y 10%LS Allow $188,037 Allow $192,427 Allow $122,754 $188,040 $192,430 $122,750 $503,220 K Es c al at io n (3% p er yr f o r 3 y ear s )9%LS Allow $169,233 Allow $173,184 Allow $110,479 $169,230 $173,180 $110,480 $452,890 L TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS, B ASE PROJ ECT $2,237,640 $2,289,880 $1,460,770 $5,988,290 M Pr o f es s i o n al Ser v ic es , B as e Pr o j ec t 1.Topographic survey Allow LS Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 2.Geotechnical services Allow LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 3.Design development 3% LS Allow $67,129 Allow $68,696 Allow $43,823 17056_CE_Alt#1.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.2 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study216 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 217 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un it Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #1 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 4.Construction documents and permitting 8% LS Allow $179,011 Allow $183,190 Allow $116,862 5.Bidding and construction administration 3% LS Allow $67,129 Allow $68,696 Allow $43,823 6.Testing and special inspection 1% LS Allow $22,376 Allow $22,899 Allow $14,608 7.Environmental documentation (MND), assumes no NEPA Allow LS Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 $405,650 $413,480 $289,120 $1,108,250 N TOTAL B ASE PROJ ECT COSTS $2,643,290 $2,703,360 $1,749,890 $7,096,540 O St el l i n g Un d er c r o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 13,380 $10,035 0 $0 0 $0 2.Chain link fence removal $50.00 LF 30 $1,500 0 $0 0 $0 3.Tree removal $750.00 EA 10 $7,500 0 $0 0 $0 4.Rough grading, 8" depth $50.00 CY 250 $12,500 0 $0 0 $0 5.Soil off-haul, 8" depth $100.00 CY 250 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0 6.Barrier fence $100.00 LF 460 $46,000 0 $0 0 $0 7.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 4,600 $115,000 0 $0 0 $0 8.Retaining wall $400.00 LF 840 $336,000 0 $0 0 $0 9.Striping, on-trail $5.00 LF 840 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0 10.Security lighting $40,000.00 LS Allow $40,000 0 $0 0 $0 11.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0 12.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $59,774 Allow $0 Allow $0 13.Inflation 9% LS Allow $53,796 Allow $0 Allow $0 14.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0 $890,630 $0 $0 $890,630 P De An za Ped es t r i an B r i d g e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 19,700 $14,775 0 $0 2.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 12 $9,000 0 $0 3.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0 4.Pedestrian bridge, approaches, stairs, support columns and railing $8,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $8,000,000 0 $0 5.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 730 $912,500 0 $0 17056_CE_Alt#1.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.3 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study218 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 219 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #1 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y 6.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10' wide $5.25 SF 0 $0 7,300 $38,325 0 $0 7.Security lighting $60,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $60,000 0 $0 8.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0 9.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,003,460 Allow $0 10.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $903,114 Allow $0 11.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0 $0 $14,951,550 $0 $14,951,550 Q DeAn za Tu n n el Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 16,900 $12,675 0 $0 2.Chain link fence removal $10.00 LF 0 $0 170 $1,700 0 $0 3.Underground utility relocation $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0 4.Tunnel drainage $150,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $150,000 Allow $0 5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0 6.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0 7.Tunnel, stairs, approaches, railings $12,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $12,000,000 0 $0 8.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 450 $562,500 0 $0 9.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10' wide $5.25 SF 0 $0 4,500 $23,625 0 $0 10.Skylight $10,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $10,000 0 $0 11.Chain link fence $60.00 LF 0 $0 200 $12,000 0 $0 12.Property acquisition costs $8,000,000.00 Acre 0 $0 0.05 $400,000 0 $0 13.Security lighting $200,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $200,000 0 $0 14.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0 15.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,487,400 Allow $0 16.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,338,660 Allow $0 17.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0 $0 $22,162,260 $0 $22,162,260 R DeAn za At -g r ad e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 6,550 $4,913 0 $0 2.Curb removal $15.00 LF 0 $0 220 $3,300 0 $0 3.Concrete removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 1,500 $4,500 0 $0 4.Asphalt removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 480 $1,440 0 $0 5.Sawcut $5.00 LF 0 $0 280 $1,400 0 $0 17056_CE_Alt#1.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.4 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study220 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 221 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #1 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y 6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0 7.Traffic signal modification $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0 8.Traffic sign relocation $7,500.