CC Resolution No. 18-081 Approving the Regnart Creek Feasibility Study and Directing Staff to Establish a Budget and Proceed with Design, Environmental Review and Construction of the Regnart Creek Trail and amending the FY 18-19The following administrative changes were made to Resolution No. 18-081 to be
consistent with Council action taken on 8/21/18:
1. Language, “and construction” was removed from the title to read:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING THE REGNART CREEK FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DIRECTING
STAFF TO ESTABLISH A BUDGET AND PROCEED WITH DESIGN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE REGNART
CREEK TRAIL, AND AMENDING THE FY 18/19 ANNUAL OPERATING
BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $380,000 TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
FUND FOR THIS PURPOSE
2. Language, “and construction” was also removed from the fourth bullet point on
page 2 to read:
Establishes a budget within the City’s Capital Improvement Program to
implement the design and environmental review and construction of the
Regnart Creek Trail
3. Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study attachment dated September 2018 replaced
with one dated August 2018 as per agenda packet attachment A
REGNART CREEK TRAILFEASIBILITY STUDY
CITY OF CUPERTINO | AUGUST 2018
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HMH
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 1
2. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 5
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS................................................................................................. 10
4. TRAIL CRITERIA.................................................................................................................. 23
5. PUBLIC OUTREACH.......................................................................................................... 27
6. TRAIL ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................................ 33
7. TRAIL EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATION............................................................... 49
8. APPENDICES...................................................................................................................... 63
A. COST ESTIMATES
B. RIGHT-OF-WAY DOCUMENTATION
C. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS & COMMENTS
D. SCVWD MEETING MINUTES
E. FEMA MAPS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HMH | 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Envisioned as part of The Loop Cupertino and identified in the
City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan (Bike Plan)
and the City of Cupertino 2018 Pedestrian Transportation
Plan (Pedestrian Plan) as being within priority Tiers 2 and 1,
respectively, the Regnart Creek Trail is a planned facility which
would provide a safe and convenient off-street alternative for
bicyclists and pedestrians to access nearby destinations including
Cupertino Civic Center, Cupertino Public Library, Wilson Park,
Creekside Park, nearby schools and residential neighborhoods.
Under agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD), the project would utilize an existing maintenance
road along the bank of Regnart Creek in the City of Cupertino.
The project would extend along the existing creek alignment
from Pacifica Drive to E Estates Drive where it would connect to
the existing trail into Creekside Park. The project would include
two upgraded roadway crossings at S Blaney Avenue and E
Estates Drive.
2 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The planned alignment is primarily within SCVWD Rights-of-
Way, with roadway crossings in City of Cupertino Rights-of-
Way. SCVWD, PG&E and AT&T operate facilities within the
project area and will require regular maintenance access of
the trail alignment.
The alignment is adjacent to residential backyards for
approximately 2/3 of the project length.
A preliminary environmental assessment was performed
to identify any biological, ecological, cultural, or other
considerations which may restrict the proposed project
and to identify potential environmental technical studies
to be performed in future project phases. With inclusion of
mitigation measures, determined during future study, impacts
of the proposed trail project are likely to not be significant.
Critical Locations
Approximately 800 feet east of S Blaney Avenue, a concrete
maintenance ramp exists which is critical for ongoing
maintenance of the creek and will be preserved as part of the
project.
Approximately 500 feet west of S Blaney Avenue, there is
an existing drive aisle extending from a cul-de-sac on De
Palma Lane providing vehicular access to four De Palma
Lane residences. Through this approximately 400 foot long
area, the creek-side access road is discontinuous. SCVWD
right-of-way extends approximately 15’ north of the existing
retaining wall through this area. Permission to use this area for
bicycle and pedestrian access has been granted to the City
by SCVWD through an executed Joint Use Agreement (dated
January 20th, 2004 and further amended February 6, 2008).
These agreements can be found in Appendix B.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The project held four community outreach meetings during
the preparation of the Study. Three meetings were noticed to
properties within the vicinity of the project and one meeting
focused on the Lozano Lane / De Palma Lane residents.
Community response to the project was mixed with positive
feedback from bicycle/pedestrian advocacy groups and
the school community, and strong opposition by residents
adjacent to the project. Primary concerns raised pertain to
safety, security and privacy.
The Regnart Creek Trail was included in the Cupertino’s draft
2005 General Plan. After public input and discussion at the
October 4, 2005 City Council Meeting, a motion carried to
remove the Regnart Creek Trail from the 2005 General Plan.
HMH | 3
PROPOSED ALIGNMENTS
The project considered several alternative alignments which
include alignments entirely following the creek, alignments
which run through Wilson Park and alignments which partially
or fully utilize on-street alternatives along nearby roadways.
Alternatives also consider use of bicycle and pedestrian
bridges near Wilson Park and enclosing the creek in box
culverts near Lozano Lane / De Palma Lane.
TRAIL ACCESS
For alternatives which utilize the existing SCVWD access
road, upgraded trailheads utilizing decorative pavements,
wayfinding, information boards, seating and other features
would be provided. Secondary access points with matching,
but less substantial, treatments would be added at other
locations for trail user convenience.
ROADWAY CROSSINGS
With on-creek alternatives, upgraded roadway crossings at
both S Blaney Avenue and E Estates Drive were identified in
order to safely accommodate trail user crossings at mid-block
locations. Treatments including the use of bulbouts, median
islands,raised crosswalks, chicanes, rectangular rapid flash
beacons (RRFBs), and traffic signals were evaluated at each
crossing location.
ALTERNATIVE WEST OF
S BLANEY AVE
EAST OF
S BLANEY AVE
BIKE/PED
BRIDGE(S)
No Build N/A N/A
1 SCVWD Access Road SCVWD Access Road X
2 SCVWD Access Road On-street (Hall Ct.), through
Wilson Park & on-street
(Vicksburg Dr.)
3 SCVWD Access Road SCVWD Access Road & through
Wilson Park & On-street
(Vicksburg Dr.)
X
4 On-street
(Pacifica Dr.)
On-street (La Mar Dr.)
5 On-street
(Rodrigues Ave.)
On-street (Parkside Ln), through
Wilson Park, & On-street (Vicks-
burg Dr.)
TRAILHEADS SECONDARY
ACCESS POINTS
Pacifica Avenue / Torre
Avenue
Intersection
Pacifica Drive / Regnart
Creek Intersection
Rodrigues Ave
(at Regnart Creek Bend)
Cupertino Civic Center (NE
corner of Library Field)
Wilson Park S Blaney Avenue
E Estates Drive
Table 1.1: Summary of Alignment Alternatives of the Regnart Creek Trail
Table 1.2: Summary of Regnart Creek Trail Access Locations
4 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
After evaluation of Alternatives, the Study recommends
Alternative 1, a fully creek-side facility, be progressed
forward to environmental clearance. This alternative scored
well for meeting the goals of the Bike and Pedestrian Plans,
for its ability to provide direct and convenient access to
nearby destinations and for its safety benefits in separating
bicyclists and pedestrians from on-street vehicular conflicts.
The alternative scored moderately for cost, environmental
considerations and SCVWD maintenance access.
EVALUATION
The Study qualitatively evaluated the proposed alignments
with respect to its peers using the following evaluation
categories:
• Purpose and Goals of the Bike and
Pedestrian Plans
• Access and Directness
• User Safety
• Environmental Considerations
• SCVWD Maintenance Access
• Cost
The scoring of these categories are not weighted equally as
some categories (i.e. User Safety) carry more significance
than others.
Scoring Rubric
Alternatives were scored qualitatively using the rubric below:
Table 1.3: Summary of Trail Alignment Alternative Evaluations
The alternative scores very
well as compared to its peers.
The alternative scores well
as compared to its peers.
The alternative scores
moderately well as
compared to its peers.
The alternative scores
slightly well as compared
to its peers.
The alternative does not
score well as compared
to its peers.
Purpose & Goals
of Bike &
Pedestrian Plans
Access
& Directness User Safety Environmental
Considerations
SCVWD
Maintenance
Access
Cost
No Build
Alternative
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
HMH | 5
INTRODUCTION
VISION
The Regnart Creek Trail is a designated project under
the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan
(Bike Plan) and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan
(Pedestrian Plan). The purpose of this study is to investigate
the feasibility of modifying the existing Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD) access road to allow for the
accommodation of a shared-use trail for bicyclists and
pedestrians. This trail is one of three off-street trails which
comprise the Cupertino Loop Trail (The Loop), which will
provide access throughout Cupertino on a series of low
stress facilities separated from heavy vehicle traffic. The
Loop primarily supports recreational riders and long-range
bicycle trips, however subsections of the loop connect local
residents to nearby destinations.
This project would directly address programming, safety,
and mobility goals set forth in the Bike and Pedestrian
Plans. The design of a new shared-use trail will address
the access needs of people in the area by providing safe
passage to schools, parks and civic facilities connected by
the trail.
Stakeholder agencies associated with the project are the
City of Cupertino, Santa Clara Valley Water District, PG&E,
and AT&T. Collaboratively, these agencies share goals to
create and maintain open-space access for pedestrians
and bicyclists through developing joint-use agreements,
capital projects, grants, and partnerships.
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, schools, recreation,
shopping, and transit on a bicycle as a part of
daily life.
Vision statement from the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan (Bike Plan)
HMH | 6LWater WayCupertino City LimitsArterials & Major RoadsUrban WildlandProposed TrailLEGENDSUNNYVALESANTA CLARASAN JOSESARATOGASTEVENS CREEK BLVDDE ANZA BLVDSTELLING RDWOLFE RDMILLER AVEI280HWY
8
5REGNART CREEK TRAIL VICINITYFigure 2.1 : Regnart Creek Trail Vicinity Map.
HMH | 7
BACKGROUND
City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan
In June 2016, the Cupertino City Council adopted the Bike
Plan that will guide the development and implementation of
improving the City’s bicycling environment for years to come.
General statements of what the City and residents hope to
achieve over time is summarized below.
City of Cupertino 2018 Pedestrian
Transportation Plan
In February 2018, the Cupertino City Council adopted the
Pedestrian Plan that will guide the City toward achieving its
vision of an inviting, safe, and connected pedestrian network.
General statements of what the City and residents hope to
achieve over time is summarized below.
Bikeway Classifications
The Bike Plan recommends bikeway treatments that will collectively form a bicycle transportation network and will accommodate
the safety needs of all mobility types, users, and ability levels.
• Increase awareness and value of bicycling through
encouragement, education, enforcement, and
evaluation programs.
• Improve bicyclist safety through the design and
maintenance of roadway improvements.
• Increase and improve bicycle access to community
destinations across the City of Cupertino for all
ages and abilities.
• Improve pedestrian safety and reduce the number
and severity of pedestrian‐related collisions, inju-
ries, and fatalities.
• Increase and improve pedestrian access to com-
munity destinations across the City of Cupertino for
people of all ages and abilities.
• Continue to develop a connected pedestrian net-
work that fosters an enjoyable walking experience.
Goals stated in the City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan (Bike Plan)
Goals stated in the City of Cupertino 2018 Pedestrian
Transportation Plan (Pedestrian Plan)
Class I Shared-Use Paths
Class I bicycle or shared-use paths are designated
bicycle and pedestrian travel routes that are completely
separated from automobile traffic. These facilities
provide safe passageways for users and promote
local greenspaces. Class I facilities can be popular for
recreational bicycling as well as commuting.
Class III Bike Routes
Class III bike routes are roads where automobile and
bicycle traffic share travel lanes. Signage and striping
are used to indicated the shared condition and travel
lanes tend to be wider to allow for parallel travel. These
types of paths are often used on slower streets, where
parallel travel is safer.
Class II Bike Lanes
Class II bike lanes are bicycle travel routes located along
roads and are visually separated from automobile traffic
by road striping. Because these roads often connect key
businesses and community centers, they are viewed as
vital commuter routes for community members. Bike
lanes can be further enhanced by green paint, which
highlight areas of potential conflict with vehicles.
Class IV Separated Bikeways
Class IV separated bikeways are a new type of bicycle
travel route located along roads similar to Class II
bike lanes, but physically separated by elements such
as curbs, planting areas, posts, barriers, parking, and
grade separation. The added physical separation
provides increased safety for cyclists along higher
speed roadways that may serve as commuter routes.
8 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
The Loop
The Bike Plan identified a prioritized list of recommended
improvement projects to support and promote bicycling in
Cupertino, including separated bikeways, a bike boulevard
network, and The Cupertino Loop Trail (The Loop), which
consists of several trail segments that, when combined
together with on-street bikeways, will form a bike network
around Cupertino.
The Regnart Creek Trail is a segment of The Loop that comprises
of a shared-use trail along an existing SCVWD maintenance
access road. The trail will provide an off-street bicycle and
pedestrian connection between Pacifica Drive to the west,
and E. Estates Drive, to the east.
Agencies & Stake Holders
The City is sensitive to the needs of partner agencies. Of
particular concern are creek erosion, degradation of the
environment, impacts to conveyance of flood flows, and
restrictions to access for maintenance equipment and related
activities. Early and continued engagement with partner
agencies is needed to support on-going trail development.
PG&E owns and operates three utility poles along Regnart
Creek within the SCVWD right-of-way which support electric
and communication facilities. PG&E and AT&T have a joint
utility easement and rights of ingress and egress to Regnart
Creek in order to maintain their facilities. Throughout design
and construction of the trail, careful consideration shall be
taken to protect these existing utilities and preserve PG&E and
AT&T’s rights to accessibility and maintenance.
THE STUDY
The purpose of the feasibility study is to define the project,
identify major constraints and assess the feasibility of
developing the 3/4 mile shared-use facility along Regnart
Creek between Pacifica Drive and E Estates Drive.
The study evaluated alternatives to identify preferred
alignments, access points and trail features in consideration
of constraining factors and the goals set forth by the Bike
and Pedestrian Plans.
Upon Council approval, potential next steps and project
development phases include:
• Approval of Regnart Creek Trail by City Council,
• Identification of potential funding sources,
• Environmental clearance,
• Preliminary Engineering,
• Local, State, and Federal Permitting,
• Final Design,
• Construction
THE LOOPCupertino
Cupertino’s proposed network of connected
bikeways and trails around the City
HMH | 9Figure 2.2: Cupertino Loop Trail (The Loop) from the Bike Plan
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HMH | 10
EXISTING CONDITIONS
LAND USE AND ZONING
Land Use
The Regnart Creek Trail alignment resides approximately one-
quarter mile from the “Heart of the City”, Cupertino’s primary
commercial corridor comprised of various older and newly
developed commercial, office, and residential amenities.
Spanning from Pacifica Drive to E Estates drive, along Regnart
Creek, the trail meanders through the S Blaney neighborhood
adjacent to 82 single-family residences.
The South Blaney neighborhood is located in the eastern
portion of Cupertino, south of Stevens Creek Boulevard and
east of De Anza Boulevard. This area is predominately defined
by single-family residential homes. Bounded by Bollinger
Road, Miller Avenue, De Anza Boulevard, and Stevens Creek
Boulevard, the area is served by the Cupertino Civic Center,
Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and Eaton Elementary School.
Zoning
The zoning designations in the proximity of the
study are:
R1-7.5: Single Family Residential District
• Minimum lot area is 7500 SF
P(BA): BA – Public Building
• For regulating governmental,
public utility, education, religious,
and transportation facilities
• Owned or utilized by federal,
state, county, or city government
R1C: Residential Single-Family Cluster
• Reduces amount of street
improvements and public utilities
to conserve natural features and
provide more desirable aesthetic
and efficient use of open space
PR: Park and Recreation Zone
• For regulating activities within public
owned parks
Figure 3.1: S Blaney Neighborhood Land Use Diagram from Cupertino’s
General Plan
11 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
Cupertino has an ideal setting to use bicycles for
commuting, utility, and recreational purposes. According
to the Bike Plan, the City currently accommodates its
ridership through a vast bikeway network which includes
almost five miles of Class I shared-use paths, twenty-seven
miles of Class II bike lanes, and nine miles of Class III bike
routes. Approximately 25 percent of Cupertino’s roadway
network contains bicycle facilities.
Stevens Creek Boulevard, approximately 0.2 miles north
of the Regnart Creek Trail, is a major east/west arterial
corridor with high volumes and vehicular speeds. Stevens
Creek Boulevard contains Class II bike lanes in both
directions; however, the Bike Plan identifies upgrades to
existing facilities through the implementation of Class IV
separated bikeways along this corridor.
De Anza Boulevard, approximately 900 ft west of the
Regnart Creek Trail, is a major north/south arterial
corridor with high volumes and vehicular speeds. De Anza
Boulevard contains Class II bike lanes in both directions.
Per the Bike Plan, the City plans to enhance these bike
lanes with buffers and upgraded paint markings.
The City is currently implementing Class IV bikeways along
McClellan Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. These
projects will install vertical separation between bikes and
vehicles along McClellan Road from Byrne Ave to S De
Anza Boulevard, along Rodrigues Ave from Terry Way to
Regnart Creek, and along Stevens Creek Boulevard from
N Tantau Avenue to Wolfe Road.
The Regnart Creek Trail alignment is also adjacent to Class
II bike lanes on South Blaney Avenue, Rodrigues Avenue,
and Bollinger Road.
Photo 3.1: Existing trail in Cupertino
Photo 3.2: Existing bike lanes in Cupertino
Photo 3.3: Class IV bike lane rendering in Cupertino
HMH | 12
Parks & Fields
• Library Field
Includes cricket field and large, open grass area
for various sports.
• Wilson Park
Wilson Park is adjacent to the trail and includes
a recreation building, family picnic areas, fitness
course, play equipment, ceramics center,
baseball fields, and soccer field.
• Creekside Park
Creekside Park is adjacent to the trail and
includes a field, family picnic areas,
half-court basketball, playground areas,
soccer fields, bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
Calabazas Creek, and community room.
Schools
• Eaton Elementary School
0.1 miles from the trail
• Cupertino High School
0.3 miles from the trail
• Sedgwick Elementary School
0.3 miles from the trail
Commercial and Retail
• Various Locations
0.2 miles from the trail
• McClellan Square
0.2 miles from the trail
Cupertino Civic Center
The Civic Center is adjacent to the western portion of the trail.
• City Hall
• Community Hall
• Cupertino Library
ACTIVITY GENERATORS
The area surrounding the Regnart Creek Trail alignment
contains several schools, parks, residences, retail, and
municipal buildings. The addition of a trail would offer an
off-street alternative for students and residents to various
destinations near the creek.