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $7,500 0 $0 9.Asphalt pavement $5.00 SF 0 $0 5,200 $26,000 0 $0 10.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 0 $0 3,400 $85,000 0 $0 11.Concrete ramp $2,500.00 EA 0 $0 4 $10,000 0 $0 12.Concrete curb and gutter $70.00 LF 0 $0 200 $14,000 0 $0 13.Retaining wall, max. 4'$500.00 LF 0 $0 360 $180,000 0 $0 14.Traffic striping $5,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $5,000 0 $0 15.Relocate irrigation $25,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $25,000 0 $0 16.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0 17.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $86,955 Allow $0 18.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $78,260 Allow $0 19.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0 $0 $1,295,630 $0 $1,295,630 The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices. B as ed o n d r aw i n g s en t it l ed "Al t er n at i v e Al i g n m en t Pl an ", d at ed "2/20/2018" 17056_CE_Alt#1.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.5 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study222 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 223 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al A Pr o j ec t St ar t -Up 1.Bonding and mobilization 8% LS Allow $471,460 Allow $817,824 Allow $77,536 2.Construction staking $10,000.00 LS Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 3.Temporary construction fencing $5.00 LF 200 $1,000 460 $2,300 1,440 $7,200 4.Traffic control $20,000.00 LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 5.Tree protection and pruning Allow LS Allow $5,000 Allow $5,000 Allow $2,500 $507,460 $855,120 $117,240 $1,479,820 B Dem o l i t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 67,800 $50,850 70,400 $52,800 68,800 $51,600 2.Concrete lined ditch $30.00 LF 5,260 $157,800 5,030 $150,900 0 $0 3.Chain link fence $10.00 LF 35 $350 1,050 $10,500 20 $200 4.Wood fence at Mary Ave $10.00 LF 490 $4,900 0 $0 0 $0 5.Chain link gate $500.00 EA 3 $1,500 4 $2,000 2 $1,000 6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 7 $5,250 0 $0 0 $0 $220,650 $216,200 $52,800 $489,650 C Gr ad i n g & Dr ai n ag e 1.Rough grading, 8" depth $30.00 CY 1,680 $50,400 1,750 $52,500 1,670 $50,100 2.Adjust manholes and vaults to grade $25,000.00 LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 3.Earthwork at box culvert Allow LS Allow $50,000 Allow $50,000 Allow $0 4.Drainage re-connections to box culvert Allow LS Allow $50,000 Allow $50,000 Allow $0 5.Soil off haul, 8" depth min.$50.00 CY 1,680 $84,000 1,750 $87,500 1,670 $83,500 $259,400 $265,000 $158,600 $683,000 D Er o s i o n Co n t r o l 1.Temporary construction entrance $3,000.00 LS Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 2.Fiber rolls $4.00 LF 5,100 $20,400 4,000 $16,000 3,500 $14,000 3.SWPPP maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 $48,400 $44,000 $42,000 $134,400 E Tr ai l & Si t e Fu r n i s h i n g s 1.Asphalt lift over box culvert, 4" deep $2.50 SF 62,940 $157,350 52,800 $132,000 8,400 $21,000 2.Asphalt pavement over agg base $5.00 SF 4,230 $21,150 8,800 $44,000 43,800 $219,000 3.DG shoulder, 2' wide both sides $4.00 LF 22,400 $89,600 17,600 $70,400 17,200 $68,800 4.4'x4' box culvert $500.00 LF 2,710 $1,355,000 0 $0 0 $0 5.5'x8' box culvert $1,250.00 LF 2,550 $3,187,500 0 $0 0 $0 6.6'x10' box culvert $1,750.00 LF 0 $0 5,030 $8,802,500 0 $0 7.Striping, on-trail $2.00 LF 5,600 $11,200 4,400 $8,800 4,300 $8,600 8.Decorative concrete pavement at trailhead $30.00 SF 480 $14,400 2,700 $81,000 2,300 $69,000 9.Retaining curb $50.00 LF 5,100 $255,000 4,400 $220,000 4,000 $200,000 10.Retaining wall (height varies)$200.00 LF 220 $44,000 0 $0 0 $0 11.Concrete seatwall at trailhead $300.00 LF 30 $9,000 120 $36,000 70 $21,000 12.Signal timing upgrades at De Anza (base project)Allow LS 0 $0 1 $30,000 0 $0 Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #2 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B lv d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 17056_CE_Alt#2.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.1 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study224 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 225 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #2 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 13.Flashing beacon and crosswalk at Stelling (base project) $50,000.00 EA 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 14.Intersection modifications at Vallco Parkway trailhead Allow LS 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 15.Curb and gutter $45.00 LF 0 $0 400 $18,000 0 $0 16.Curb ramp $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 1 $3,500 17.Interpretive sign $6,000.00 EA 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 18.Dog waste bag dispenser $1,200.00 EA 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 19.Trash receptacle $1,500.00 EA 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 20.Trail directional signage $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 21.Security and privacy wood fence, 8' tall $100,000.00 LS Allow $100,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $0 22.Chainlink fence, 6'$60.00 LF 70 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0 23.Vehicular crash barrier $200.00 LF 0 $0 75 $15,000 0 $0 24.Trail map sign $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 25.Collapsible