Photo 3.4: Cupertino High School
Photo 3.5: Wilson Park
Photo 3.6: Cupertino City Hall
HMH | 13proposed trailcommunity centercity governmenthigh-density housingreligious centerretail/shoppinghigher educationACTIVITY GENERATORSK-12public parkBLANEY AVE.TORRE AVE.DE ANZA BLVD.MILLER AVE.PACIFICA DR.RODRIGUES AVE.STEVENS CREEK BLVD.city hall & civic centerthe biltmore apartmentseaton elementary schoolcupertino high schoollibrary fieldwilson parkcreekside parkcupertino libraryNFigure 3.2: Activity Generators near the Regnart Creek Trail
HMH | 14
REGNART CREEK RIGHT-OF-WAY
Regnart Creek meanders through the southern part of
Cupertino adjacent to single family homes, parks, and
municipal buildings. The SCVWD owns and maintains the
55-foot-wide right-of-way which contains the creek and
a maintenance access road. The existing access road is an
unpaved, dirt road which varies in width from 12 feet to 25
feet throughout the corridor.
For a 400 foot portion of the creek corridor, adjacent to
Lozano Lane and De Palma Lane, the SCVWD right-of way is
45 feet-wide and contains a 15-foot wide public use bicycle
and pedestrian pathway granted by Joint Use Agreement
(Appendix B) between the City and SCVWD. A 5-foot-wide
public walkway connecting the creek to Rodrigues Avenue
was granted through the conditions of approval of the Lozano
Lane development. A 20’ PG&E utility easement is granted
within private and SCVWD right-of-way.
Guidance for trail design next to SCVWD streams and
streamside resources is presented in the 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 (Design Guide) which
addresses land use near streams and surface and groundwater
quality and quantity. The Design Guide, prepared by the
Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collective,
is to be incorporated as appropriate by local agencies into
their existing practices. Unless determined otherwise by an
agreement between the SCVWD and the local agency, the
Design Guide will be used in the design and construction of
creek trails.
The City is responsible for the design, construction, and
maintenance of City-owned facilities including public streets,
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, storm drains, lights,
landscaping, and parks. Public, creek side trails, although
within SCVWD right-of-way, will be city-owned and
maintained.
Photo 3.7: Regnart Creek adjacent to Cupertino Civic Center
Photo 3.8: Bicycle and Pedestian pathway parallel to Lozano
Lane
Photo 3.9: Regnart Creek west of Wilson Park
HMH | 15Figure 3.3: Property rights within the Lozano Lane and De Palma Lane vicinityLOZANO LNDE PALMA LNLAS ONDAS WAY10358103681036810388200852005520075200652018210328103382004555'45'201472013720123201092009520083200711030220'200352017230'15'400.47'5'RIGHT-OF-WAYSCVWDRIGHT-OF-WAYPRIVATEPROPERTYPG&E ANDCOMMUNICATIONSEASEMENTJOINT USE AGREEMENT AREA BETWEEN THECITY AND SCVWDPUBLIC WALKWAY GRANTEDTHROUGH CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENTLEGEND
HMH | 16
WATERSHED AND
CREEK CONDITIONS
The project is in the West Valley Watershed, an 85-square-
mile area of small-creek watersheds. Regnart Creek is a
tributary of the Calabazas Creek. Regnart Creek drains into
Calabazas Creek about 100 feet upstream of Miller Avenue.
Its headwaters begin at the Fremont Older Open Space
Preserve and its total length is approximately 4 miles long,
draining an area of roughly 3.4 square miles. During the one
percent storm, Regnart Creek conveys roughly 560 cubic feet
per second into Calabazas Creek.
Flood zones are geographic areas that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has defined according to
varying levels of flood risk. Each zone reflects the severity or
type of flooding in the area. The project area is within Flood
Zone X from Pacifica Drive to S Blaney Avenue and within
Flood Zone A from S Blaney Avenue to E Estates Drive. Flood
Zone X is an area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted
on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as above the 500‐
year flood level. Zone X is the area determined to be outside
the 500‐year flood and protected by levee from 100‐ year
flood. Flood Zone A is an area with a 1% annual chance of
flooding. Because detailed analyses are not performed for
such areas; no depths or base flood elevations are shown
within this zone. It is determined by FEMA that flooding from
a 100-year event will be contained within the creek channel.
FEMA FIRMs for the project area can be found in Appendix E.
As a part of the SCVWD Calabazas Creek Flood Protection
Project Report, the district studied the existing condition of
Calabazas Creek and its tributaries. The table below is a
summary of the report as it pertains to Regnart Creek; Reach
1 and Reach 2 encompass the Regnart Creek Trail.
REACH DESCRIPTION AVERAGE INVERT
SLOPE
CURRENT CREEK
CAPACTIY EROSION
REACH 1 Straight, trapezoidal channel
with moderate slope; concrete
on both sides
0.3%Over one-percent
capacity
None Noted
REACH 2 Straight, trapezoidal channel
with engineered bend; rock and
sack concrete bank protection
0.5%Over one-percent
capacity
Mildly incised invert, spot
erosion
REACH 3 Straight, trapezoidal channel
with earth banks
0.5%Over one-percent
capacity
Bank erosion, repaired at
one site
REACH 4 Straight, trapezoidal channel
with earth banks; moderate
slope
1.5%Over one-percent
capacity
None Noted
REACH 5 Straight, trapezoidal channel
with earth banks; moderate
slope
1.5%Over one-percent
capacity
None Noted
Figure 3.4: Regnart Creek Reach Map from SCVWD Calabazas Creek
Flood Protection Project Report
(Not to Scale)
Table 3.1: Regnart Creek data retrieved from hydraulic analysis done for the Calabazas Creek Flood Protection Project Report
17 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
The area adjacent to the creek is primarily residential
development, with the trail alignment located behind the
rear and side fences of existing residences and in front of
the residences located on Lozano Lane. The Cupertino
Civic Center is located on the west side of the proposed
trail alignment near its southern terminus (between Pacifica
Drive and Rodrigues Drive). The creek channel lacks
consistent, mature riparian vegetation. The banks of the
creek are engineered with rip rap and concrete for locations
with steep embankments and locations experiencing slope
failure, as shown in Photos 1, 3, and 4. Mature trees are
located within the backyards of some of the residences and
along the proposed trail alignment, as shown in Photos 1-8.
United States Fish and Wild Life Species List
Regnart Creek and the associated riparian corridor are
known to provide habitat for a wide variety of fish and
wildlife species, including some special status species. A
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information
for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) report was prepared for
the proposed project to identify plant and animal species and
other resources (e.g. critical habitat) under USFWS jurisdiction
known or expected to be within the project area. No plant
species were identified in the IPaC report as being within the
project area. Table 3.2 lists fish and wildlife species identified
in the IPaC report as being within the project area.
The areas immediately adjacent to the creek are highly
disturbed and much of the creek banks are armored with rip-
rap, gabions, or concrete retaining walls (refer to Photos 1-8).
The vegetation in the project area consists of mature trees,
some of which are oak trees, and sparse ground shrubbery.
As the conditions of the immediately surrounding area of the
creek show signs of heavy use, it is unlikely that many of the
species listed in Table 3.2 would be found within the project
area.
One species not on the USFWS list that may be affected by
construction is the western pond turtle, which is a California
Species of Concern. While Regnart Creek may provide
suitable aquatic habitat for western pond turtles, populations in
the Santa Clara Valley are relatively low due to urbanization.
Therefore, it is unlikely that dispersing individuals or nests
would be present due to the limited extent of habitat within the
project area. However, depending on the extent of project
construction, pre-construction surveys for western pond turtles
may be required. A project-specific biological assessment
of the creek area to be completed as part of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process may identify
additional animal species of concern.
SPECIES TYPE SPECIES/USFW STATUS
Birds California Clapper Rail – Endangered
California Least Tern – Endangered
Marbled Murrelet – Threatened
Amphibians California Red-legged Frog – Threatened
California Tiger Salamander – Threatened
Fishes Delta Smelt – Threatened
Insects Bay Checkerspot Butterfly – Threatened
San Bruno Elfin Butterfly – Threatened
Migratory Birds Allen’s Hummingbird
Black Oystercatcher
Black Rail
Black Skimmer
Black Swift
Black Turnstone
Black-chinned Sparrow
Burrowing Owl
California Thrasher
Clark’s Grebe
Common Yellowthroat
Costa’s Hummingbird
Lawrence’s Goldfinch
Lewis’s Woodpecker
Long-billed Curlew
Marbled Godwit
Nuttall’s Woodpecker
Oak Titmouse
Red Knot
Rufous Hummingbird
Short-billed Dowitcher
Snowy Plover
Song Sparrow
Spotted Towhee
Tricolored Blackbird
Whimbrel
Willet
Wrentit
Yellow-billed Magpie
Nesting raptors and other migratory birds are protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and
2800. Raptors (such as falcons, hawks, eagles, and owls)
and other migratory birds may utilize the large trees on-site
or adjacent to the site for foraging or nesting. Construction
disturbance near raptor nests can result in the incidental
loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest
abandonment. Construction activities may result in nesting
raptors having to relocate to another site. Relocation of mature
raptors or migratory birds would not, by itself, be significant.
However, disturbance that causes abandonment and/or loss
of reproductive effort is considered a taking by the CDFW, and
would, therefore, be considered a significant impact. Impacts
to nesting birds can be avoided by scheduling construction
activities to occur outside the nesting bird season (February 1
through August 31). If it is not possible to schedule construction
activities outside the nesting season, preconstruction nesting
bird surveys and possibly additional measures (e.g., buffers
or monitoring), if active bird nests are found near planned
construction activities, would be necessary.
Table 3.2: Fish & Wildlife Species within the project area
HMH | 18
Photo 1: View of the
SCVWD maintenance
road, on which the trail is
proposed to be placed,
looking north with res-
idences located on the
east side of the creek
(to the right). Cupertino
City Hall & Library are
located to the left (west).
Photo 2: View of trail
looking east near Ro-
drigues Avenue (left).
City Hall & Library
are located to the left
(west).
Photo 3: Rip rap sta-
bilization of south
side of the creek,
south of Rodrigues
Avenue.
Photo 4: View of
creek facing west
on the north side of
the creek. The trail
would be placed on
the existing mainte -
nance road shown.
Rip rap and mature
oak trees can be
seen within the banks
of the creek.
Photo 5: View look-
ing east in front of the
residences located
on the existing path-
way west of De Pal-
ma Lane.
Photo 6: View look-
ing east from the
existing pulbic walk-
way adjacent to De
Palma Lane.
Photo 8: View of the
proposed trail align-
ment, east of South
Blaney Drive. The
trail would be locat-
ed on the south side
of the creek behind
the rear yard fences
of existing residenc-
es.
Photo 10: View of
existing trail at its in-
tersection with East
Estates Drive, look-
ing east.
Photo 9: The exist-
ing maintenance
road and ramp on
the south side of the
creek as it passes
Wilson Park looking
west. As shown in
the photo, the base
of the existing main-
tenance road/future
trail is inundated with
creek flows.
Photo 7: View at the
maintenance road’s
intersection with
South Blaney Drive,
looking east.
19 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
Permitting
The proposed project would primarily be constructed on
existing SCVWD maintenance access roads. This construction
would occur outside of the bed and banks of the creek and
would not require regulatory agency permits.
However, there is one location near Wilson Park on the
south side of the creek where the existing maintenance road
is currently underwater. Avoidance of this area is a major
consideration of the project. However, if this area is impacted
by the project, regulatory agency permits may be required
as the water level appears to be within the low-flow channel
(within Ordinary High Water). This should be confirmed by
a hydrologist and aquatic biologist prior to final trail design.
If it is determined that the low-flow channel would be affected
by construction, permits would be required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). It is anticipated that the project
would be eligible for a Nationwide Permit from the USACE
and a Section 404 permit from the RWQCB. CDFW would
require a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement
when a construction activity, as described in a complete LSA
Notification, may substantially adversely affect existing fish
or wildlife resources. An LSA Agreement includes measures
necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources. CDFW
may suggest ways to modify a project that would eliminate or
reduce harmful impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Before
issuing an LSA Agreement, CDFW must comply with CEQA.
The regulatory permits may contain additional mitigation
measures for project construction related to impacts to special
status wildlife species and loss of aquatic/riparian habitat
(both permanent and temporary). These measures would
be included in the project to reduce impacts to biological
resources to a less than significant level.
Cultural Resources
Areas adjacent to creeks are usually determined to be
sensitive to sub-surface pre-historic resources. For this
reason, a literature review at the Sonoma State Northwest
Information Center is recommended to determine the
locations of recorded archaeological sites that could
be affected by project construction. If it is determined
that a recorded site could be affected, archaeological
monitoring could be required during initial site grading
depending upon the depths of excavation. This will be
determined during preparation of the CEQA Initial Study
for the project. Mitigation measures would be included
in the project to reduce potential impacts to pre-historic
resources to a less that significant level.
Conclusion
With the inclusion of mitigation measures to be determined
during preparation of the CEQA Initial Study, impacts of
the proposed trail project would likely not be significant.
Because the majority of the construction would occur on
existing unpaved SCVWD maintenance roads, impacts
would be minimal. The maintenance ramp on the south
side of the creek near Wilson Park could, however, be
problematic from a design and permitting perspective.
Depending upon input from the SCVWD and the ultimate
project design regulatory agency permits could be
required.
Should bridges over the creek be proposed at any
locations, it is assumed that the abutments for such bridges
would be above and outside of the banks of the creek. If
so, regulatory agency permits would not be required. Pre-
construction surveys for nesting raptors and other migratory
birds will be required for the project. Other surveys for
western pond turtles and archaeological resources could
be required depending upon the results of the CEQA
Initial Study. With the inclusion of standard measures
and conformance with City Municipal Code requirements
related to noise, impacts during construction and in the
long-term could be reduced to a less than significant level.
Construction-related Impacts
The project area is primarily developed with single-family
residential uses, although the Cupertino City Hall and
Library are located adjacent to the western reach of the
alignment. Residential uses are sensitive to construction
dust, heavy equipment emissions, and noise. These
potential impacts will be evaluated in the CEQA Initial
Study; however, due to the temporary nature of trail
construction, impacts are not anticipated to be significant.
Standard construction measures and conformance with
the City’s Municipal Code would reduce or avoid any
potential impact.
Long-term Noise Impacts
Trail users adjacent to existing residential uses can
generate additional noise when compared to existing
conditions; however, in most locations, the trail would
be located adjacent to rear yard fences. Distances to
the residences themselves and the presence of existing
fences would serve to reduce noise levels. Where the trail
would be located adjacent to the front yards of houses,
noise levels would be greater. A noise analysis would be
required during the preparation of the CEQA document for
the project. Conformance with the City’s Municipal Code
related to hours of trail use may reduce impacts to a less
than significant level.
1California Department of Fish and Wildlife. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/lsa. Accessed November 15, 2017.
HMH | 20
ROADWAY CROSSINGS
Most of Regnart Creek meanders through residential areas
within the S Blaney neighborhood. The creek’s alignment
intersects two roadways within the project area; S Blaney
Avenue and E Estates Drive.
Pacifica Drive
Pacifica Drive runs east-west and feeds into De Anza Boulevard,
a major arterial through Cupertino, from the east. Pacifica Drive
intersects with Regnart Creek and will be designated as the
beginning of the Regnart Creek Trail. Pacifica Drive is classified
as a local road with two lanes, a 25 mph speed limit, and from
the City’s average daily traffic volume (ADT) report, an ADT of
approximately 4,200 vehicles. As the street is lined by homes,
residences, and a field, Pacifica Drive accommodates its users
through on-street parking and designated school crosswalks.
Currently, Pacifica Drive does not contain bicycle facilities;
however, Class IV bicycle facilities are proposed west of Torre
Avenue and Class III bicycle facilities are existing between
Torre Avenue and Farallone Drive.
S Blaney Avenue
Blaney Avenue runs north-south between Homestead Road
and Prospect Road. S Blaney Avenue intersects Regnart Creek
and will be a major crossing for the Regnart Creek Trail.
S Blaney Avenue is classified as a minor collector with two
lanes, a 30 mph speed limit, and from the City’s average daily
traffic volume (ADT) report, an average daily traffic volume of
approximately 6,400 vehicles. The street is within residential
neighborhoods with single family homes and apartments.
Currently, S Blaney Avenue accommodates its users through
on-street parking and Class II bike lanes in each direction.
The Bike Plan proposes that Blaney Avenue be upgraded to a
Class IV separated bikeway.
The Regnart Creek Trail’s intersection with S Blaney Avenue is a
major crossing for the trail and warrants careful consideration
to balance the needs of vehicles and trail users. Roadway
crossings present conflicts and stressful environments for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Speed and traffic volumes pose
potential risks for an effective mid-block crossing. Currently,
there is not a designated crosswalk along S Blaney Avenue
where it intersects with Regnart Creek. It is important that the
proposed alternative provide pedestrians and bicyclists the
ability to safely cross S Blaney Avenue.
Photo 3.10: Regnart Creek entrance off Pacifica
Drive
Photo 3.11: Regnart Creek crossing at S Blaney
Avenue
21 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
E Estates Drive
E Estates Drive intersects with the terminus of the Regnart
Creek Trail. E Estates Drive is classified as a local road
with a 25 mph speed limit. The street is within residential
neighborhoods with single family homes and apartments
with two lanes and on-street parking. East of E Estates
Drive, for approximately 400 feet, there is an existing creek
trail that terminates at Creekside Park.
The Regnart Creek Trail’s intersection with E Estates Drive
is a major crossing for the trail and has several constraints.
Currently, there is not a designated crosswalk along East
Estates Drive that connects the trail to the existing Creekside
Park Trail. In order to safely cross pedestrians and bicyclists
using the Regnart Creek Trail, design consideration is
needed to implement a connection between the Regnart
Creek Trail and Creekside Park Trail.
Vehicle-Bicycle Collisions
Table 3.3 summarizes recorded bicycle-vehicle collisions
within the City between 2011 and 2016.
Most vehicle-bicycle collisions occurred during daylight
hours at the intersections of arterial roads containing
bicycle facilities. Reported collisions were either broadside
or sideswipe collisions. Since the adoption of the Bike Plan
in 2016, the City has taken multiple steps to address risks
leading to vehicle-bicycle collisions. These steps are listed
below:
• Improve education for drivers and cyclists about
safely operating in and around intersections.
• Implement enhanced bikeway treatments at
intersections.
• Improve and enhance the existing bicycle facilities on
the arterial network.
• Prioritize the creation of cross-city routes that do not
require bicycle travel on the arterial network.
• Ensure cyclists have enough time to cross intersections
by reviewing signal timing standards along bicycle
facilities.
TIME
PERIOD
TOTAL NUMBER
OF BICYCLE
COLLISIONS
INJURIES FATALITIES
2011 26 18 0
2012 29 29 0
2013 22 17 0
2014 27 17 0
2015 34 34 1
2016 34 34 0
TOTAL 172 149 1
Table 3.3: Vehicle-Bicycle collision report data from 2011 to 2016
Photo 3.12: Regnart Creek crossing at E Estates
Drive
HMH | 22
MAJOR CONSTRAINTS
Regnart Creek has several unique and challenging
characteristics which are potential challenges and
constraints for the implementation of the Regnart Creek
Trail.