bollard $1,000.00 EA 3 $3,000 6 $6,000 3 $3,000 $5,335,300 $9,597,600 $690,800 $15,623,700 F Pl an t i n g & Ir r i g at i o n 1.Soil preparation, irrigation, planting, maintenance Allow LS 25,000 $25,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $25,000 2.Tree, 24" box $500.00 EA 9 $4,500 0 $0 0 $0 $29,500 $100,000 $25,000 $154,500 G Co n s t r u c t i o n Su b -To t al , B as e Pr o j ec t $6,400,710 $11,077,920 $1,086,440 $18,565,070 H Des i g n Co n t i n g en c y 15%LS Allow $960,107 Allow $1,661,688 Allow $162,966 $960,110 $1,661,690 $162,970 $2,784,770 I ANTICIPATED L OW B ID, B as e Pr o j ec t $7,360,820 $12,739,610 $1,249,410 $21,349,840 J Co n s t r u c t i o n Co n t i n g en c y 10%LS Allow $736,082 Allow $1,273,961 Allow $124,941 $736,080 $1,273,960 $124,940 $2,134,980 K Es c al at i o n (3% p er y r f o r 3 y ear s )9%LS Allow $662,474 Allow $1,146,565 Allow $112,447 $662,470 $1,146,560 $112,450 $1,921,480 L TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS, B ASE PROJ ECT $8,759,370 $15,160,130 $1,486,800 $25,406,300 M Pr o f es s i o n al Ser v i c es , B as e Pr o j ec t 17056_CE_Alt#2.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.2 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study226 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 227 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #2 Mar y Av e t o De An za B lv d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 1.Topographic survey Allow LS Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 2.Geotechnical services Allow LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 3.Design development 3% LS Allow $262,781 Allow $454,804 Allow $44,604 4.Construction documents and permitting 8% LS Allow $700,750 Allow $1,212,810 Allow $118,944 5.Bidding and construction administration 3% LS Allow $262,781 Allow $454,804 Allow $44,604 6.Testing and special inspection 1% LS Allow $87,594 Allow $151,601 Allow $14,868 7.Environmental documentation (MND), assumes no NEPA Allow LS Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 $1,383,910 $2,344,020 $293,020 $4,020,950 N TOTAL B ASE PROJ ECT COSTS $10,143,280 $17,504,150 $1,779,820 $29,427,250 O St el l i n g Un d er c r o s s in g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 13,380 $10,035 0 $0 0 $0 2.Chain link fence removal $50.00 LF 30 $1,500 0 $0 0 $0 3.Tree removal $750.00 EA 10 $7,500 0 $0 0 $0 4.Rough grading, 8" depth $50.00 CY 250 $12,500 0 $0 0 $0 5.Soil off-haul, 8" depth $100.00 CY 250 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0 6.Barrier fence $100.00 LF 460 $46,000 0 $0 0 $0 7.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 4,600 $115,000 0 $0 0 $0 8.Retaining wall $400.00 LF 840 $336,000 0 $0 0 $0 9.Striping, on-trail $5.00 LF 840 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0 10.Security lighting $40,000.00 LS Allow $40,000 0 $0 0 $0 11.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0 12.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $59,774 Allow $0 Allow $0 13.Inflation 9% LS Allow $53,796 Allow $0 Allow $0 14.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0 $890,630 $0 $0 $890,630 P De An za Ped es t r i an B r i d g e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 19,700 $14,775 0 $0 2.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 12 $9,000 0 $0 3.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0 4.Pedestrian bridge, approaches, stairs, support columns and railing $8,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $8,000,000 0 $0 17056_CE_Alt#2.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.3 of 5 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study228 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 229 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #2 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 5.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 730 $912,500 0 $0 6.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10' wide $5.25 SF 0 $0 7,300 $38,325 0 $0 7.Security lighting $60,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $60,000 0 $0 8.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0 9.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,003,460 Allow $0 10.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $903,114 Allow $0 11.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0 $0 $14,951,550 $0 $14,951,550 Q DeAn za Tu n n el Cr o s s i n g Op t io n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 16,900 $12,675 0 $0 2.Chain link fence removal $10.00 LF 0 $0 170 $1,700 0 $0 3.Underground utility relocation $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0 4.Tunnel drainage $150,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $150,000 Allow $0 5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0 6.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0 7.Tunnel, stairs, approaches, railings $12,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $12,000,000 0 $0 8.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 450 $562,500 0 $0 9.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10' wide $5.25 SF 0 $0 4,500 $23,625 0 $0 10.Skylight $10,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $10,000 0 $0 11.Chain link fence $60.00 LF 0 $0 200 $12,000 0 $0 12.Property acquisition costs $8,000,000.00 Acre 0 $0 0.05 $400,000 0 $0 12.Security lighting $200,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $200,000 0 $0 13.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0 14.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,487,400 Allow $0 15.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,338,660 Allow $0 16.