SCVWD Access
SCVWD’s primary responsibility is to protect and
enhance watersheds. In order to meet this policy,
SCVWD requires access for ongoing maintenance of
the creek. This obligation has been carefully considered
through the alternative development process.
Additionally, approximately 800 feet east of S Blaney
Avenue, the SCVWD operates a concrete-lined creek
maintenance access ramp. Preservation of this facility is
critical to ongoing maintenance of the creek.
Available Right-of-Way
The width of the SCVWD right-of-way varies throughout
the Regnart Creek corridor. This variance in right-of-
way results in varying width of the existing access road.
The existing road varies in width from 12 feet to 25 feet,
constraining desired maintenance access widths in
select locations.
The trail can be implemented within SCVWD and City
right-of-way. The project does not propose to acquire
right-of-way from adjacent private properties.
Photo 3.13: Regnart Creek maintenance access
road
Photo 3.14: Residential fencing along creek
maintenance road
Photo 3.15: Maintenance access ramp
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HMH | 23
TRAIL CRITERIA
TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES
There exists many, potentially conflicting, guidance
documents regarding the design and construction of
trails. The following references were used as a basis for
the design, construction, and maintenance of the project:
•Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Resources
Protection Manual (PM)
•Caltrans Highway Design Manual – Chapter 1000
(HDM)
•Santa Clara County Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail
Design, Use, and Management Guidelines (UD/UM)
•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 (DG)
•City of San Jose Trail Network Tool Kit Planning &
Design (TK)
•California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD)
•A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets
(AASHTO)
•NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO)
•Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible
Design (ADA)
These guidelines provide design criteria and guidance for
the design and implementation of trails, roadways and
bicycle facilities. The HDM, AASHTO, and ADA manuals
provide definitive, mandatory standards for trail design
and construction. The PM, DG, UD,UM, NACTO, TK, and
MUTCD provide guidelines and recommendations that
are not mandatory features for a proposed trail. Proposed
trails should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account field conditions and trail route/land use
relationships. Content in the referenced documents as well
as direct design recommendations from the SCVWD are
resources that will be utilized for the design of the Regnart
Creek Trail.
24 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
TRAIL DESIGN CRITERIA
Trail and Land Use Compatibility
Careful consideration should be taken into account when
designing a trail that is within single-family residential
neighborhoods. Appropriate design elements should ensure
the safety and security of trail users and residents with homes
adjacent to the trail.
• In areas where trail routes are adjacent to private
property, visible fencing shall be employed, if requested
by the adjacent property owner, to deter the users from
leaving the trail. (UD – 1.1.4)
• At-grade trail crossings of streets should be developed
with appropriate safety and regulatory signs for both
trail users and motorists. (UD – 1.1.6.2)
Trails and Environmental Protection
It is important that design, construction, and use of recreational
trails near natural and streamside areas do not negatively
impact the nearby stream and stream resources. In designing
a trail, the goal is to remove the minimum amount of vegetation
necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width and restore
riparian habitat.
• Existing native vegetation shall be retained by removing
only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate
the trail clearing width. (UD – 1.3.1.2)
• Trail design shall include barriers to control trail use and
prevent environmental damage; barriers may include
fences, vegetation, stiles, and/or fallen trees or branches
as appropriate. (UD – 1.3.1.3)
• Trail alignments shall avoid impacts known to special
status plants and animal habitats. (UD – 1.3.2.1)
• Trails will avoid wetlands, including seasonal wetlands,
wherever possible. (UD – 1.3.3.5)
Trail Structures
Trail structures such as bridges may be necessary for trail
continuity or access. They are required to span waterways
or address significant grade change. These structures shall
be carefully placed to minimize disturbance. A main concern
regarding structure crossings is erosion. Erosion control
measures shall be taken at the outfalls of drainage structures.
• The use of trail bridges should be minimized. When
necessary, bridges should be a minimum of 12 ft wide
and structurally capable of carrying maintenance
vehicles. Bridges footings shall be outside the creek’s top
of bank. (UD – 4.1.2)
Trail Safety
Safety for trail users is a main goal when designing a trail.
Safety measures are implemented along the trail and at
trail crossings through proper fencing, signage, pavement
striping, lighting, signals, flashers, and emergency call boxes.
• Along trails outside of public parks and along trails that
pass through relatively isolated areas or private lands,
consider installing solar-powered emergency telephones
at regular intervals. (UD – 4.10)
• Trail use will be limited to the hours between dawn and
dusk to minimize impacts to wildlife. (PM 3.52)
• Lighting of trails should be avoided. Exceptions
include security lighting in downtown commercial and
entertainment areas where lighting should be minimized.
(PM 3.52)
• For safety, trail crossings of streets may be signalized
by use of a normal traffic signal or a lighted, flashing
caution sign that would be activated by the trail user
using pedestrian push buttons, bicycle loop detectors, or
other means as appropriate. (UD – 4.16)
• Countywide trail in urban areas are intended for day-
use only. (UM – 1.1.1)
• Where a trail is restricted to a particular type of user(s),
the trail should be clearly designated as such and shall
be equipped with signs and barriers as appropriate.
(UM – 1.3.1)
Grading and Drainage
Erosion is a major concern when building a trail in a riparian
corridor as significant grading work can cause water to drain
in a manner that causes the creek bank to erode. Good trail
design supports effective management of storm water. Trail
grading should support sheet flow onto existing landscapes
and minimize run-off into the creek by using existing outfall
where feasible. Well-managed storm water can prevent
serious erosion, costly repairs, and trail closures.
• No significant grading as defined by local ordinances
shall be used for trail construction unless in conjunction
with a development project where large -scale grading
has been found acceptable by the permitting agencies.
(UD – 3.5.1)
• Surface water shall be diverted from trails by out sloping
the trail away from the creek and into existing outfalls at
a slope between 2% and 3%. (UD – 3.5.4)
HMH | 25
Trail Design and Construction Practices
Trail design and construction practices should be focused on
minimizing environmental damage and ensuring the safety of
trail users. Where feasible, trail design should recognize the
intent of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and should
emphasize accessibility for a diversity of users.
• Trail tread width should be determined by amount
and intensity of trail use and field conditions such as
topography, vegetation, and sensitivity of environmental
resources. SCVWD allows the trail tread width to a
minimum of 8 ft where existing access road is narrow.
(UD – 2.2.1)
• The minimum paved width of travel way for a Class I,
two-way, bike path shall be 8 feet, 10-foot preferred.
A minimum 2-foot wide shoulder, composed of the
same pavement material 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. (HDM– 1003.1)
• Shared-use trails should be designed as paved two-way
paths and should have an optimum width of 12 ft with a
center stripe and minimum 2 ft flush shoulders or clear
spaces of on each side of the trail.
(UD – 2.2.2)
• Trail treads should be of materials that are stable, firm,
and slip-resistant. (UD 3.4)
• Trails can be constructed with earth, gravel, or paved
surfaces. The pavement type should meet user needs,
reflect the aesthetics of the site, and be designed for
vehicular loading of service/maintenance vehicles.
(TK 27)
• Trail surface appropriate to intended use shall be
selected so to minimize runoff and erosion problems.
(UD – 3.4.2)
• The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be
steeper than 1:20 (5%). The cross slope of walking
surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48 (2%) slope.
(ADA–403.3)
USE AND MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
Trail Closures
Trail closures for construction and maintenance vary in
closure times depending on the season and type of work
being done. Stakeholders have the rights to close the trail
as they see fit; however, appropriate signage and public
outreach is necessary to effectively convey the closure.
• Reason for trail closure include, but are not limited to:
trail construction, major repair, or seasonal maintenance;
seasonal periods critical to special status species; high
fire season; periods of flooding; and other hazardous
conditions. (UM – 1.4.1)
• Notice of trail closure shall be shall be posted at all trail
entrances and staging areas. Trail closure notices should
include the reason(s) for the closure. Where possible,
alternate travel routes to the trail should be posted.
(UM – 1.4.3)
Private Access to Public Trails
Private access to public trails is discouraged, but in some
instances, it can occur. Criteria that shall be used to evaluate
the appropriateness of private access to public trails include;
visibility of access points; self-closing and self-locking features
of gates; route alignment between entry point and the
actual trail tread; and maintenance cost and responsibilities.
• Except where trail routes cross driveways and front entry
walks, no private access to countywide trails or gates
within the continuous fencing/walls along the property
line or trail easement shall be permitted without prior
written authorization from the appropriate jurisdiction.
(UM – 2.1)
26 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
Trail Monitoring and Maintenance
Once the trail has been built, it takes a collective effort to
effectively monitor and maintain the trail. Local and managing
agencies are responsible for patrolling the trail for potential
maintenance and corrective work. The public, through trail
users and volunteer agencies, should be vigilant and able to
communicate any trail concerns with the managing agencies.
• A yearly inventory of all trail maintenance, including,
drainage, vegetation clearing, signing, surfacing,
need for graffiti removal, and repair of structures,
gates, fences, and barriers shall be done prior to the
heavy summer use period.
(UM – 3.1)
• Vegetation growth should be cleared and obstacles
should be removed where necessary on an as-need
basis. Understory grasses and herbaceous annuals
shall be inspected annually and appropriately
mowed before fire season.
(UM – 3.3, 3.4)
• Corrective work for drainage or erosion problems
shall be performed within a reasonable period of
time. Where necessary, barriers to prevent further
erosion shall be replaced as soon as possible.
(UM – 3.5)
• The local managing agency has responsibility
for patrolling portions of trail within that agency’s
jurisdiction whether by staff, by contract with related
agencies, or approved volunteer groups. (UM – 5.2)
• A level-of-service approach should be used by the
managing agency to patrol and supervise trails and
provide security. (UM – 5.8)
• To the extent feasible, certain aspect of trail
supervision, such as trail safety and security, litter
control, and information and education should be
accomplished by volunteers. (UM – 5.8.2)
• The trail should not diminish the utility’s ability to
continue to safely access its facilities for maintenance
and operations. (TK 28)
HMH | 27
PUBLIC OUTREACH
To reach as many residents and community members as
possible, the project and outreach events were announced
through several channels online and through mailings. The
City also shared information about the events through social
media on NextDoor, Twitter, and Facebook. Additional
outreach included emails to subscribers of the City’s “Bicycle
Transportation Plan” e-notifications, emails to the Cupertino
Block Leaders in the neighboring area, emails to participants
from previous outreach events, flyer postings around the
Cupertino Civic Center, notifications from Cupertino Safe
Routes to School group, and advertisings in The Cupertino
Courier. The City maintained an active online presence
by posting outreach materials, meeting presentations, and
outreach summaries following each event on the project
website. A detailed account of each engagement event can
be found in the following sections.
OUTREACH PLAN & STRATEGIES
The City committed to providing a robust community outreach
process as part of this study and developed multiple formats
for community dialogue and interaction. The primary purpose
was to listen to adjacent property owners and the community
at-large in order to gain an understanding of current
concerns and desires for the proposed trail. The City wanted
to learn how and why people might use this trail, important
destinations and connections, barriers to using this trail, and
amenities the community would like to see.
To promote this dialogue, the City kicked-off the outreach
process with a “Walkshop” where community residents
walked with City staff and consultants on the proposed trail
alignment. Participants had the opportunity to discuss their
vision for the trail, point out their homes, and raise concerns
about privacy, safety, and other design details. The City
followed the Walkshop with two Community Meetings at
Cupertino Community Hall where residents were able to
share their ideas for the trail and review design approaches
to help resolve common concerns.
28 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
OUTREACH EVENTS
Walkshop – November 18, 2017
On Saturday November 18, the City held a public
tour, or “Walkshop” with two tour sessions - one in
the morning (10:30 a.m.) and one in the afternoon
(1:00 p.m.). Attendees convened at the entrance to
Regnart Creek on Rodrigues Avenue. Following a brief
introduction to the project, community members were
escorted along part of the proposed trail segment by City
and consultant staff. This gave attendees an opportunity
to experience the potential trail, understand possible
constraints, ask questions, and share concerns. Fifty-
seven people signed into the event and 36 comment
cards were submitted.
Figure 5.1: Walkshop PostcardPhoto 5.1: Community members reviewed the limits of the
study area and potential trail design options at the Walkshop
Photo 5.2 : Community members walked with City and consulting staff along the potential trail route
HMH | 29
Community Meeting 1 – January 22, 2018
A community meeting was held on Monday, January 22 at
Cupertino Community Hall from 6:30-8:00 p.m. The meeting
was “open house” style with boards placed on easels around
the hall and two large maps of project extents placed on
tables on either side of the room. A slideshow of photos of
the project area were projected during the event. City and
consultant staff briefly spoke to introduce the project and then
meeting participants were able to engage in conversations
with City and consultant staff at stations and boards around
the room. Stations and boards included information about
community input to-date, examples of nearby trails that are
similar to the proposed trail, and a board where attendees
could express their vision for the trail and share concerns
as well as indicate whether they would use the trail. Eighty-
seven (87) people signed into the event and 67 comment
cards were submitted.
Figure 5.2: Attendees wrote comments on a map of the
proposed trail
Photo 5.3: Attendees converse with staff about trail options
Figure 5.3: Door hanger for Community Meeting 1
30 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
Community Meeting 2 – April 23, 2018
A second community meeting was held on Monday
April 23 at Cupertino Community Hall from 6:30-
8:00 p.m. The meeting was “open house” style
with boards placed on easels around the hall.
A slideshow of photos of the project area were
projected during the event. City and consultant
staff welcomed participants and shared an update
on the project. Captain Rich Urena with the Santa
Clara County Sheriff’s Office also provided a brief
summary of safety calls for the Saratoga Creek
Trail, a Cupertino trail with similar conditions to the
Regnart Creek Trail. Captain Urena noted that since
2010, only five calls have been made to the trail, four
of which were noise-related, with the fifth involving
a homeless person. Meeting participants were
then able to engage in conversations with City and
consultant staff at stations and boards around the
room that illustrated design ideas for road crossings,
trailheads and amenities, concepts for addressing
privacy and security on the proposed trail.
Sixty-five people signed into the event and 59
comment cards were submitted. Attendees were also
asked to fill out a trail design preference worksheet
with potential options for the various elements of
trail design including fencing, privacy screens, trail
surface, roadway crossing options, and security
measures. Twenty worksheets were turned in with
preferences indicated.
Figure 5.4: Postcard for Community Meeting 2
Photo 5.4: Attendees converse with staff and Captain Urena during Community Meeting 2
HMH | 31
Lozano Lane and De Palma Lane
Residents Meeting – May 23, 2018
A focused community meeting was held on Wednesday May
23 at Cupertino City Community Hall from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
The meeting consisted of residents from Lozano Lane and
De Palma Lane. The meeting consisted of a discussion and
presentation to address the concerns and design options for
the 400-ft segment of the trail adjacent to the their homes.
Attendees voiced their objection to the trail routing and its
proximity to their homes.
Fourteen people signed into the meeting. Residents arrived with
questions, documentation, and a power point presentation
regarding the trail. Attendees expressed their concerns which
the City and consultant staff were able to expound upon.
City and consultant staff introduced trail concepts and ideas
which may address routing, privacy, and security concerns.
Three alternative alignments in the Lozano Lane/De Palma
Lane area were discussed: use the existing drive aisle/
pathway, enclose the creek in a box culvert, or construct a
cantilever trail structure over the creek. Various alternatives for
noise and privacy screening were explored. After discussing
the options presented by the City, informal voting was casted.
Figure 5.5: Door hanger for Focused Community Meeting
Photo 5.6: Discussion points written down during the meetingPhoto 5.5: Open discussion with Lozano Lane and De Palma Lane
residents
When asked: “If a trail
construction was inevitable, which
of the concepts presented would
you prefer:”
Resident Votes
Use existing drive aisle/pathway 0
Construct box culvert 12
Construct cantilevered trail 0
Table 5.1: Informal voting results from 14 residents regarding trail
route options in the Lozano Lane/De Palma Lane vicinity
32 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
FEEDBACK DURING EVENTS
Feedback received from comment cards, community
discussions, letters and emails during and after outreach
meetings fell into several “themes.” Many comments touched
on multiple themes. The themes were:
Privacy and Security
• Concerns about security and privacy for those who
live adjacent to the potential trail
• Concerns about available right-of-way near and
potential access to De Palma Lane
• Concerns about noise disturbance
• Concerns about the vandalism of private property
• Concerns about burglary
• Concerns about possible illicit activities long the trail
• Questions regarding liability
• Questions about what hours the trail would be open
• Concerns about homelessness
Safety
• Questions about lighting for the trail
• Concerns about users falling into the creek
• Concerns about users safely crossing Blaney Ave and E.
Estates Dr
• Concerns about emergency vehicle access
• Concerns about potential conflicts with vehicles
turning from La Mar Dr onto S Blaney Ave
• Concerns about mixing bicycles and pedestrians
Aesthetics
• Concerns about aesthetics of a fence or wall that would
separate the potential trail from homes
• Support for the project as it provides more green space
for families and community members to enjoy
• Identifying preferred potential trail features
Transportation Options
• Support for the project as it provides an off-street option
for bicyclists and pedestrians
• Support for the project as it will provide access to several
schools
• Concerns regarding potential degradation of vehicular
traffic at S Blaney Ave
Cost
• Questions regarding cost to implement project
• Questions regarding funding sources
Maintenance and Operations
• Concerns about impacts to the creek and its habitats
• Concerns about continued ability of SCVWD to
maintain the creek
• Concerns about maintenance responsibilities
The above contains the most common concerns that were
voiced by residents; a more comprehensive list of the public’s
specific comments and concerns is provided in Appendix C.
ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE
Fourteen community members who were unable to attend the
community meetings sent emails to City staff or responded to
NextDoor postings. Similar to the feedback received during
events, community members expressed support for the project
as it would connect them to nearby destinations like schools
and the library without the need for a motor vehicle, concerns
about the trail in regards to potential security issues, and
questions about trail operations.
SUMMARY
The feedback received was generally mixed. The majority
of the residents who live adjacent to the trail who provided
input expressed concerns and had many questions about
the trail, specifically safety and security and how they would
be impacted. Sharing design details for extending privacy
fencing, and hearing from Captain Urena did not fully alleviate
many of these residents’ concern about safety and privacy.
The majority of residents who provided input and were not
directly adjacent, but lived within proximity of the proposed
trial expressed support for a more comfortable route to access
parks, schools, Cupertino library, and provide a place to walk
the dog or jog.
HMH | 33
TRAIL ALTERNATIVES
Trail alternatives were compiled based on reviews of existing
conditions, property ownership, public input, and SCVWD
recommendations. Alternatives for trail route, elements, and
features are presented to address the following major themes
of the project:
Improved Recreation
and Transportation
Options
Safety,
Security,
and Privacy
Crossing
Busy
Streets
34 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
TRAIL ALIGNMENT
Five routing alternatives are proposed to address the goals
and objectives of the project, the Bike Plan, and Pedestrian
Plan.
Route Descriptions
No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative will not provide bicycle or pedestrian
facilities and does not propose any improvements to any
existing facilities. This alternative will be evaluated as a control
against its peers (Alternatives 1 through 5).
Alternative 1
Alternative 1(Figure 6.1) proposes to follow the alignment
of the existing SCVWD maintenance road between Pacifica
Drive and E Estates Drive.
A trailhead at the intersection of Torre Avenue and Pacifica
Drive designates the beginning of the Regnart Creek Trail.
From the trailhead, for about 400 ft, the trail runs east through
existing rows of trees along the south side of Library Field.
The trail approaches its second trailhead at Regnart Creek
and runs 0.2 miles north along the west side of the creek. This
segment is adjacent to chainlink fencing along Library Field
and the Cupertino Civic Center. A secondary access point
would be provided to connect trail users to the Civic Center.
The trail then turns and continues east for 0.1 miles along the
north side of the creek and adjacent to residents’ backyard
fences. A secondary access point would be provided at
the turn, adjacent to Rodrigues Avenue near the existing
maintenance access gate.
For 400 ft, the trail will run south of Lozano Lane and adjacent
to De Palma Lane on an existing bicycle and pedestrian
asphalt pathway and public easement. A retaining wall which
comprises the northern bank of the creek abuts this segment on
the south. For about 150 ft, the trail will reside next to a drive
aisle off of De Palma Lane. Signage, pavement delineation,
and separation will be provided to mitigate potential conflicts
with vehicles and trail users. Due to constraining conditions,
the trail width in this area is nonstandard according to design
standards of a Class I Facility set forth by the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual (HDM).
The trail, still on the north side of the creek, resumes its alignment
on the existing dirt maintenance road and meanders east
for 400 ft, adjacent to backyard fences until it encounters S
Blaney Avenue, which is a secondary access point. This is the
first of two roadway crossings proposed with this alternative.
Potential crossing features that will enhance the safety of the
crossing are presented later in this chapter.
After crossing S Blaney Avenue, on the east side of the street,
a secondary access point is provided. The trail resumes its
alignment on the maintenance road which now runs on the
south side of the creek adjacent to residents’ backyard fences,
east for approximately 670 ft.
To avoid the existing SCVWD concrete maintenance ramp,
the trail will cross the creek to Wilson Park via a truss bridge.
For 300 ft the trail with run east along the southern edge of
Wilson Park and then it will once again cross the creek via a
truss bridge to align the trail back on the maintenance road.
Within this 300 ft segment, a trailhead will provide access to
and from Wilson Park.
The trail resumes its alignment on the existing maintenance
road for 0.2 miles. This segment is adjacent to backyard fences
until it encounters E Estates Drive, which is a secondary access
point. This is the second of two roadway crossings proposed
with this alternative. The Regnart Creek trail will terminate on
the west side of E Estates Drive where it will connect to an
existing paved trail that provides access to Creekside Park.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 (Figure 6.2) is identical to Alternative 1 west of
S Blaney Avenue, including the crossing of S Blaney Avenue.
After the S Blaney Avenue crossing, bicyclists will use the
existing Class II bike lane north for 150 ft, along S Blaney
Avenue. The route turns right onto Hall Court where bicyclists
are accommodated on-street, through a parking lot and must
share the road with vehicles. Striping and signage would be
used to designate shared use of Hall Court and the parking lot.
Bicyclists using the trail to travel westbound would be required
to turn left onto S Blaney Avenue from the minor-street stop
at Hall Court. Pedestrians would use existing sidewalks on S
Blaney Avenue and Hall Court.
This alternative then routes bicyclists and pedestrians through
existing ±8-ft concrete and asphalt pathways within Wilson
Park east to the Wilson Park entrance at Vicksburg Drive. 0.2
miles of pathways within Wilson Park will need to be widened
to achieve Class I Facility standards set forth by the HDM.
Path widening between baseball diamonds to achieve Class I
Facility standards is infeasible to achieve because the path is
constrained by existing facilities.
For 500 ft east, this alternative will provide a Class III bike
route on Vicksburg Drive. Then for 100 ft south, a Class III
bike route will be provided on E Estates Drive. Pedestrians
would use existing sidewalks on Vicksburg Drive and E Estates
Drive. Crossing features will be provided on E Estates Drive
to provide a safe connection to the existing trail that provides
access to Creekside Park.
HMH | 35
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 (Figure 6.3) is identical to Alternative 1 west of
S Blaney Avenue, including the crossing of S Blaney Avenue.
After crossing S Blaney Avenue, on the east side of the street,
a secondary access point is provided. The trail resumes its
alignment on the maintenance road which now runs on the
south side of the creek adjacent to residents’ backyard fences
east for approximately 670 ft.
To avoid the existing SCVWD concrete maintenance ramp,
the trail will cross the creek to Wilson Park via a truss bridge.
For 200 ft, the proposed trail with run north through Wilson
Park and then connect to an existing park pathway. For
400 ft, the trail will use the existing park pathway east, to
the Wilson Park entrance at Vicksburg Drive. The 400’ feet
of existing ±8-ft wide pathway will need to be widened to
achieve Class I Facility standards set forth by the HDM.
For 500 ft east, this alternative proposes a Class III bike route
on Vicksburg Drive. Then for 100 ft south, a Class III bike route
is proposed on E Estates Drive. Pedestrians would use existing
sidewalks on Vicksburg Drive and E Estates Drive. Crossing
features will be provided on E Estates drive to provide a
safe connection to the existing trail that provides access to
Creekside Park.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 (Figure 6.4) proposes a completely on-street
alignment from Pacifica Drive to E Estates Drive.
This route proposes to designate and use a Class III bike route
along Pacifica Drive between Torre Avenue and S Blaney
Avenue and along E Estates Drive between La Mar Drive and
the existing Creekside Park Trail, Class II bike lanes along
La Mar Drive, and to use existing Class II bike lanes along
S Blaney Avenue. Crossing features will be provided on E
Estates Drive to provide a safe connection to the existing trail
that provides access to Creekside Park.
Traffic calming measures such as traffic circles, speed bumps,
and medians to lower vehicular speeds and increase bicycle
safety would be implemented.
This alternative does not propose trail heads or access points
as it is continuously accessible in the public right-of-way.
Alternative 5
Alternative 5 (Figure 6.5) proposes an on-street alignment
through the implementation of Class II and Class III bicycle
facilities.
This route proposes to use existing Class II bike lanes along
Rodrigues Avenue between Torre Avenue and S Blaney
Avenue, and to designate and use Class III bike routes along
Rodrigues Avenue between S Blaney Avenue and Parkside
Lane, along Parkside Lane, along Vicksburg Drive between
Wilson Park and E Estates Drive, and along E Estates Drive
between Vicksburg Drive and the existing Creekside Park Trail.
This alternative would route bicyclists and pedestrians through
existing ±8-ft concrete and asphalt pathways within Wilson
Park between Parkside Lane and Vicksburg Drive. 0.2 miles
of pathways within Wilson Park will need to be widened to
achieve Class I Facility standards set forth by the HDM. Path
widening between baseball diamonds to achieve Class I
Facility standards is infeasible to achieve because the path is
constrained by existing facilities.
Pedestrians would use existing sidewalks on Vicksburg Drive
and E Estates Drive. Crossing features will be provided on E
Estates drive to provide a safe connection to the existing trail
that provides access to Creekside Park.
Traffic calming measures such as traffic circles, speed bumps
and medians to lower vehicular speeds and increase bicycle
safety would be implemented.
This alternative does not propose trail heads or access points
as it is continuously accessible in the public right-of-way.
HMH | 36Existing RegnartCreek LimitsBuilding FootprintBridge CrossingClass ILEGENDNLAS ONDAS WAYDE PALMA LN.HALL CT.LOZANO LN.REGNART CREEKPACIFICA DR.TORRE AVE.RODRIGUES AVE.LIBRARY FIELDCIVIC CENTERS. BLANEY AVE.LA MAR DR.VICKSBURG DR.REGNART CREEKWILSON PARKREGNART CREEKPARKSIDE LN.E. ESTATES DR.Existing RegnartCreek LimitsBuilding FootprintClass ILEGENDNLAS ONDAS WAYDE PALMA LN.HALL CT.LOZANO LN.REGNART CREEKPACIFICA DR.TORRE AVE.RODRIGUES AVE.LIBRARY FIELDCIVIC CENTERS. BLANEY AVE.LA MAR DR.VICKSBURG DR.REGNART CREEKWILSON PARKREGNART CREEKPARKSIDE LN.E. ESTATES DR.Class IIITRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 1TRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 2Figure 6.1: Alternative Route 1 is a creek side trail from Pacifica Drive to E Estates Drive.Figure 6.2: Alternative Route 2 is a creek side trail from Pacifica Drive to S Blaney Avenue. It is on-street and through Wilson Park from S Blaney Avenue to E Estates Drive.
HMH | 37Figure 6.3: Alternative Route 3 is a creek side trail from Pacifica Drive to Wilson Park. It runs through the park and on-street from Wilson Park to E Estates Drive.Figure 6.4: Alternative Route 4 is an on-street route from Torre Avenue to E Estates Drive.NLAS ONDAS WAYDE PALMA LN.HALL CT.LOZANO LN.REGNART CREEKPACIFICA DR.TORRE AVE.RODRIGUES AVE.LIBRARY FIELDCIVIC CENTERS. BLANEY AVE.LA MAR DR.VICKSBURG DR.REGNART CREEKWILSON PARKREGNART CREEKPARKSIDE LN.E. ESTATES DR.Existing RegnartCreek LimitsBuilding FootprintLEGENDClass IClass IIIBridge CrossingTRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 3Existing RegnartCreek LimitsBuilding FootprintLEGENDClass IIIClass IINLAS ONDAS WAYDE PALMA LN.HALL CT.LOZANO LN.REGNART CREEKPACIFICA DR.TORRE AVE.RODRIGUES AVE.LIBRARY FIELDCIVIC CENTERS. BLANEY AVE.LA MAR DR.VICKSBURG DR.REGNART CREEKWILSON PARKREGNART CREEKPARKSIDE LN.E. ESTATES DR.TRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 4
HMH | 38Existing RegnartCreek LimitsBuilding FootprintLEGENDClass IClass IIClass IIINLAS ONDAS WAYDE PALMA LN.HALL CT.LOZANO LN.REGNART CREEKPACIFICA DR.TORRE AVE.RODRIGUES AVE.LIBRARY FIELDCIVIC CENTERS. BLANEY AVE.LA MAR DR.VICKSBURG DR.REGNART CREEKWILSON PARKREGNART CREEKPARKSIDE LN.E. ESTATES DR.TRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 5Figure 6.6: Proposed concept for bike/ped path and drive aisle adjacent to Lozano Lane and De Palma LaneFigure 6.5: Alternative Route 5 is an on-street route from Torre Avenue to Parkside Lane. It is through Wilson Park and on-street from Parkside Lane to E Estates Drive.
HMH | 39
CREEK BRIDGES
Trail Route Alternatives 1 and 3 propose removable bridges,
depicted in Figures 6.7 and 6.8, that cross the creek
allowing for the preservation of an existing SCVWD concrete
maintenance ramp.
Bridge Structure
On-going maintenance occurs within and along Regnart
Creek, making it imperative for the SCVWD maintenance
ramp to remain functional. Bridges are proposed to keep the
ramp intact while providing a continuous shared-use path.
To accommodate maintenance vehicles and equipment that
will conflict with the bridges, the bridges should be able to
be temporarily removable. The bridges’ truss structure will be
detached from the abutments and lifted via crane that would
likely be stationed at Wilson Park. Upon the completion of
maintenance, the bridges will be reassembled. The City has
agreed to facilitate these temporary removals at the request
of SCVWD.
As shown on Figure 6.7, the abutments for the bridges would
be above and outside of the banks of the creek. Therefore,
the impacts from constructing the bridges would not require
regulatory agency permits. Although unlikely due to the
bridge width (12 feet) and height (approximately 11 feet)
above the creek bed, it is possible that the shade from the
bridges could adversely affect the aquatic vegetation beneath
the bridges. This would be evaluated in the project-specific
biological assessment completed for the project as part of the
CEQA process. Depending on the findings of the biological
assessment, mitigation (e.g., habitat restoration) and possibly
regulatory agency permits could be required.
Figure 6.7: Cross Section of Bridge
HMH | 40Figure 6.8: Plan View of truss bridges at Wilson Park1 INCH = 40 FEET8040200
HMH | 41Figure 6.9: Cross Section at Library FieldFigure 6.10: Cross Section adjacent to Cupertino Civic CenterFigure 6.11: Cross Section adjacent to Lozano Lane and De Palma LaneFigure 6.12: Cross Section at the Wilson Park crossingPRIVACY SCREENING10’-0”WILSON PARK10’-0”10’-0”2’-0” TRAIL SURFACETRAIL SURFACE REMOVEABLE TRUSSBRIDGE CROSSING40’-0”PRIVACY SCREENING10’-0”2’-0”CUPERTINO CIVIC CENTERPRIVACY SCREENINGRAILINGTRAIL SURFACELIBRARY FIELDTRAIL SURFACE10’-0”CROSS SECTIONS AT VARIOUS ROUTE LOCATIONS
42 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
ALTERNATIVES DISCONTINUED
FROM FURTHER EVALUATION
Throughout the conceptual design process, a number of
potential alternatives were explored and deemed infeasible,
impractical or otherwise undesirable. The following concepts
were not evaluated further in the study:
Cantilever Structure at
Lozano Lane / De Palma Lane
This concept, depicted in Figure 6.13, explored opportunities
to extend a cantilever structure over the creek to increase the
amount of usable space within the constrained alignment near
Lozano Ln / De Palma Ln. This concept would unreasonably
restrict SCVWD maintenance operations and was
unacceptable to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The
resulting construction would greatly restrict SCVWD equipment
from accessing the creek to remove large objects and debris
that could become trapped under the cantilever and may
affect safe passage of flood flows. Construction costs for this
alternative would be very high relative to other alternatives
and construction would significantly impact use of the access
corridor, likely requiring closure for an approximately six to
eight months.
Box Culvert at Lozano Lane / De Palma Lane
Enclosing the creek in a box culvert would effectively place the
creek flows in a concrete lined, rectangular pipe for a portion
of the alignment. This alternative, depicted in Figure 6.14,
would affect season wetlands and may alter the hydraulic
profile of the creek, worsening erosion. In addition to the
need for offsite wetlands mitigation, ongoing maintenance of
the culvert would require regulatory agency permitting. The
SCVWD was unwilling to accept the negative environmental
and slope stability consequences of this concept. Cost of
construction for this alternative would also be very high
relative to other alternatives and access during construction
would be significantly impacted, likely requiring closure of the
existing access path for approximately to six to eight months.
Overcrossing Structures at S Blaney Avenue
and/or E Estates Drive
Grade-separated overcrossing structures provide a conflict-
free alternative to at-grade roadway crossings. However, to
maintain Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance,
an ascending approach 350 to 400 feet long is necessary.
This approach could be accommodated by means of switch-
back structures which are difficult for bikes to navigate.
Obtaining right-of-way would be required from adjoining
residences to maintain at-grade maintenance access
around the structure without substantially restricting SCVWD
maintenance operations. Construction of such a facility would
be prohibitively expensive relative to other alternatives. An
overcrossing would also introduce substantial visual impact of
an elevated structure next to adjacent residents.
Undercrossing Structures at S Blaney Avenue
and/or E Estates Drive
Likewise, undercrossing structures provide a safe alternative
to at-grade crossings. Similar to the issues noted above,
undercrossing structures would require approximately
200-foot-long descending approach ramps. This alternative
would require obtaining right-of-way from adjoining
residences to maintain at-grade maintenance access around
the undercrossing approaches without substantially restricting
SCVWD maintenance operations. While visual concerns are
not present with undercrossing structures, long, narrow tunnels
can be undesirable for users. Additionally, with the proximity
of the creek, an undercrossing structure would require special
waterproofing and pump systems to discharge storm and
ground water. Cost of construction for this alternative would
also be prohibitively high relative to other alternatives since
the undercrossing structure would probably need to be
constructed in 2 or 3 stages to maintain traffic on the through
street during an eight to ten month construction duration.
HMH | 43
Figure 6.13: Cross Section of cantilever structure
SCVWD RIGHT-OF-WAY
DE PALMA LN : BOX CULVERT TRAIL ALTERNATIVE
DE PALMA LN : CANTILEVERED TRAIL ALTERNATIVE
SCVWD RIGHT-OF-WAY
CANTILEVERED
TRAIL PATH
EX PRIVATE
PATH
EX
LANDSCAPING
TRAILPRIVATE PATHLANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING
45’
45’ 12’ 9’ 8’ 8’
12’ 13’ 9’ 5’-8’
8’
2’-5’ EX LANDSCAPING
SPLIT RAILFENCE
CHAINLINK
FENCECHAINLINK
FENCE
CONCRETEDOUBLE BOXCULVERT
CONCRETE
RETAINING
WALL
1’ CONCRETE WALL
Figure 6.14: Cross Section of box culvert
SCVWD RIGHT-OF-WAY
DE PALMA LN : BOX CULVERT TRAIL ALTERNATIVE
DE PALMA LN : CANTILEVERED TRAIL ALTERNATIVE
SCVWD RIGHT-OF-WAY
CANTILEVERED
TRAIL PATH
EX PRIVATE
PATH
EX
LANDSCAPING
TRAILPRIVATE PATHLANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING
45’
45’
12’ 9’ 8’ 8’
12’ 13’ 9’ 5’-8’
8’
2’-5’ EX LANDSCAPING
SPLIT RAIL
FENCE
CHAINLINK
FENCECHAINLINK
FENCE
CONCRETE
DOUBLE BOX
CULVERT
CONCRETE
RETAINING
WALL
1’ CONCRETE WALL
44 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
TRAIL HEADS
Trailheads are important elements of a trail which identify
access, welcome trail users, and offer information. Proposed
access points along the trail are divided into two categories:
primary trailheads and secondary access points. These facilities
are placed at locations of existing maintenance access gates or
locations that promote connectivity to the Civic Center, Wilson
Park, and adjacent neighborhoods.
Primary trail heads present the opportunity for place-making and
guidance through the use of architectural elements, information
displays, and wayfinding signage. Architectural elements
include decorative concrete paving, seat walls, monuments,
and landscaping. Creek information and trail navigation can
be presented with large-scale maps mounted on wood posts or
architecturally themed guide posts.
Consideration should be given to the inclusion of trash
receptacles, bike racks, water fountains, benches, and other
amenities on a case-by-case basis.