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0 $0 $22,162,260 $0 $22,162,260 R DeAn za At -g r ad e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n 1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 6,550 $4,913 0 $0 2.Curb removal $15.00 LF 0 $0 220 $3,300 0 $0 3.Concrete removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 1,500 $4,500 0 $0 17056_CE_Alt#2.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.4 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study230 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 231 Estimate of Probable Construction Costs prepared for the City of Cupertino prepared on: 5/17/18 prepared by: LC checked by: DR Seg m en t s It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3 Junipero Serra Trail Alternative #2 Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y 4.Asphalt removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 480 $1,440 0 $0 5.Sawcut $5.00 LF 0 $0 280 $1,400 0 $0 6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0 7.Traffic signal modification $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0 8.Traffic sign relocation $7,500.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $7,500 0 $0 9.Asphalt pavement $5.00 SF 0 $0 5,200 $26,000 0 $0 10.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 0 $0 3,400 $85,000 0 $0 11.Concrete ramp $2,500.00 EA 0 $0 4 $10,000 0 $0 12.Concrete curb and gutter $70.00 LF 0 $0 200 $14,000 0 $0 13.Retaining wall, max. 4'$500.00 LF 0 $0 360 $180,000 0 $0 14.Traffic striping $5,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $5,000 0 $0 15.Relocate irrigation $25,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $25,000 0 $0 16.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0 17.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $86,955 Allow $0 18.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $78,260 Allow $0 19.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0 $0 $1,295,630 $0 $1,295,630 The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and actual construction prices. B as ed o n d r aw i n g s en t i t l ed "Al t er n at i v e Al i g n m en t Pl an ", d at ed "2/20/2018" 17056_CE_Alt#2.xls © copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc.5 of 5 Cost Estimate for Alternate #2 Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study232 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 233Appendix Engineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for Box Culvert for Alternative #2 Date:24-Apr-18 Project #:617052 Project:I-280 Channel trail Prepared By:DPH Engineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount 1 Earthwork (subgrade prep)SF 53240 $0.50 $26,620 TOTAL $26,620 Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount 2 4'x4' Box Culvert LF 2686 $500.00 $1,343,000 3 8'x5' Box Culvert LF 2532 $1,250.00 $3,165,000 4 10'x6' Box Culvert LF 2224 $1,750.00 $3,892,000 TOTAL $8,400,000 Notes: EARTHWORK STORM DRAINAGE 1. This Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs should be used only as a guide. There is no responsibility assumed for fluctuations in cost or quantity of material, labor or components. 1 of 1 X:\P\617052\(4) ENGINEERING\(1) DOCUMENTS\STUDIES & REPORTS\2018-04-24 I280 Cost Estimate.xlsx Date:24-Apr-18Project #:617052Project:I-280 Channel trailPrepared By:DPHEngineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount 1 Earthwork (subgrade prep)SF 53240 $0.50 $26,620 TOTAL $26,620 Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount 2 4'x4' Box Culvert LF 2686 $500.00 $1,343,000 3 8'x5' Box Culvert LF 2532 $1,250.00 $3,165,000 4 10'x6' Box Culvert LF 2224 $1,750.00 $3,892,000 TOTAL $8,400,000 Notes: EARTHWORK STORM DRAINAGE 1. This Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs should be used only as a guide. There is no responsibility assumed for fluctuations in cost or quantity of material, labor or components. 1 of 1 X:\P\617052\(4) ENGINEERING\(1) DOCUMENTS\STUDIES & REPORTS\2018-04-24 I280 Cost Estimate.xlsx Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study234Appendix this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 235 Enlargement LegendDe Anza BoulevardInterstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide PG&E Tower To Remain PG&E Tower To Remain Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide Caltrans Easement Stairs to Bridge Over-Crossing, Typ. Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Trailhead Plaza, Typ. Bridge Over-Crossing Traffic Light to be Relocated Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide Over Covered Channel Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Utility Box to be Relocated Pull Out to be Removed Cobra Light to be Relocated Existing Property Fence, Apple 40 MPH Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Centerline Culvert Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to Remain Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study236 this page intentionally left blank AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 237 Enlargement Legend 0 15’ 30’ 60’ Primary Voltage Overhead Secondary Voltage Overhead Drainage Centerline Culvert Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to be Removed De Anza BoulevardInterstate 2 8 0 O n - R a m p Intersta t e 2 8 0 O f f - R a m p Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain East Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide PG&E Tower To Remain Stairs to Bridge Over-Crossing, Typ. Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Trailhead Plaza, Typ. Bridge Over-Crossing Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide Over Covered Existing SCVWD Fence To Remain West Trail Spur, 10’ Wide Bridge Approach Ramp, <5% Relocated PG&E Tower PG&E Tower To Be Removed Existing Property Fence, Apple 40 MPH Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study238 this page intentionally left blank Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 239Appendix City of Sunnyvale Comments November 12, 2018 Jennifer Chu, Associate Civil Engineer City of Cupertino Public Works 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Comments for the Draft Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Dear Jennifer: Thank you for allowing the City of Sunnyvale to review and provide comments for the Draft Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study in the City of Cupertino. Comments concerning the draft feasibility study are as follows: 1. On pages 15 and 17, the City Limits symbol shown on the legend do not match the City Limits show on the figures. We truly appreciate your consideration of our comments in this matter. Please keep us up-to-date on any trail development. You can reach me by email at ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov or by phone at 408-730-7556. Sincerely, Lillian Tsang, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer Division of Transportation and Traffic Department of Public Work Cc: Shahid Abbas, Transportation and Traffic Manager Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study240Appendix Caltrans Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 241Appendix Caltrans Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study242Appendix Caltrans Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 243Appendix Caltrans Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study244Appendix SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 245Appendix SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study246Appendix SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 247Appendix SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study248Appendix December 18, 2018 Ms. Lillian Tsang, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer City of Sunnyvale, Public Works 456 W Olive Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Response Letter to City of Sunnyvale 11/12/18 Comments Dear Ms. Tsang, The City of Cupertino would like to thank City of Sunnyvale staff for their participation in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and guidance provided throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. We look forward to continuing to work with Sunnyvale as this project moves forward. Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address Sunnyvale comments which were received on November 12, 2018. The City has provided the following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made. Sunnyvale comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics. 1)On Pages 15 and 17, the City Limits symbol shown on the legend do not match the City Limits shown on the figures. The City Limits have been revised to match. Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237. Sincerely, Jennifer Chu, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Public Works Department Reponse to City of Sunnyvale Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 249Appendix Reponse to City of Sunnyvale Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 2 cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman City of Sunnyvale – Shahid Abbas Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study250Appendix Reponse to Caltrans Comments December 18, 2018 Mr. Sergio Ruiz Pedestrian & Bicycle Coordinator, Branch Chief Caltrans District 4 111 Grand Ave Oakland, CA 94612 Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Response Letter to Caltrans 11/13/18 Comments Dear Mr. Ruiz, The City of Cupertino would like to thank Caltrans District 4 staff for their participation in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and guidance provided throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. We look forward to continuing to work with Caltrans as this project moves forward. Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address Caltrans comments which were received on November 13, 2018. The City has provided the following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made. Caltrans comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics. 1)What signal timing and phasing was set up in the model? Were demand volumes inputted into the traffic operations analysis model or are intersection output counts being used only? Traffic models require demand volumes as input. This area looks pretty congested so intersection output counts may not give you the true demand that is trying to use this intersection and the delay and LOS could be worse than what is being stated here. In addition, include the 95th percentile queuing results for existing and with project conditions in the report. If adjacent intersection operations or ramp meters are affecting the traffic flow at this intersection, then this would also need to be captured as a system analysis using the SimTraffic software model in order to reflect the true operations of this intersection. The preliminary traffic evaluation referenced in the feasibility study was performed utilizing traffic signal timing measured during on-site observations during the morning and afternoon peak periods. Volumes utilized for this effort were Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 251Appendix Reponse to Caltrans Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 2 intersection output counts and only the study intersection was included for the purpose of evaluating high-level feasibility for an at-grade crossing solution where the proposed trail intersects De Anza Blvd. City staff is anticipating to seek City Council approval of the study in February 2019. Should City Council decide to approve the study and fund the engineering design of the trail to include an at-grade crossing solution at De Anza Blvd, then the City understands that design, and ultimately implementation, of geometric modifications would require the completion of traffic operations analyses scoped in coordination with Caltrans staff. Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237. Sincerely, Jennifer Chu, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Public Works Department cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study252Appendix Reponse to SCVWD Comments December 18, 2018 Ms. Yvonne Arroyo Associate Engineer, Community Projects Review Unit Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Response Letter to SCVWD 11/26/18 Comments Dear Ms. Arroyo, The City of Cupertino would like to thank Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff for their participation in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and guidance provided throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. We look forward to continuing to work with the District as this project moves forward. Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address the District comments which were received on November 26, 2018. The City has provided the following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made. District comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics. 1)Page 1, “Executive Summary”: The executive summary states that Alternative #2 is the preferred alternative. Alternative #2 would enclose Junipero Serra Channel in a box culvert. District staff has preliminarily agreed to this concept if the City accepts all right of way and maintenance of the facility as part of the City storm drain system prior to construction of any improvements, subject to approval from the District's Board of Directors. This section has been revised as noted. 2)Page 22, "Trail Access": This section states "Direct access to the trail may be desired by Apple for its employees." For the portion of the trail along Calabazas Creek, public access should be limited to the trailhead at Vallco Parkway (Figure 3-15) in order that the District may control public access to the creek during operation and maintenance Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 253Appendix Reponse to SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 2 activities. Additionally, if Alternative 2 is not chosen, then similar controlled public access points should be provided along the Junipero Serra Channel. This section has been revised as noted. 3)Page 23, "CalTrans": This section should also mention that Caltrans reserved ingress- egress rights over the District's fee title right of way for Junipero Serra Channel when they transferred the right of way to the District. Caltrans may need to also review and approve any plans that could affect their ingress-egress rights. This section has been revised as noted. 4)Page 26, "Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD):" This section should reflect that the proposed guard rail barrier or fencing along Junipero Serra Channel in Alternative #1 is not acceptable to the District due to the significant adverse effects on maintenance operations, rather than just a concern. Other alternatives to address any safety concerns should be explored. This section has been revised as noted. City staff is anticipating to seek City Council approval of the study in February 2019. Should City Council decide to approve the study and fund the engineering design phase of the trail to include Alternative #1, then City staff will continue to work with SCVWD staff for alternative edge treatments for pedestrian protection. For this reason, the guard rails are still shown in all Alternative #1 graphics. The discussion on alternative #2 should be revised to reflect that SCVWD staff has preliminarily agreed to alternative #2 upon the condition that the City of Cupertino (City) assume full ownership and maintenance of Junipero Serra Channel as part of the city storm drain system prior to any modifications being implemented. The transfer of the District's right of way and Junipero Serra Channel to the city is subject to prior approval by the District's Board of Directors. Additionally, regulatory approval will be needed from regulatory agencies, including US Army Corps of Engineers, California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section has been revised as noted. 5)Page 28, "Santa Clara Valley Water District": Please revise the second bullet point to reflect that the District will not approve physical barriers along Junipero Serra Channel, rather than it being a preference. This section has been revised as noted. 6)Page 29, "CalTrans": Caltrans approval may also be required for any changes to the District's fee title right of way for Junipero Serra Channel where they reserved ingress- egress easement. This section has been revised as noted. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study254Appendix Reponse to SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 3 7)Page 30, Trail Criteria and Standards: This section should include the trail design standards contained in the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and the District's Water Resources Protection Manual for portions of the trail on District right of way. This section has been revised as noted. 