Unlike primary trailheads, secondary access points are proposed
solely for trail user ingress and egress. These access points will
have minimal navigational signage and minor architectural
treatments.
Each trail access point will have a locking gate for creek
maintenance. SCVWD will notify the City prior to closure of
the trail facility for necessary outreach and notification to trail
users. The SCVWD will close and lock gates while maintenance
operations are actively underway.
Trailheads and access locations should be posted with regulatory
signs identifying trail hours as dawn to dusk and listing activities
which are not permitted on the trail.
Decorative pavement
Wayfinding signs
Information Displays
Decorative seat walls
HMH | 45
PROPOSED CUPERTINO CIVIC
CENTER SIGNAGE.
PROPOSED ACCENT LANDSCAPE
PLANTING, TYPICAL.
PACIFICA DR.TORRE AVE.PAVING
PAVING
DIRECTORY/WAYFINDING
TRAILMARKER
LOW WALL
PACIFICA DR.REGNART CREEKPROPOSED ACCENT LANDSCAPE PLANTING, TYPICAL.
PAVING
DIRECTORY/WAYFINDING
TRAILMARKER
LOW WALL
Figure 6.15: Trailhead features the intersection of Pacifica Avenue and Torre Avenue
Figure 6.16: Secondary Access features the intersection of Pacifica Avenue and Regnart Creek
46 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
ON-TRAIL FEATURES
On-trail features are identified to define the Regnart Creek Trail and
address stakeholder, community, and staff interests and requirements.
Privacy
Converting the maintenance road to a public-use trail introduces
privacy concerns for some residents with homes along the trail route.
Several screening solutions with varying costs and functionalities are
presented to help mitigate visual impacts.
After field review, 15 properties have been identified where existing
access road grades, existing fence heights, and existing fence
conditions may be modified or enhanced for adequate visual screening
for residents. These properties are generally along Farallone Dr,
Rodrigues Avenue, Lozano Lane, La Mar Drive, and Vicksburg Drive.
Existing wood fencing can be heightened with addition of a free-
standing lattice that would add two or three feet of height to increase
privacy. These free-standing extensions would be constructed on the
creek side of the residential fencing as to not encroach upon private
property. Cost for this free-standing extension is approximately $20
per linear foot.
As a more costly, but durable alternative to fence extensions, 7-foot
tall replacement fencing, at approximately $50 per linear foot, could
be implemented with construction of the trail. For properties beyond
those identified in the study, the City may choose to enter into a ‘Good
Neighbor’ Program where replacement fences may be constructed
under a cost sharing agreement between the City and the property
owner. The City will work with each resident should they request a
fence replacement. The SCVWD currently operates a similar program
where fences in poor condition may be replaced with up to $14.40 per
linear foot contributed by SCVWD. Maintenance of the fence would
be the responsibility of the property owner.
Concrete soundwalls provide a robust privacy option that will
also provide noise mitigation. While invasive and more costly, at
approximately $100 per linear foot, this privacy option offers sound
attenuation.
Privacy enhancements can also be achieved by constructing taller
decorative screening elements. Metal and acrylic panels can be
aesthetically pleasing and provide varied visual screening as their
transparency is highly customizable. These fencing options costs
approximately $100-$200 per linear foot.
Free-standing wood
fence extension
Acrylic panel screening
Metal panel screening
Soundwall
HMH | 47
Security
To potentially discourage and confront suspicious activities, the City
could increase its existing bicycle and vehicular sheriff patrols in the
area.
To capture activity along the corridor, security cameras could be
installed along the trail, at access points, or where feasible.
In the event that emergency or medical services are needed along
the trail, emergency phone towers could be added at trailheads or
intermediate points along the alignment. Emergency phones provide
an alternative to mobile phones and serve as a deterrent for illicit
activity.
In addition to the security measures mentioned above, volunteers
groups supportive of the project (Walk-Bike Cupertino and the Silicon
Valley Bike Coalition) could provide educational programs and
workshops to promote trail security and safety.
Safety
Regnart Creek within the project area has creek banks of a 3:1 (H:V)
slope or steeper. Protection measures should be implemented to protect
trail users from accidentally or deliberately accessing the creek.
In order to preserve SCVWD maintenance access, creek side railings
or fencing shall be removable. They shall also be placed approximately
2 feet from the top of bank as to not contribute to creek erosion and
slope failure. Preliminary discussion with SCVWD maintenance staff
has identified the following areas shall be made removable; however,
further discussion to refine or expand these areas is necessary.
• ± 80 feet at Rodrigues Avenue
• ± 80 feet at Pacifica Drive
• Entire reach from S Blaney Avenue to E Estates Drive
Four-foot tall wood or steel split railing or taller vinyl coated chain link
fencing is proposed along the top of the creek bank for the entirety of
the trail to act as a barrier between the trail and the creek.
Trail Surfacing
Proposed trail surface material should consider user comfort,
accessibility, durability, longevity, maintenance costs, and impacts
to water quality.
Decomposed granite is a possible trail material that is a soft surface
complied of granite aggregates and provides a natural, rustic look.
Asphalt and concrete pavement trail materials provide hard surfaces
that are often used in urban areas. Stormwater runoff created by
these surfaces require stormwater treatment measures as required by
Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit.
Porous pavements are user-freindly surfaces that also manage
stormwater runoff. Infiltration associated with these surfaces can
provide exemption to stormwater treatment requirements.
Bike police patrols
Security camera
Emergency phone
Chainlink fencing
Wood split railing
Metal split railing
Decomposed granite path
Asphalt path Porous pavement path
Concrete path
48 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
ROADWAY CROSSINGS
The Regnart Creek Trail should include upgrades to accommodate pedestrian/
bicyclist crossings where the trail route intersects S Blaney Avenue and E Estates
Drive. These mid-block roadway crossings, if left unimproved, are considered
uncontrolled pedestrian crossings because designated walkways (trails)
intersect the roadway at locations where there is no traffic control through a
signal or STOP sign. Implementation of various countermeasures are proposed
to increase pedestrian/bicyclist visibility, reduce crossing distances, and slow
down vehicular traffic. The tools used to accomplish these goals include:
Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements
High-visibility crosswalks may include a variety of crosswalk striping designs,
such as ladder, continental, or colorful and patterned crosswalks. A high-
visibility crosswalk is much easier for an approaching motorist to see than the
traditional markings. The high-visibility crosswalks may be supplemented with
advance warnings and pedestrian crossing warning signs.
Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians signs may be placed
between 30 and 50 feet in advance of the marked crosswalk along with
the stop line or “shark’s teeth” yield line. This is a potential treatment for any
uncontrolled pedestrian crossing.
Raised Crosswalks
Raised crosswalks function as an extension of the sidewalk and allow a
pedestrian to cross the street at a constant grade. The raised roadway acts as
a speed hump, forcing drivers to slow down. A raised crosswalk is a potential
treatment on roads with speeds of 30 mph or less. Raised crossings are generally
avoided on truck routes, emergency routes, and arterial streets.
Pedestrian Refuge Islands
A pedestrian island provides a place for pedestrians to stand and wait for
motorists to stop or yield. This countermeasure is highly desirable for mid-block
pedestrian crossings as it shortens durations for exposed users and adds a
“pinch point” encouraging vehicles to slow down.
Chicanes
A chicane is a geometric feature used at trail approaches to roadway crossings
to slow bicyclists and pedestrians down. While passing the chicane, one has to
turn to zig-zag and navigate a narrow alignment encouraging slower speeds.
To provide maintenance vehicle access to the trail, chicanes obstructions shall
be removable.
Curb Extensions
A curb extension (bulbout) extends the sidewalk or curb line into the street or
parking lane, thus reducing the street width, improving sight distance between
the driver and pedestrian, and reducing speeds of motorists. A curb extension
is a potential treatment for any uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, particularly
where parking lanes exist. Curb extensions should not extend into paths of
travel for bicyclists.
Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFBs)
RRFBs are user-actuated amber LEDs that supplement warning signs at
unsignalized intersections or mid-block crosswalks. They can be activated by
pedestrians or bicyclists by a push button at the crossings.
High-visibility crosswalk
Raised crosswalk
Median refuge island
Midblock bulbout
Rectangular rapid flash
beacon (RRFB)
HMH | 49
EVALUATION
In order to effectively determine the preferred alternative, the
project evaluated proposed trail alternatives against several
measures of effectiveness. Alternatives were qualitatively
considered, relative to their peers, to determine their
effectiveness in meeting the purpose and need of the project.
These factors include:
Purpose and Goals of Bike Plan and
Pedestrian Plan: Does the alternative meet the purpose
and goals of Cupertino’s Bike and Pedestrian Plans?
Access and Directness: Does the alignment provide
frequent and convenient access to adjacent destinations? Is
the alignment direct and intuitive?
User Safety: Does the alternative increase bicycle and
pedestrian safety through reduction in vehicle conflict points
and reduction in rider stress levels?
Environmental Considerations: How significant
are the impacts to the natural environment including but not
limited to biological, historic, cultural and archaeological
resources, wetlands, noise and air quality? Are required
mitigation efforts reasonable and feasible?
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
Maintenance Access: Does the alternative degrade or
hinder SCVWD maintenance access to the creek?
Cost: How significant are the anticipated project costs?
& RECOMMENDATIONS
TRAIL EVALUATIONS
Scoring Rubric
Each of the factor’s scoring is developed relative to the
other alternatives. Factors are not weighted equally and
are weighted on the relative importance to their peers.
Each factor was scored qualitatively using the rubric
below:
The alternative scores very
well as compared to its peers.
The alternative scores well
as compared to its peers.
The alternative scores
moderately well as
compared to its peers.
The alternative scores
slightly well as compared
to its peers.
The alternative does not
score well as compared
to its peers.
50 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
TRAIL ALIGNMENT
No Build Alternative By means of no construction, the No Build Alternative inherently scores well
compared to its peers for cost, preservation of maintenance access and impacts to the environment.
However, the No Build Alternative does not meet the goals of the Bike and Pedestrian Plans, nor does it
provide increased bicycle and pedestrian connectivity or increase user safety. The No Build Alternative
fails to meet the purpose and need of the project and therefore is not recommended for further study.
Table 7.1: Evaluation table for the No Build Alternative
Category Score Rationale
Purpose & Goals
of Bike &
Pedestrian Plans
The No Build Alternative does not meet the goals set forth
in the Bike Plan.
Access & Direction
The No Build Alternative does not offer convenient access
to local destinations. Existing access is not improved nor
hindered.
User Safety The No Build Alternative does not increase safety or re -
duce stress levels for existing pedestrians and bicyclists.
Environmental
Considerations
The No Build Alternative will not impact Regnart Creek
or the surrounding environment. However, this alterna-
tive does not promote sustainable, active transportation.
SCVWD
Maintenance
Access
The No Build Alternative will not impact SCVWD main-
tenance access for Regnart Creek.
Cost
The No Build Alternative will not implement improve -
ments, therefore no cost is associated with this alterna-
tive.
HMH | 51
Alternative 1 meets the intent of the Bike and Pedestrian Plans and is consistent with the vision
statements contained in these plans. The Cupertino Loop Trail identifies this route as a shared-use trail
along Regnart Creek that provides a direct, off-street connection between the Cupertino Civic Center,
Creekside Park, and access to Wilson Park. Because this route is mostly off-street, the alternative scores
substantially well for user safety as the likelihood of vehicle- cyclist/pedestrian collisions is greatly
reduced. The alternative scores lower than its peers for cost, primarily driven by the presence of two
bridge crossings.
Table 7.2: Evaluation table for the Trail Alternative 1
Category Score Rationale
Purpose & Goals
of Bike &
Pedestrian Plans
Alternative 1 meets the goals set forth in the Bike plan
and is consistent with the recommendation to implement
a creek side path along Regnart Creek.
Access & Direction
Alternative 1 offers a direct path that connects the
Cupertino Civic Center to Creekside Park with frequent
access points along the trail.
User Safety
Alternative 1 is primarily an off-street facility that great-
ly reduces the exposure of bicyclists and pedestrians to
vehicular traffic.
Environmental
Considerations
Alternative 1 contains bridge crossings and creekside
trails which may affect the existing environment. Impacts
will be mitigated or less than significant.
SCVWD
Maintenance
Access
Alternative 1 will use the existing SCVWD maintenance
access road but does not propose to restrict SCVWD
access. Bridges will need to be temporarily removed for
creek access.
Cost Alternative 1 contains bridge crossings that contribute to
high initial costs.
52 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
Alternative 2 is only partially along Regnart Creek. It does not fully meet the intent or vision contained
in the Bike and Pedestrian Plans. This alternative meanders near Wilson Park and requires use of on-
street facilities on S Blaney Avenue. The alternative subsequently scored well for access and direction,
environmental considerations, and SCVWD maintenance access.
Table 7.3: Evaluation table for the Trail Alternative 2
Category Score Rationale
Purpose & Goals
of Bike &
Pedestrian Plans
Alternative 2 partially meets the goals set forth in the
Bike plan and is not fully consistent with the recommen-
dation to implement a creek side path along Regnart
Creek.
Access & Direction
Alternative 2 does not offer a direct path that connects the
Cupertino Civic Center to Creekside Park. Connection to
Wilson Park is accommodated. Part of the route is on-
street.
User Safety
Alternative 2 is partially on-street, exposing bicyclists to
heavy traffic on S Blaney Avenue and the Wilson Park
parking lot.
Environmental
Considerations
Alternative 2 will a have minimal environmental impacts
to the creek as environmental mitigation will be imple -
mented.
SCVWD
Maintenance
Access
Alternative 2 will use the existing SCVWD maintenance
access road for a portion of its route but does not pro-
pose to restrict SCVWD access.
Cost Alternative 2 contains improvements to existing
park facilities that contribute to high initial costs.
HMH | 53
Alternative 3 is only partially along Regnart Creek. It does not fully meet the intent or vision contained
in the Bike and Pedestrian Plans.. This alternative is mostly creekside but meanders near Wilson Park
and requires use of on-street facilities on Vicksburg Drive. The alternative scores moderately for cost,
primarily driven by the presence of one structure.
Table 7.4: Evaluation table for the Trail Alternative 3
Category Score Rationale
Purpose & Goals
of Bike &
Pedestrian Plans
Alternative 3 partially meets the goals set forth in the
Bike plan but is not consistent with the recommendation
to implement a creek side path along Regnart Creek.
Access & Direction
Alternative 3 does not offer a direct path that connects the
Cupertino Civic Center to Creekside Park. Connection to
Wilson Park is accommodated. Part of the route is on-
street.
User Safety Alternative 3 is partially on-street, exposing bicyclists to
traffic.
Environmental
Considerations
Alternative 3 contains bridge crossings and creekside
trails which may affect the existing environment. Impacts
will be mitigated or less than significant.
SCVWD
Maintenance
Access
Alternative 3 will use the existing SCVWD maintenance
access road for a portion of its route but does not pro-
pose to restrict SCVWD access.
Cost Alternative 3 contains a bridge crossing that contributes
to high initial costs.
54 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
Alternative 4 is entirely on-street. Subsequently, this alternative does not meet the intent or vision
contained in the Bike and Pedestrian Plans.. It scores poorly in regards to user safety as bicyclists are
exposed to vehicular traffic for the entire route. The alternative scores substantially well regarding
environmental considerations and SCVWD maintenance access as it has no impacts to Regnart Creek.
Table 7.5: Evaluation table for the Trail Alternative 4
Category Score Rationale
Purpose & Goals
of Bike &
Pedestrian Plans
Alternative 4 does not meet the goals set forth in the
Bike plan is not consistent with the recommendation to
implement a creek side path along Regnart Creek.
Access & Direction
Alternative 4 does not offer a direct path that connects
the Cupertino Civic Center to Creekside Park. There is no
access to Wilson Park. The route is completely on-street.
User Safety Alternative 4 is on-street, exposing bicyclists to traffic.
Environmental
Considerations
Alternative 4 does not impact Regnart Creek and min-
imally impacts the surrounding environment. However,
this alternative does not promote sustainable, active
transportation.
SCVWD
Maintenance
Access
Alternative 4 will not impact SCVWD maintenance
access for Regnart Creek.
Cost
Alternative 4 cost is comprised of relatively affordable
pavement stripes and markings, speed bumps, median
islands and traffic circles.
HMH | 55
Alternative 5 is mostly on-street. A portion of the alignment goes through Wilson Park. Subsequently,
this alternative does not meet the intent or vision contained in the Bike and Pedestrian Plans.. As bicyclists
are exposed to vehicular traffic for most of the alignment, this alternative does not score well for user
safety. The alternative scores substantially well regarding environmental considerations and SCWVD
maintenance access as it has no impacts to Regnart Creek.
Table 7.6: Evaluation table for the Trail Alternative 5
Category Score Rationale
Purpose & Goals
of Bike &
Pedestrian Plans
Alternative 5 does not meet the goals set forth in the
Bike plan is not consistent with the recommendation to
implement a creek side path along Regnart Creek.
Access & Direction
Alternative 5 does not offer a direct path that connects
the Cupertino Civic Center to Creekside Park. The route is
mostly on-street.
User Safety Alternative 5 is partially on-street, exposing bicyclists to
traffic.
Environmental
Considerations
Alternative 5 does not impact Regnart Creek and min-
imally impacts the surrounding environment. However,
this alternative does not promote sustainable, active
transportation.
SCVWD
Maintenance
Access
Alternative 5 will not impact SCVWD maintenance
access for Regnart Creek.
Cost
Alternative 5 cost is comprised of relatively affordable
pavement stripes and markings, speed bumps, median
islands and traffic circles.
56 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
Trail Alignment Recommendation
The study recommends progression of design and
environmental clearance for Alternative 1. This alternative
provides a direct connection to the Cupertino Civic Center,
Wilson Park, and Creekside Park, consistent with the Bike and
Pedestrian Plans. Aside from at-grade roadway crossings,
this multi-use path is completely separated from streets,
minimizing exposure to traffic and vehicular conflicts. State-
of-the-industry practices proposed in this study must be taken
regarding safe roadway crossings and the preservation of
SCVWD maintenance access throughout the trail route.
Safety, privacy, and trail maintenance are among the
concerns of Lozano Lane and De Palma Lane residents whose
frontages contain limited visual and noise separation from the
adjacent proposed trail route. To mitigate these issues, the trail
route on the existing pedestrian and bicycle path will provide
privacy screening by tall planting. As the trail will be adjacent
to a public drive aisle off De Palma Lane, separation between
the trail and the drive aisle and appropriate signage will be
implemented.
The SCVWD and the City would enter into a joint use
agreement to set forth terms and conditions regarding the
Regnart Creek Trail. The agreement would expound upon
the responsibilities and liabilities of the parties entering the
agreement. As the owner of the Regnart Creek Trail, the City
would be the responsible party in regards to maintenance
and liability of the trail. The City would be responsible for trail
maintenance that includes, but is not limited to, trash clean up,
trail surface repairs, and repairs of roadway crossing features.
Damage and vandalism of City and SCVWD facilities arising
from public use shall be the responsibility of the City. The City
may be held liable for injuries which are caused as a result
of the breach of its duty to maintain a recreational trail in a
reasonably safe condition for travel.
As the owner of the creek, SCVWD would preserve its
responsibility of creek maintenance that would includes, but
is not limited to, bank repairs, flood mitigation, and vegetation
work. SCVWD would not be responsible for City-owned
facilities. PG&E and AT&T, having joint facilities along the
trail route, would continue as the responsible parties for
maintaining their facilities. Coordination between these
agencies is imperative to the construction and maintenance of
Regnart Creek, the trail, and utilities.
Table 7.7: Summary of Trail Alignment Alternative evaluations
Purpose & Goals
of Bike &
Pedestrian Plans
Access
& Directness User Safety Environmental
Considerations
SCVWD
Maintenance
Access
Cost
No Build
Alternative
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
HMH | 57
Purpose & Goals
of Bike &
Pedestrian Plans
Access
& DirectnessUser SafetyEnvironmental
Considerations
SCVWD
Maintenance
Access
Cost
No Build
Alternative
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
TRAIL SURFACING EVALUATION &
RECOMMENDATION
Trails made of decomposed granite would be difficult to walk
or bike on when wet and are prone to rutting, particularly
under vehicular loads. High and on-going maintenance
is associated with this surface as it is susceptible to erosion
and has difficulties maintaining consistent surface quality.
Additionally, meeting ADA requirements is impractical for
such a variable surface.
Trails composed of asphalt pavement and concrete pavement
could meet ADA requirements and are desirable for
pedestrians and bicyclists as they provide a smooth surface
for their users in various weather conditions. High costs are
associated with these surfaces initially, however the longevity
of the pavements yield low to moderate maintenance costs
in the long term. Stormwater runoff produced by these
pavements would need to be directed away from the creek
and into adjacent areas for treatment compliant with Provision
C.3 of the Municipal Regional Permit. With limited right-of-
way, C.3 treatment measures could become costly and would
require routine maintenance and periodic replacement. In
some narrow areas, C.3 treatment may be infeasible.
Porous pavement is the recommended trail surface material
for the proposed Regnart Creek Trail Alternative. Porous
paving behaves in the same manner as impervious asphalt
and concrete paving in regard to smooth surfacing and user
comfort, however it does not have the stormwater implications
and requirements triggered by impervious surfaces and runoff.
Porous surfacing mimics natural infiltration of the surrounding
terrain and does not increase stormwater runoff. Any residual
stormwater that does not permeate the pavement will be
directed away from Regnart Creek and into existing swales,
ditches, and drainage systems. Porous pavements are exempt
under Provision C.3. Long-term maintenance efforts for this
type of surfacing require sweeping two to four times annually
and vacuuming only if needed in the event that the routine
sweeping does not maintain infiltration rates. Maintenance
costs can vary based on site specific conditions but is typically
not substantially more than traditional asphalt.
ROADWAY CROSSINGS EVALUATION
& RECOMMENDATION
With high speeds and heavy peak hour volumes, the S Blaney
Avenue crossing represents a challenging location to balance
the needs of existing vehicular travel and proposed trail users.
Solutions proposed carefully considered possible degradation
of vehicular travel along S. Blaney Ave.
The S Blaney Avenue crossing configuration proposes
installation of an RRFB, a high visibility crosswalk and an offset
median refuge island at the creek crossing. Additionally, it
proposes installation of a curb return bulb out in the northeast
quadrant of the Blaney Avenue/ La Mar Drive intersection to
slow down right-turning vehicles from La Mar Drive.
E Estates Drive, although less traveled than Blaney Avenue,
warrants upgrades to the new mid-block crossing which
would result from proposed creek side alignment alternatives.
The E Estates Drive crossing proposes an RRFB, a raised
crosswalk, mid-block bulbouts, and adds curb return bulbouts
at both the northeast corner of E Estates Drive and La Mar
Court and the southwest corner of E Estates Drive and
Vicksburg Drive. These additions will help to slow down right-
turning vehicles approaching the mid-block crossing.
58 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
REFUGE
MEDIAN
ISLAND
CURB
RETURN
BULBOUT
HIGH
VISIBILITY
CROSSWALK
RRFB
HIGH
VISIBILITY
CROSSWALK
RRFB
MIDBLOCK
BULBOUT
MIDBLOCK
BULBOUT
RRFB
HIGH
VISIBILITY
CROSSWALK
RAISED
CROSSWALK
HIGH
VISIBILITY
CROSSWALK
MIDBLOCK
BULBOUT
RRFB
CURB
RETURN
BULBOUT
RECOMMENDED S BLANEY AVENUE
ROADWAY CROSSING
RECOMMENDED E ESTATES DRIVE
ROADWAY CROSSING
Figure 7.1: Roadway crossing features at
S Blaney Avenue
Figure 7.2: Roadway crossing features at
E Estates Drive
HMH | 59
PRIVACY SCREENING EVALUATION &
RECOMMENDATION
The need for privacy screening varies along the proposed
trail corridor. For some segments, installation of screening
adds great benefit. For other segments, adequate screening is
already achieved by existing fencing. Installation and type of
privacy screening is proposed on an as-needed basis.
At a low cost, free-standing wood lattice would provide
additional privacy, but the addition of fence posts further
encroaching into SCVWD right-of-way was unfavorable to
SCVWD. Metallic and acrylic screening elements are more
expensive than wooden fences, and community engagement
did not identify a strong support for these more costly,
decorative features.
The Study recommends replacing existing wooden fences
which are not tall enough to provide adequate privacy from
the trail on an as-needed or as-desired basis. Replacement of
these fences may require temporary construction easements
on private property.
Adjacent to the residents of Lozano Lane / De Palma Lane, the
study recommends use of a semi-permeable vegetation and
steel split railing to provide a moderate visual barrier from the
trail to these residences. More robust and solid features were
undesirable due to perceptions of introducing new barriers
and enclosing the front yards of these residents.
SECURITY MEASURE EVALUATION &
RECOMMENDATION
The potential creek trail route will have limited locations
for security cameras and emergency phone installations
as they require continuous, uninterrupted electrical and
communications services. Due to long term operating costs
of such systems, they are not recommended for future study.
Should, after the opening of the facility, a need arises, these
facilities could be installed.
Enhanced police patrolling through vehicular and bicycle
patrols is the recommended security alternative for the
potential Regnart Creek Trail. Sheriff patrolling of the trail
discourages crime and can serve as the most immediate
responder in case of emergency. Increased patrolling is
costly; however, police presence in the community can
be more reliable than technological security measures
provided by security cameras and emergency phones.
Close and on-going coordination of patrolling will be
conducted by the City and the County Sheriff’s office.
RAILING EVALUATION &
RECOMMENDATION
Chain link fencing is a low-maintenance and low-cost
alternative that can be variable in height. Given its
popularity and use at industrial sites, chain link lacks
character and is less aesthetically pleasing than other
railing alternatives.
Split rail fencing options provide a relatively unobstructed
view and is moderately more expensive than chainlink.
Wooden split rail is the recommended railing option as
it provides protection from and most closely matches the
natural aesthetic of the creek. To accommodate SCVWD
creek maintenance, the railing will be removable. Wooden
split rail construction will have post foundations with sleeves
from which wood posts can be removed for convenient
maintenance access. Additionally, it is consistent with many
other SCVWD creekside trails.
HMH | 60Figure 7.3: Regnart Creek Trail Recommended Alignment and FeaturesPROPOSED PLANTING SCREENPROPOSED SPLIT RAILINGPROPOSED FENCEREPLACEMENTPROPOSED FENCE REPLACEMENT PROPOSED FENCE REPLACEMENT NLAS ONDAS WAYDE PALMA LN.HALL CT.LOZANO LN.REGNART CREEKPACIFICA DR.TORRE AVE.RODRIGUES AVE.LIBRARY FIELDCIVIC CENTERS. BLANEY AVE.LA MAR DR.VICKSBURG DR.REGNART CREEKWILSON PARKREGNART CREEKPARKSIDE LN.E. ESTATES DR.REMOVABLEBRIDGE CROSSINGREMOVABLEBRIDGE CROSSINGPROPOSED FENCE REPLACEMENT 22113443Existing Regnart Creek LimitsProposed PrivacyScreeningBuilding FootprintBridge CrossingProposed RailingLEGENDProposed Trail RoutePrimary TrailheadSecondary AccessCross Section##RECOMMENDED TRAIL ALIGNMENT & TRAIL FEATURES
HMH | 61RECOMMENDED TRAIL CROSS SECTIONSCross Section 3 - 3Cross Section 2 - 2Cross Section 4 - 4PLANTING SCREEN 10’-0”10’-0”2’-0”CUPERTINO CIVIC CENTERFENCE REPLACEMENT (AS NEEDED)WOOD SPLIT RAILINGPOROUS PAVEMENTCross Section 1 - 1WILSON PARK10’-0”10’-0”2’-0” POROUS PAVEMENTPOROUS PAVEMENT REMOVEABLE TRUSSBRIDGE CROSSING40’-0”FENCE REPLACEMENT(AS NEEDED)LIBRARY FIELDPOROUS PAVEMENT10’-0”
62 | REGNART CREEK TRAIL
REGNART CREEK TRAIL RENDERINGS
Figure 7.4: Typical Trail Section
Figure 7.5: Trailhead at the corner of Pacifica Drive and Torre Avenue
Figure 7.6: Crossing and E Estates Drive
HMH |
APPENDICES
A. COST ESTIMATES
B. PROPERTY RIGHTS DOCUMENTATION
C. PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS & COMMENTS
D. SCVWD MEETING MINUTES
E. FEMA MAPS
63
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HMH |
APPENDIX A
COST ESTIMATES
• Alternative 1
• Alternative 2
• Alternative 3
• Alternative 4
• Alternative 5
A
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ITEM QTY.UNITS UNIT PRICE COST
Trail
Trail Surface (Permeable)50,400 SF 8.25$ $415,800
Railings (Wood Split Rail)4,200 LF 10.00$ $42,000
Railings (Steel Split Rail)200 LF 50.00$ $10,000
Fence Replacements (Wood) 1,480 LF 50.00$ $74,000
Planting Screens 250 LF 50.00$ $12,500
Drainage (10% of Trail Surfacing) 1 LS 40,000.00$ $40,000
SUBTOTAL $590,000
Trailheads
Primary Trailheads 3 EA 40,000.00$ $120,000
Secondary Access Locations 5 EA 20,000.00$ $100,000
SUBTOTAL $220,000
Roadways
Crossing Improvements (Hardscape) 1 LS 80,000.00$ $80,000
Sidewalk Improvements - LF 30.00$ $0
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons 5 EA 20,000.00$ $100,000
Traffic Signals - EA 300,000.00$ $0
Traffic Circles & Speed Bumps 1 LS 50,000.00$ $50,000
SUBTOTAL $230,000
Structures
Truss Structure (40' Span)2 EA 150,000.00$ $300,000
SUBTOTAL $300,000
TRAIL FEATURES SUBTOTAL $1,340,000
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 20%$268,000
CONTINGENCIES 25%$335,000
MISC ITEM SUBTOTAL $600,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,900,000
ENVIRONMENTAL 10%$190,000
ENGINEERING 10%$190,000
INSPECTION 6%$114,000
ENVIR & ENG SUBTOTAL $490,000
GRAND TOTAL $2,400,000
Abbreviations:
SF - Square Foot
LS - Lump Sum
LF - Linear Foot
EA - Each
TRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 1 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGNART CREEK TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 1 Description:
Alternative 1 is a creekside trail from Pacifica Drive to E Estates Drive. Roadway crossings exist at S
Blaney Avenue and E Estates Drive. Two bridges exist adjacent to Wilson Park to provide connectivity
between the creek trail and Wilson Park.
ITEM QTY.UNITS UNIT PRICE COST
Trail
Trail Surface (Permeable)26,400 SF 8.25$ $217,800
Railings (Wood Split Rail)2,200 LF 10.00$ $22,000
Railings (Steel Split Rail)200 LF 50.00$ $10,000
Fence Replacements (Wood) 1,100 LF 50.00$ $55,000
Planting Screens 250 LF 50.00$ $12,500
Drainage (10% of Trail Surfacing) 1 LS 40,000.00$ $40,000
SUBTOTAL $360,000
Trailheads
Primary Trailheads 2 EA 40,000.00$ $80,000
Secondary Access Locations 3 EA 20,000.00$ $60,000
SUBTOTAL $140,000
Roadways
Crossing Improvements (Hardscape) 1 LS 80,000.00$ $80,000
Sidewalk Improvements 1,100 LF 30.00$ $33,000
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons 2 EA 20,000.00$ $40,000
Traffic Signals - EA 300,000.00$ $0
Traffic Circles & Speed Bumps 1 LS 50,000.00$ $50,000
SUBTOTAL $203,000
Structures
Truss Structure (40' Span)- EA 150,000.00$ $0
SUBTOTAL $0
TRAIL FEATURES SUBTOTAL $700,000
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 20%$140,000
CONTINGENCIES 25%$175,000
MISC ITEM SUBTOTAL $320,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,000,000
ENVIRONMENTAL 10%$100,000
ENGINEERING 10%$100,000
INSPECTION 6%$60,000
ENVIR & ENG SUBTOTAL $260,000
GRAND TOTAL $1,300,000
Abbreviations:
SF - Square Foot
LS - Lump Sum
LF - Linear Foot
EA - Each
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGNART CREEK TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
TRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 2 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Alternative 2 Description:
Alternative 2 is a creekside trail from Pacifica Drive to S Blaney Avenue. The alignment provides bicycle
facilities along Hall Ct, through Wilson Park, and along Vicksburg Drive. Roadway crossings exist at S
Blaney Avenue and E Estates Drive.
ITEM QTY.UNITS UNIT PRICE COST
Trail
Trail Surface (Permeable)37,440 SF 8.25$ $308,880
Railings (Wood Split Rail)3,120 LF 10.00$ $31,200
Railings (Steel Split Rail)200 LF 50.00$ $10,000
Fence Replacements (Wood) 1,340 LF 50.00$ $67,000
Planting Screens 250 LF 50.00$ $12,500
Drainage (10% of Trail Surfacing) 1 LS 40,000.00$ $40,000
SUBTOTAL $470,000
Trailheads
Primary Trailheads 3 EA 40,000.00$ $120,000
Secondary Access Locations 4 EA 20,000.00$ $80,000
SUBTOTAL $200,000
Roadways
Crossing Improvements (Hardscape) 1 LS 80,000.00$ $80,000
Sidewalk Improvements 400 LF 30.00$ $12,000
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons 2 EA 20,000.00$ $40,000
Traffic Signals - EA 300,000.00$ $0
Traffic Circles & Speed Bumps 1 LS 50,000.00$ $50,000
SUBTOTAL $182,000
Structures
Truss Structure (40' Span)1 EA 150,000.00$ $150,000
SUBTOTAL $150,000
TRAIL FEATURES SUBTOTAL $1,000,000
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 20%$200,000
CONTINGENCIES 25%$250,000
MISC ITEM SUBTOTAL $450,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,500,000
ENVIRONMENTAL 10%$150,000
ENGINEERING 10%$150,000
INSPECTION 6%$90,000
ENVIR & ENG SUBTOTAL $390,000
GRAND TOTAL $1,900,000
Abbreviations:
SF - Square Foot
LS - Lump Sum
LF - Linear Foot
EA - Each
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGNART CREEK TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
TRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 3 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Alternative 3 Description:
Alternative 3 is a creekside trail from Pacifica Drive to approximately 800' east of S Blaney Avenue.
The alignment provides a connection to Wilson Park via a bridge. The alignment provides bicycle
facilities through Wilson Park and along Vicksburg Dirve. Roadway crossings exist at S Blaney Avenue
and E Estates Drive.
ITEM QTY.UNITS UNIT PRICE COST
Trail
Trail Surface (Permeable)- SF 8.25$ $0
Railings (Wood Split Rail)- LF 10.00$ $0
Railings (Steel Split Rail)- LF 50.00$ $0
Fence Replacements (Wood)- LF 50.00$ $0
Planting Screens - LF 50.00$ $0
Drainage (10% of Trail Surfacing) - LS 40,000.00$ $0
SUBTOTAL $0
Trailheads
Primary Trailheads - EA 40,000.00$ $0
Secondary Access Locations - EA 20,000.00$ $0
SUBTOTAL $0
Roadways
Crossing Improvements (Hardscape) - LS 80,000.00$ $0
Sidewalk Improvements - LF 30.00$ $0
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons - EA 20,000.00$ $0
Traffic Signals - EA 300,000.00$ $0
Traffic Circles & Speed Bumps 1 LS 50,000.00$ $50,000
SUBTOTAL $50,000
Structures
Truss Structure (40' Span)- EA 150,000.00$ $0
SUBTOTAL $0
TRAIL FEATURES SUBTOTAL $50,000
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 20%$10,000
CONTINGENCIES 25%$12,500
MISC ITEM SUBTOTAL $20,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $100,000
ENVIRONMENTAL 10%$10,000
ENGINEERING 10%$10,000
INSPECTION 6%$6,000
ENVIR & ENG SUBTOTAL $30,000
GRAND TOTAL $100,000
Abbreviations:
SF - Square Foot
LS - Lump Sum
LF - Linear Foot
EA - Each
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGNART CREEK TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
TRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 4 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Alternative 4 Description:
Alternative 4 is a completely on-street alignment from Pacifica Drive to E Estates Drive. The alignment
provides bicycle facilities along Pacifica Drive, S Blaney Avenue, La Mar Drive, and E Estates Drive.
ITEM QTY.UNITS UNIT PRICE COST
Trail
Trail Surface (Permeable)- SF 8.25$ $0
Railings (Wood Split Rail)- LF 10.00$ $0
Railings (Steel Split Rail)- LF 50.00$ $0
Fence Replacements (Wood)- LF 50.00$ $0
Planting Screens - LF 50.00$ $0
Drainage (10% of Trail Surfacing) - LS 40,000.00$ $0
SUBTOTAL $0
Trailheads
Primary Trailheads - EA 40,000.00$ $0
Secondary Access Locations - EA 20,000.00$ $0
SUBTOTAL $0
Roadways
Crossing Improvements (Hardscape) 1 LS 80,000.00$ $80,000
Sidewalk Improvements 1,050 LF 30.00$ $31,500
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons - EA 20,000.00$ $0
Traffic Signals - EA 300,000.00$ $0
Traffic Circles & Speed Bumps 1 LS 50,000.00$ $50,000
SUBTOTAL $161,500
Structures
Truss Structure (40' Span)- EA 150,000.00$ $0
SUBTOTAL $0
TRAIL FEATURES SUBTOTAL $160,000
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 20%$32,000
CONTINGENCIES 25%$40,000
MISC ITEM SUBTOTAL $70,000
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $200,000
ENVIRONMENTAL 10%$20,000
ENGINEERING 10%$20,000
INSPECTION 6%$12,000
ENVIR & ENG SUBTOTAL $50,000
GRAND TOTAL $300,000
Abbreviations:
SF - Square Foot
LS - Lump Sum
LF - Linear Foot
EA - Each
CITY OF CUPERTINO
REGNART CREEK TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY
TRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 5 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Alternative 5 Description:
Alternative 5 is mostly an on-street alignment from Pacifica Drive to E Estates Drive. The alignment
provides bicycle facilities along Rodrigues Avenue, Parkside Lane, Vicksburg Drive, and E Estates Drive.