8)Page 40, Pedestrian Trail Alternative #1: Please see comment 4, above, for comments on Alternative #1. See response to Comment #4. 9) Page 40, Class I Multi-Use Trail Alternative #2: The text states "SCVWD has indicated that they do not maintain box culverts and that the City would need to assume maintenance and responsibility." This sentence should be revised to state "Maintenance of enclosed culverts or channels is not the District's expertise. If Alternative #2 is pursued by the city, the District will request that the city accept ownership and maintenance responsibility prior to project construction." The District suggests that the text and/or figures include the sizing of the box culvert and describe the maintenance activities that will be needed. This section has been revised as noted. 10)Page 40, Figure 4-3: On the portion of Junipero Serra Channel, generally east of Wolfe Road, where the channel is not proposed to be enclosed as part of Alternative #2, the District may still not allow guard railing or fencing along the top of bank where it would reduce the width of our maintenance road unacceptably or inhibit access to the channel for maintenance operations. Understood. The proposed guard rails are removed along the trail segment east of Wolfe Rd. 11) Page 41, Figure 4-4: Please see comment 4, above, for comments on Alternative #1. See response to Comment #4. 12)Page 51, Figure 4-9: The figure shows a proposed trail connection to the Junipero Serra Channel "within existing roadway easement." The alignment of the trail connection appears to be very similar to the alignment of a road easement the District previously quitclaimed in 1975 in exchange for a new ingress-egress easement through assessor parcel number 326-06-050. If the City has its own road easement at this location, then there is no issue. However, if the roadway easement is referring to our prior easement, then the trail connection will need to be redesigned or new right of way will need to be acquired by the City. Cupertino Loc-N-Stor (APN 326-06-050) is proposing to improve their property and has submitted preliminary plans for City review. This section has been revised to clarify that any improvements made to the Cupertino Loc-N-Stor property will not preclude trail development. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 255Appendix Reponse to SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 4 13)Page 72, Figure 4-29, Alternative 1: Please see comment 4, above, for comments on Alternative #1. See response to Comment #4. 14)Page 77, Segment 3-Vallco to Vallco Parkway: This section runs along Junipero Serra Channel from Wolfe Road to the Calabazas Creek confluence and then along the west bank of Calabazas Creek to Vallco Parkway. There is only one proposed alternative in this section due to the maintenance access road width of 14 feet or greater. The proposed channel and creek are to remain as is, but there are still fences or guard rails proposed along the bank in areas where the bank is steeper than 3:1 slope. Comment 4, above, is still applicable for the area along Junipero Serra Channel. The District's as- builts for Calabazas Creek show the bank was constructed at 3:1 between Highway 280 and Vallco Parkway, so the study should be revised to reflect this condition and remove reference to fencing. Additionally, District studies indicate the maintenance road along Calabazas Creek is below top of bank of the creek and subject to inundation approximately during 10-year storm events and greater. Improvements to the Calabazas Creek maintenance road will require approvals from regulatory agencies, including California State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section has been revised as noted and the proposed guard rails are removed from the graphics shown along the trail segment east of Wolfe Rd. 15)Page 84, Guard Rail Adjacent to Open Ditch: Again, please see comment 4 and 14 for comments regarding fencing and/or guard rails adjacent to Junipero Serra Channel or Calabazas Creek. See response to Comment #4 and #14. 16)Page 87, Summary Recommendations: This section states that a joint use agreement is only necessary if SCVWD retains ownership. This appears to be a reference to Alternative 2. However, even Alternative 2 includes a portion of Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek which will not be placed in a culvert and is assumed to be retained by the District (please clarify if that is not the City's understanding). Therefore, in any alternative, a joint use agreement with the District will be necessary. The City is in agreement with this understanding. This section has been revised to specify a joint use agreement with the District will be necessary in any alternative. 17)Page 97, TAC Meeting #1 Summary, Item 5: The District would like to clarify that the loss of access at Wolfe Road was due to the installation of a concrete guard rail, not a fallen tree. The meeting summary has been revised as noted. Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study256Appendix Reponse to SCVWD Comments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study December 18, 2018 Page 5 Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237. Sincerely, Jennifer Chu, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Public Works Department cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman SCVWD – Usha Chatwani, Devin Mody, Cody Houston, Jennifer Codianne, Chad Grande Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 257Appendix this page intentionally left blank