A portion of the alignment goes through Wilson Park.
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HMH |
APPENDIX B
PROPERTY RIGHTS DOCUMENTATION
• Lozano Lane and De Palma Lane Tract Map
• Joint Use Agreement for Bike/Pedestrian Pathway
• Amendment to Joint Use Agreement for Bike/Pedestrian Pathway
• Excerpt form Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for
Campo De Lozano
B
valid easement for encroachment be created in favor of an Owner or Owners if said encroachment
occurred due to the intentional conduct of said Owner or Owners other than adjustments by Declarant
in the original construction. In the event a structure is partially or totally destroyed, and then repaired
or rebuilt, the Owners of each adjoining Lot agree that minor encroachments over adjoining Lots and
Common Area shall be permitted and that there shall be valid easements for the maintenance of said
encroachments so long as they shall exist. In the event that an error in engineering, design or
construction results in an encroachment of a building into the Common Area, or into or onto an
adjoining Lot, or into a required setback area, a correcting modification may (at the discretion of
Declarant) be made in the subdivision map. Said modification shall be in the form of a certificate of
correction and shall be executed by Declarant (so long as Declarant is the sole owner of the Project)
and by Declarant's engineer and by the city engineer. If the correction occurs after title to the
Common Area has been conveyed to the Association, the Association shall also execute the certificate
of correction. The Board of Directors may, by vote or written approval of a majority of the directors,
authorize the execution of the certificate of correction.
2.9 Party Walls and Common Roof Systems:
A. General Rules of Law to Apply: Each wall, footing or foundation and/or
common roof system that is built as part of the original construction of a residence, is located on the
boundary line with an adjacent Lot and either is used in common with the residence on the adjacent
Lot or abuts against a similar wall, footing or foundation and/or common roof system on the adjacent
Lot shall constitute a "party wall." To the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of this section
2.9, the general rules of law regarding party walls and liability for property damage due to negligence
or willful acts or omissions shall apply thereto.
B. Sharing of Repair and Maintenance: The cost of reasonable repair and
maintenance of a party wall shall be shared by the Owners who make use of the party wall in
proportion to such use.
C. Destruction by Fire or Other Casualty: If a party wall is destroyed or
damaged by fire or other casualty, any Owner who has used the party wall may restore it, and if the
other Owners thereafter make use of the party wall, they shall contribute to the cost of restoration
thereof in proportion to such use; provided, however, that the Owner or Owners whose negligent act
or omission proximately caused the damage or destruction, shall bear the full cost of restoration that is
not covered by insurance.
D. Weatherproofing: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article, an
Owner who by his negligent or willful act causes the party wall to be exposed to the elements shall
bear the whole cost of furnishing the necessary protection against such elements.
E. Right to Contribution Runs with Land: The right of any Owner to
contribution from any other Owner under this section 2.9 shall be appurtenant to the land and shall
pass to such Owner's successors in title.
F. Arbitration: In the event of any dispute arising concerning a party wall, or
concerning the provisions of this section, upon written request of one (1) Owner addressed to the other
Owner(s), the matter shall be submitted first to the Board for mediation, and thereafter, if the dispute
remains unresolved, to binding arbitration within sixty (60) days pursuant to the rules of Judicial
Arbitration and Mediation Services ("JAMS"), or any successor thereto, or to any other generally
05/16/02
T:I WPWIN60lPROJECTSICAMPODELIOEC
6-
recognized system of alternative dispute resolution, and judgment may be entered thereon in any court
having jurisdiction.
2.10 Maintenance Easement: An easement over each Lot is reserved by Declarant, and is
hereby granted to the Association, for the purpose of entering upon the Project to perform such
maintenance, if any, as the Association may do in accordance with the provisions of section S.lA of
this Declaration.
2.11 Drainage Easements: An easement over and under each Lot as the servient tenement
is reserved in favor of each other Lot as the dominant tenement for the purpose of allowing the
Association's agents to enter the Lot to maintain that portion of an in-tract storm drainage system
located thereon. No Owner or occupant shall commit any act that would interfere with the operation
of any drainage system (including drainage swales) installed on the Owner's Lot, each Owner shall
maintain the system free of debris and other obstacles at all times. Reciprocal appurtenant easements
between each Lot and the Common Area and between adjoining Lots are reserved for the flow of
surface water.
2.12 Pedestrian Pathway Easement: Declarant, as required by City, has constructed a
pedestrian pathway that passes through the Project, from Rodrigues Avenue to the Regnart Creek
walkway. The pathway may be used during daylight hours (only) by the public to walk between
Rodriques Avenue and the Regnart Creek walkway. The pathway is designated "10' Pedestrian
Pathway Easement" on the Map.
2.13 Other Easements: The Common Area and each Lot are subject to all easements,
dedications, and rights of way granted or reserved in, on, over and under the Project as shown on the
Map.
2.14 Rights of Entry and Use: The Lots and Common Area (including Restricted
Common Area) shall be subject to the following rights of entry and use:
A. The right of the Association's agents to enter any Lot to cure any violation of
this Declaration or the Bylaws, provided that the Owner has received notice and a hearing as required
by the Bylaws (except in the case of an emergency) and the Owner has failed to cure the violation or
take steps necessary to cure the violation within thirty (30) days after the finding of a violation by the
Association;
B. The access rights of the Association to maintain, repair or replace
improvements or property located in the Common Area as described in section 5.2E;
C. The easements described in this Article II;
D. The right of the Association's agents to enter any Lot to perform maintenance
as described in section 7.19;
E. The rights of the Declarant during the construction period as described in
section 9.6.
2.15 Partition of Common Area: There shall be no subdivision or partition of the
Common Area, nor shall any Owner seek any partition or subdivision thereof.
05/16/02
T:\WPWIN60\PROJECTS\CAMPODEL\DEC
7-
HMH |
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC OUTREACH MEMOS & COMMENTS
• Public Outreach Comment Summary
• Walkshop Memo and Comments
• Public Outreach Meeting #1 Memo and Comments
• Public Outreach Meeting #2 Memo and Comments
C
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Category Comments Response
Aesthetics Fences behind homes will not be visually
unappealing.
Fence alternatives presented in the study provide customization and
aesthetically pleasing options.
Aesthetics Trail will not have enough vegetation to be
visually appealing.
No vegetation will be added along the trail. Existing vegetation will be
maintained and upkept to be visually appealing.
Aesthetics Concern about trash on trail. Trail maintenance, including trach clean-up, is the responsibility of the
City.
Aesthetics Concerns about vandalism. Addressing vandalism along the trail will be the responsibility of the City.
Cost Total capital cost of trail project is not worth
the expense (not including maintenance)
City Council's decision to fund the construction and maintenance of the
trail will consider how the project addresses the City's goal of improving
multi-modal access and safety.
Cost Concern about how the project will be
funded.
Funding sources for the construction and maintenance of the trail will be
identified if the trail is approved.
Maintenance Cost of routine trail maintenance is not worth
the expense
City Council's decision to fund the construction and maintenance of the
trail will consider how the project addresses the City's goal of improving
multi-modal access and safety.
Maintenance Concern about who is going to maintain the
trail.
As a City-owned facility, the trail will be maintained by the City. The
SCVWD is responsible for creek maintenance.
Privacy Concern about encroachment onto private
property.
Fencing and security measures will be implemented to mitigate
trespassing.
Privacy Concern about privacy for neighboring
residents.
Fencing and security measures will be implemented to mitigate
trespassing.
Privacy Concern about noise for neighboring
residents.
Fencing alternatives presented in the study are capable of providing
noise abatement.
Privacy Concern about dogs barking. Fencing alternatives presented in the study are capable of providing
noise abatement.
Safety Concerns about lack of entry and exit along
the trail for emergency vehicle access and
patrol.
Access points along the trail will be provided for emergency vehicle
ingress and egress.
Safety Concern about trail users getting hit by cars
at road crossings.
Treatments that provide safe crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians will
be implemented.
Safety Access points along the trail will be provided for emergency vehicle
ingress and egress.
Safety Concern about trail users being injured by
ditches.
Grading and the implementation of the selected trail surface will
eliminate ditches.
Safety Concerns about wildlife being a nuisance or
attacking trail users.
Wildlife mitigation will not be provided on the trail.
Safety Pathway poses risk of property theft for
bicycles and pedestrians.
Recent reports from trails in the San Jose, Saratoga, Cupertino
demonstrate that this is not an issue. Security measures through sheriff
and patrolling will be implemented to deter suspicious activity.
Safety Concerns about users falling into the creek. Railing at the top of the creek bank will be implemented to mitigate trail
users from falling into the creek.
Safety Concerns about trail users being assaulted or
robbed.
Recent reports from trails in the San Jose, Saratoga, Cupertino
demonstrate that this is not an issue. Security measures through sheriff
and patrolling will be implemented to deter suspicious activity.
Summary of Public Comments
Category Comments Response
Safety Concerns about neighboring residents being
burglarized.
Recent reports from trails near residences in the San Jose, Saratoga,
Cupertino demonstrate that this is not an issue. Security measures
through sheriff and patrolling will be implemented to deter suspicious
activity.
Safety Pathway will improve bicycle and pedestrian
safety by offering space free of cars to ride
and walk.
The Regnart Creek Trail meets the vision and goals of the City's Bike Plan
and Pedestrian Plan.
Safety Activity on trail will discourage crime. Crime is unlikely to occur on a facility that is frequently used by bicyclists
and pedestrians.
Safety Pathway will improve accessibility to schools. The trail increases connectivity between residences and schools.
Safety Concerns about driver speeds along S
Blaney Avenue and E Estates Drive
Traffic calming measures will be implanted to reduce drive speeds and
increase bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Safety Concerns about trail users crossing streets
without caution.
Warning signage and chicanes on the trail will be implemented to slow
down trail users approaching a roadway crossing.
Safety Pathway will improve accessibility to library The trail increases connectivity between residences, schools, and the
Cupertino Library.
Safety Concerns about trail exposing backyards of
residents.
Existing fences that are dilapidated and don’t have adequate visual
screening will be replaced.
Traffic Pathway will exacerbate traffic congestion for
drivers.
The trail offers the opportunity to bike/walk as opposed to driving,
resulting in less cars on the road. Driver commute times added by
slowing down or stopping at roadway crossings are not significant.
Wildlife Trail will attract wildlife, which is beneficial. The trail does not intend to disturb existing the wildlife that depend on
the creek as work will not be done within the creek.
Wildlife Pathway will disturb wildlife. The trail does not intend to disturb existing the wildlife that depend on
the creek as work will not be done within the creek.
MEMORANDUM
84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 830
San José, CA 95113
(408) 564-8606
www.altaplanning.com
City of Cupertino | 1
To: Jennifer Chu and David Stillman, City of Cupertino
From: Lola Torney and Jeff Knowles, Alta Planning + Design
CC: Jon Cacciotti, HMH
Date: November 28, 2017
Re: Regnart Creek Trail Walkshop Summary
Background
On November 18, 2017, the City of Cupertino held a walking workshop, or “Walkshop” along a segment of the
Regnart Creek access road from Pacifica Drive to Wilson Park (past Blaney Avenue). This segment is identified as
part of the Cupertino Loop Trail system in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Event Outreach
The City of Cupertino mailed 104 postcards to residents who live adjacent to the trail extents. In addition, the
Walkshop was advertised on the City’s website, The Cupertino Scene, social media (Next Door, Facebook, Instagram),
flyer distributions at the Fall Bike Festival, flyer postings at the Library and City Hall, Safe Routes to School monthly
newsletter, an email to those who signed up for the “Bicycle Transportation Plan” e-notifications, and the TV
monitors with rotating information at many City facilities. The School District and Walk-Bike Cupertino also
promoted the event through their media outlets. Copies of the flyer and postcards are attached at the end of this
memo.
Event Details
The event was divided into a morning session (10:30am to 12pm) and an afternoon session (1:00pm to 2:30pm).
Fifty-seven people signed into the event. All attendees were escorted on tours led by City and consultant staff.
Attendees were given the opportunity to walk the entire segment open to the public.
Attendees were invited to submit comments about the potential trail on comment cards. Thirty-six comment cards
were submitted and attached at the end of this memo.
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
2 | City of Cupertino
Regnart Creek Trail Walkshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 3
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
4 | City of Cupertino
Public Feedback
The feedback received from the comment cards fell into several “themes.” Many cards touched on multiple themes.
The themes were:
• Concerns about security and privacy for those who live adjacent to the potential trail
• Concerns about aesthetics of the fence or wall that would separate the potential trail from homes
• Concerns about potential trail crossing at Blaney Avenue
• Concerns about cost to implement the trail
• Concerns about activities trail users may partake in
• Support for the project as it provides an off-street option for bicyclists and pedestrians
• Support for the project as it will help reduce traffic concerns (gets people out of their cars)
• Support for project as it provides more green space for families and community members to enjoy
• Questions regarding liability
• Identifying preferred potential trail features including:
o Decomposed granite
o Bollards with lights
o Dog cleanup bag kiosks
o Paved trail with unpaved shoulders
Regnart Creek Trail Walkshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 5
Figure 1: Walkshop postcard
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
6 | City of Cupertino
Figure 2: Walkshop flyer
MEMORANDUM
84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 830
San José, CA 95113
(408) 564-8606
www.altaplanning.com
City of Cupertino | 1
To: Jennifer Chu and David Stillman, City of Cupertino
From: Lola Torney and Jeff Knowles, Alta Planning + Design
CC: Jon Cacciotti, HMH
Date: January 25, 2018
Re: Regnart Creek Trail Public Workshop Summary
Background
On January 22, 2018, the City of Cupertino held a public workshop regarding the Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility
Study, which will determine feasibility of converting the access road adjacent to Regnart Creek between Pacifica
Drive and Wilson Park (past Blaney Avenue) to a shared use path/trail. This segment is identified as part of the
Cupertino Loop Trail system in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Regnart Creek and access road is owned by the
Santa Clara Valley Water District. The feasibility study will identify technical constraints, gather public feedback, and
develop design concepts for alternatives to the trail design.
Event Outreach
There was extensive outreach done to promote the meeting.
• The City of Cupertino mailed 587 postcards to residents who live within 300 feet of a potential trailhead
• Door hangers were distributed to residents directly adjacent to the trail extents
• The workshop was advertised on:
o The City’s website, radio, and TV channel
o Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter)
o Emails to subscribers of the City’s “Bicycle Transportation Plan” e-notifications
o Emails to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the neighboring area
o Flyer postings around Cupertino Civic Center
• SR2S group advertised the meeting through:
o A mention in the monthly newsletter
o An agenda item at the January 16, 2018 SR2S Working Group
o Emails to the surrounding schools (Eaton, Faria, Collins, Lawson, and Cupertino High)
• The Cupertino Courier advertised the event
Copies of the flyer and postcards are attached at the end of this memo.
Event Details
The event was held in the Community Hall in the Cupertino Civic Center from 6:30 – 8:00pm. The meeting was
“open house” style with boards placed on easels around the hall and two large maps of project extents placed on
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
2 | City of Cupertino
tables on either side of the room. A slideshow of photos of the project area were projected during the event. David
Stillman, with the City of Cupertino, and Jon Cacciotti, with HMH Engineers, briefly spoke to introduce the project
and then meeting participants were able to engage in conversations with City and consultant staff at stations and
boards around the room. One board asked attendees for direct feedback, asking, “If a trail were built along Regnart
Creek, would you or your family use it?” Forty-five (45) indicated yes by placing sticker dots in the “thumbs-up” row,
fifty (50) indicated no, and three (3) indicated “not sure/need more information.” Photos of the boards and maps
are shown at the end of this memo.
Eighty-seven (87) people signed into the event. Attendees were invited to submit comments about the potential
trail on comment cards. Sixty-seven (67) comment cards were submitted and attached at the end of this memo.
Regnart Creek Trail Walkshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 3
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
4 | City of Cupertino
Public Feedback
The feedback received from the comment cards fell into several “themes.” Many cards touched on multiple themes.
The themes were:
• Concerns about security and privacy for those who live adjacent to the potential trail
• Concerns about aesthetics of the fence or wall that would separate the potential trail from homes
• Concerns about potential trail crossing at Blaney Avenue
o Suggestions for the crossing included a raised crosswalk, an activated beacon, and a crossing
guard during school commute times
• Concerns about activities trail users may partake in
• Concerns about available right-of-way near and potential access to De Palma Lane
• Support for the project as it provides an off-street option for bicyclists and pedestrians
• Support for the project as it will help reduce traffic concerns (gets people out of their cars)
• Support for project as it provides more green space for families and community members to enjoy
• Support for the project as it will provide a more direct route to the Library
• Support for the project as it will provide access to several schools
• Questions regarding liability
• Questions about what times the trail would be open
• Questions regarding cost to implement project
• Identifying preferred potential trail features including:
o Fencing between the trail and the creek
o Asphalt pavement (as opposed to leaving it natural or using gravel)
o Benches
o Bicycle fix-it stations
Comment cards, emails, and letters received as part of this workshop are attached at the end of this memo.
Regnart Creek Trail Walkshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 5
Figure 1: Workshop postcard
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
6 | City of Cupertino
Figure 2: Workshop flyer
Regnart Creek Trail Walkshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 7
Figure 3: Workshop door hanger
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
8 | City of Cupertino
Figure 4: Workshop "vote" board
Regnart Creek Trail Walkshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 9
Figure 5: Closeups on the vote board
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
10 | City of Cupertino
Figure 6: Comments on aerial maps
Figure 7 (and following images): Closeups on comments on aerial maps
Regnart Creek Trail Walkshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 11
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
12 | City of Cupertino
Regnart Creek Trail Walkshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 13
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
14 | City of Cupertino
Regnart Creek Trail Walkshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 15
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
16 | City of Cupertino
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 8:17 PM
To: Jennifer Chu <JenniferC@cupertino.org>; David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org>
Subject: Regnart Creek Trail feedback
Jennifer & David,
It was great seeing you again last night. Thank you for conducting the successful November walkshop as well as last
night's feedback meeting.
Here are my thoughts as someone who bikes around Cupertino a lot:
1) The Regnart Creek Trail would be awesome! I visit Cupertino City Hall and the library frequently. I also travel to
both Wilson park and Creekside park for soccer. Getting all these facilities connected by a beautiful trail would be
magnificent! This is a great step forward for Cupertino to create safer routes for kids and the elderly to its parks, city
center and schools. It would definitely be a gem of a trail.
2) It is amazing how many who oppose trails initially flip around and become huge supporters once the trail is
completed and they realize their fears did not materialize but the benefits did. This flip has happened a number of
times with the Stevens Creek trail and seems to have been the case with many trails in the US. That things turn out
better than the opposition thought was also reaffirmed by a recent Headwaters Property Value study: "Research
also shows that those who opposed a trail prior to construction generally find a trail to be a much better neighbor
than they anticipated." See http://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/trails-library-property-value-
overview.pdf.
Please also check out our own local documentation of this in a short neighborhood feedback video that the Friends
of Stevens Creek Trail did a couple of years ago after a new segment of trail opened up near Sleeper Ave:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7ke9MKjznk&t=1s
Thanks!
Sincerely,
[name omitted for privacy]
MEMORANDUM
84 W Santa Clara Street, Suite 830
San José, CA 95113
(408) 564-8606
www.altaplanning.com
City of Cupertino | 1
To: Jennifer Chu and David Stillman, City of Cupertino
From: Lola Torney and Jeff Knowles, Alta Planning + Design
CC: Jon Cacciotti, HMH
Date: April 27, 2018
Re: Regnart Creek Trail Study Public Workshop Summary
Background
On April 23, 2018, the City of Cupertino held a public workshop regarding the Regnart Creek Trail Study, which will
determine the feasibility of converting the utility access road adjacent to Regnart Creek between Pacifica Drive and
Wilson Park (past Blaney Avenue) to a shared use path/trail. This segment is identified as part of the Cupertino Loop
Trail system in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Regnart Creek and the adjoining utility access road is owned
by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The feasibility study will identify technical constraints, gather public input,
and develop design concepts and cost estimates.
Event Outreach
The City promoted the workshop using the following techniques:
• The City of Cupertino mailed 587 postcards to residents who live within 300 feet of a potential trailhead
• The City of Cupertino hung 170 door hangers to residents directly adjacent to the trail extents
• The workshop was advertised on:
o The City’s website, radio, and TV channel
o Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter)
o Emails to subscribers of the City’s “Bicycle Transportation Plan” e-notifications
o Emails to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the neighboring area
o Emails to participants from prior outreach events
o Flyer postings around Cupertino Civic Center
• Cupertino Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) group advertised the meeting through:
o A mention to Cupertino Unified School District (CUSD) staff in a March 26, 2018 meeting
o A mention at the March 13 and April 11, 2018 SR2S Working Group Meetings with flyer distribution
to attendees
o Emails to the surrounding schools (Eaton, Faria, Collins, Lawson, and Cupertino High)
• The Cupertino Courier advertised the event
Copies of the flyer and postcards are attached at the end of this memo.
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
2 | City of Cupertino
Event Details
The event was held in the Community Hall in the Cupertino Civic Center from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. The meeting was
“open house” style with boards placed on easels around the hall. A slideshow of photos of the project area were
projected during the event. Cupertino Transportation Manager David Stillman and Jon Cacciotti, a consultant with
HMH Engineers, welcomed participants and shared an update on the project. Captain Rich Urena with the Santa
Clara County Sheriff’s Office then provided a brief summary of safety calls for the Saratoga Creek Trail, a Cupertino
trail with similar conditions to the Regnart Creek. Captain Urena noted that in the past 17 years, only five calls have
been made to the trail, four of which were noise-related, with the fifth involving a homeless person. Meeting
participants were then able to engage in conversations with City and consultant staff at stations and boards around
the room that illustrated design ideas for road crossings, trailheads and amenities, concepts for addressing privacy
and security on the proposed trail. The boards and maps are shown at the end of this memo.
Sixty-five (65) people signed into the event. Attendees were invited to submit comments about the potential trail
on comment cards. Fifty-nine (59) comment cards were submitted and attached at the end of this memo.
Attendees were also asked to fill out a trail design preference worksheet with potential options for the various
elements of trail design including fencing, privacy screens, trail surface, roadway crossing options, and security
measures. Twenty (20) worksheets were turned in with preferences indicated. An additional 10 worksheets were
turned in, but did not provide preferences.
Regnart Creek Trail Workshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 3
Public Feedback
The feedback received from the comment cards fell into the same “themes” heard at previous events. Many cards
touched on multiple themes. The themes were:
• Concerns about security and privacy for those who live adjacent to the potential trail
• Concerns about aesthetics of the fence or wall that would separate the potential trail from homes
• Concerns about potential trail crossing at Blaney Avenue
• Concerns about activities trail users may partake in
• Support for the project as it provides an off-street option for bicyclists and pedestrians
• Support for the project as potential trail crossings for Blaney Avenue has been addressed through design
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
4 | City of Cupertino
• Support for the project as it will help reduce traffic concerns (gets people out of their cars)
• Support for project as it provides more green space for families and community members to enjoy
• Support for the project as it will provide a more direct route to the Library and Wilson Park
• Support for the project as it will provide access to several schools
• Questions regarding cost to implement project
• Questions about lighting for the trail
Comment cards, emails, and letters received as part of this workshop are attached at the end of this memo.
Trail Design Preference Worksheet
The most popular design element of each section is listed in the table below. A tally of the trail design preference
worksheet including attendees’ rationale for their decision is included at the end of this memo.
Category Winner Image Votes
Railing Chain link fence
7
Privacy Screen Fence Extension
10
Trail Surface Asphalt Pavement
8
Security Measure Police Patrols
12
Regnart Creek Trail Workshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 5
Category Winner Image Votes
Roadway Crossings Flashing Beacon
9
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
6 | City of Cupertino
Figure 1: Workshop postcard
Regnart Creek Trail Workshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 7
Figure 2: Workshop door hanger
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
8 | City of Cupertino
Emails Received (between February 1 and April 26, 2018)
Re: Bike Trail
Jennifer,
Why have a public meeting it sounds as though you have made up your mind. You appear to have ignored the
public response in other public meetings. Why discuss the construction of a trail when you are discussing
"conceptual design" for the proposed trail.
I live in back of the library and city hall and can expect the noise, activity, violation of my privacy, and the garbage
that will come. Look what your library has created. The city promised to plant trees along the back to insure our
privacy and they have failed. The library still looks into one of my bedrooms.
I am against the trail, why come to a meeting to discuss an outcome you have already decided
[name omitted for privacy]
Re: comment regarding Regnart Creek Trail
Hi Jennifer,
I received a postcard for the Regnart Creek Trail because I own a home on [omitted for privacy].
I reside near the Blackberry Farm trail.
I will be unable to attend the meeting.
I have 2 suggestions based on my firsthand experience of the Blackberry Farm trail:
1. Please make sure that the material used for the trail can accept leaf litter and moisture without getting
slippery. The trail at Blackberry Farm can get very slippery. So, they have a parks guy with a blower, blow it
off. The slippery-when-wet trail surface has had the following negative impacts:
a. trail is less safe,
b. trail costs more to maintain because the trail guy is out there regularly with a leaf blower,
c. the noise from the leaf blower reduces the enjoyment of the trail by trail users, animals,
neighboring homeowners (I'm not close enough to the trail to hear the blower there, but I do hear
blowers used for other things and they're annoying), and can cause long-term hearing impairment
for City employees
d. the odor and pollution from the leave blower (the electric one isn't strong enough for certain
applications, so a gas-powered one is used), is unpleasant for trail users, animals, puts City
employees at risk, increases maintenance cost with non-renewable fuels, and increases
greenhouse gasses.
2. Please consider the privacy of local neighbors by eliminating signage/maps for neighborhood access
points. This is something that the City of Mountain View has done for many years - I have seen it in their
EIRs. I have not seen this common courtesy extended by the City of Cupertino for its residents. If you would
make special considerations for neighborhood access points, you might ease the path (I had to include a
pun) toward completing this project.
Warm Regards,
[name omitted for privacy]
Regnart Creek Trail Workshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 9
Re: Bike Safety
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my fullest support for developing the Regnart Trail and other car-free biking paths in
Cupertino. I'm not a serious biker, but I enjoy going out for a ride with my kids, especially now with the weather
being so nice. Sometimes we like to bike over to the library, but it can get a little dicey on Blaney and Rodriguez. I
don't think I can ever let my kids, who attend Meyerholz (CLIP) bike to school from our home near Sedgwick,
because it would involve biking down Bollinger during rush hour.
I'd like to share one particular incident that motivated this email to you. On Sunday 4/22 -- Earth Day -- my husband
was on roller blades and the rest of us-- my son (age 7) and twin girls (age 5) and I were biking back from eating
dinner at The Counter off Stevens Creek. It was a beautiful evening. We were heading east on Stevens Creek,
waiting on the sidewalk to cross Blaney. The light turned green and we had the walk light so I told my son to start
going across without looking behind my left shoulder like I usually do to check for turning cars. My son, who also
usually looks, didn't look this time, nor did my husband. Unfortunately there was a car turning right onto Blaney
from Stevens Creek, who didn't notice my son in the crosswalk and came literally inches from hitting him. Luckily
she was able to slam on the brakes and, after screaming for my son to stop, a collision was very very narrowly
avoided. It was very frightening for all involved. Thankfully nothing happened but it was very close. Too close.
We'd really love to bike more, but after yesterday's incident, I will have to think twice. So the more we can do to
improve bike safety, the better.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[name omitted for privacy]
Re: Regnart Creek Trail proposal: in support
Dear City Council member(s),
I am writing to you in support of the proposed Regnart Creek Trail.
We often have family visiting from India. Our old Indian parents do not drive in the USA. They often feel they are in
'house arrest' when they visit Cupertino.
We also have young school going daughters. Our kids need a safe way to reach the library.
This trail will allow them to go to the library on their own.
We support the trail.
Sincerely,
[name omitted for privacy]
Cupertino resident and parent of students in Cupertino school districts
Re: Support for Regnart Creek Trail
Dear Honorable Cupertino City Council Members,
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
10 | City of Cupertino
I am a parent of four children who have attended CUSD schools: West Valley, Meyerholz, Cupertino Middle and
Homestead High. I have been active in Safe Routes to School (SRTS) at each school for several years. I have worked
with SRTS city personnel in San Jose (Meyerholz), Sunnyvale (Cupertino Middle) and Cupertino (Homestead High). I
firmly believe it is important to create ways for students to travel safety to and from school. One of the best and
most pleasant ways to travel is via a traffic-free trail.
I support the Regnart Creek Trail project because it creates a safe pathway for students and community members to
travel in Cupertino. I believe parents would be more willing to allow their children to ride bikes to school if there
was a safe, traffic-free trail.
I have been fortunate enough to have lived near the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View, and I now currently live
in Sunnyvale near the Highway 85 pedestrian bridge. My children, starting in kindergarten, were able to bike to
school. We saved time and enjoyed our surroundings while decreasing traffic and pollution in our school
neighborhood.
I’ve attached my experiences of living near safe bike/pedestrian routes as a testimony to the benefits of having a
trail. I hope you consider my comments in your decision making process.
Sincerely,
[name omitted for privacy]
Re: public meeting
I received your notification of another meeting regarding opening the creekside for public use as a proposed trail.
I am a resident who lives directly behind the City Hall, I am a resident who lives in this home over 30 yrs, and have
experienced in the past when it was open to the public, and all was not good.
Noise, garbage, camping, kids peeing in the creek, motorcycles, climbing fences, crime issues, broken windows,
need I say more.
Is the city going to police the area? Is the city going to be sure that it does not become a haven for the
homeless? These are important questions to be answered. I am 100% AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL. HOPING GOOD
JUDGEMENT WILL BE IN THIS PROPOSAL.
Thank you for the opportunity of being able to speak my piece.
[name omitted for privacy]
Re: Regnart Creek Path
Hi Timm, David and Jennifer,
As committed to you at the March 21st meeting of the Bike and Pedestrian Commission, we are attaching a list of
the concerns of our neighborhood regarding the potential opening of the Regnart Creek Path.
Please forward to Jon Cacciotti of HMH and others as needed.
Kindest regards,
The Regnart Creek Path Neighborhood
Regnart Creek Trail Workshop Summary
City of Cupertino | 11
Benefits of Living Near a Trail
My husband and I bought a new home in 1996 near downtown Mountain View and we were a bit clueless that we
lived so close to the Stevens Creek Trail. A trail head opened in our neighborhood shortly after we moved in. Our
neighbors would wander down there to check out the creek, but I didn’t use the trail regularly until our oldest child
started kindergarten. My son was enrolled at Landels Elementary, near the heart of downtown Mountain View. We
lived across the train tracks from school, on the north side of Central Expressway. If we did not have access to the
Stevens Creek Trail, I would have to drive my child across the tracks to get to school. According to Google Maps, it is
a 1.4 mile drive in 7 minutes. However, that does not account for the Cal Train crossing. One time, it took me 15
minutes to get to school because of the trains.
The best part about the trail was that my 4 year old son (late birthday!) could ride his bike to school everyday,
traffic-free! It was a 0.9 mile ride. Google Maps says it’s a 5 minute ride, so we had time to watch the trains as we
passed over Central Expressway. After school, we had time to check out the creek, find rollie pollies and chase
butterflies.
As a young mom, I loved have a safe pathway to and from school. My son LOVED riding his bike to school. That
would not have happened if he had to cross Central Expressay and the train tracks.
When we sold our Mountain View home in 2006, we had several offer letters that expressed their desire to be close
to the trail. Again, we had no idea that this was something buyers were looking for and were willing to bid above
asking price to get.
When we moved to Sunnyvale, we were grateful to find a home close to a pedestrian bridge that crosses over
Highway 85. My four children have been fortunate to be able to ride their bikes to school (West Valley, Cupertino
Middle and Homestead High.) They get to school faster than if I had to drive them to school. They are more aware
of their environment and they gain confidence and independence. They prefer to ride their bikes than carpool!
I hope that the Regnart Trail will be built so that students and community members will have a safe, traffic free
option to bike and walk in Cupertino.
Sincerely,
[name omitted for privacy]
Regnart Creek Trail Site Elements
Please place an X next to your preferred design element and explain why. Refer to the Regnart Creek
Trail Site Elements board for pros and cons of each.
Railing
Chain Link Fence: 7 Split Rail Fence (wood): 4 Split Rail Fence (steel): 6 None: 2
Why?
• Chain link fence is less expensive and easy to place and maintain
• Chain link fence is cost effective
• Chain link fence is cheaper, I assume, but more sturdy than the one in the photos. Like the one
on the Creekside Park segment
• Chain link fence is a low cost alternative (we have now at Creekside), but small split rail at
Blaney crossing
• Chain link fence is probably the most cost effective
• Chain link fence is cost effective and relatively impervious
• Wooden split rail fence is more attractive. Doesn’t catch bags/trash/weeds as chain link does
• Wooden split rail fence is aesthetically pleasing
• Wooden split rail fence fits in with environment, easy to build
• Steel split rail fence looks like and is less maintenance than wood
• Steel split rail fence looks the best
• Steel split rail fence is nicer looking – will last forever
• The two split rail fences were chosen for aesthetics, but none would be suitable. Not sure it’s
entirely necessary
• None as there is no privacy, disrupts habitat – duck crossing, double fence. Different settings
require different fencing. Hard to generalize for all areas of trail
• No preference. Chain link fence was better opportunity for green cover. Consider coasted chain
link fence
Privacy Screen
Fence Extension:
10
Metal Panel Screen:
4
Acrylite Screen: 1 Sound Wall: 8 Replace Wood
Fence: 2
None of these: 2
Why?
• Fence extensions require the least amount of maintenance
• Fence extensions are in line with residential fencing
• Fence extension are simple
• Try to use as many existing fences as possible. Don’t forget to provide some gates
• Taller fences would provide more screening and abate privacy and some security concerns
• Metal panel looks nice
• Gets you to look at the metal panel instead of the neighbor’s house
• Metal panel screens gives a chance for artists to contribute, no maintenance, looks great, natural
• Sound wall looks nice
• Sound wall provides maximum security
• Sound walls can be painted with anti-graffiti paint, blocks noise, and better privacy
• All are fine
• If a fence already exists, another on top of it seems unnecessary
• Replace the wood fence to maximize the width and reduce cost
• Fence is best for being uniform while adapting to different elevation and alignment. Consistency
is important without being too trendy
• None of these as they block views, are ugly, block sunlight for yards, plastic scratches,
inappropriate for front yards – not for Lazano Lane/De Palma Lane
• For resident’s back fences, give them a chance to give an opinion and choice if they want a
gate. Go with the majority
• I defer to people living along the trail. Ease of low cost maintenance is important
• Privacy is important for neighboring residents!
Trail Surface
Decomposed Granite: 5 Asphalt Pavement: 8 Pervious Pavement: 7 None: 1
Why?
• Decomposed granite requires less time to place and is more natural
• I like the Saratoga RR trail with decomposed granite. It’s pervious and seems to do well with rain
and weather
• Decomposed granite is natural
• Asphalt pavement is useful at all seasons
• Asphalt pavement is cheap and easiest to ride on
• Asphalt pavement is easier to maintain
• Asphalt pavement is better in rainy weather
• Asphalt pavement is a softer surface, but more expensive. Same as Stevens Creek Trail in
Sunnyvale
• Asphalt is quite long-lasting and looks neat and nice
• Pervious pavement because of cost for maintenance. It is not maintained now by water district
• Pervious pavement because maintenance to water permeable best trade-off
• Pervious pavement seems the best of both worlds – pervious, but also solid for biking and
walking
• Pervious pavement is expensive but much better for managing runoff. Decomposed granite is too
hard for wheelchairs and assisted walking
• Asphalt and pervious pavements are clean, neat, and great for bikes and walkers
• Decomposed granite and pervious pavement both drain water, more natural. The decomposed
granite would also promote a slower pace for cycles
• Whatever bicyclists and joggers prefer
Security Measure
Security Camera: 8 Emergency Push Buttons: 6 Police Patrols: 12 None: 1
Why?
• Security cameras provide peace of mind for neighbors
• Security cameras can catch graffiti offenders
• Occasional only. Generally nothing needed, but emergency buttons would be nice
• Police patrols are cost effective
• The police already have some bicycle patrols; hopefully extending the patrols would be easy
• All of the above if possible! I think people should be more scared getting in their cars every day
than of having a trail behind their house
• All of the above – keep it safe
• Lots of security and privacy for existing residents. De Palma Lane will need bollards to prevent
vehicle traffic. Not enough space for fire trucks to turn
• All if it’s not too expensive
• All are good ideas
• Patrols combined with emergency push buttons
• Make the local residents feel safe
• Don’t see any real security issue with this trail
Roadway Crossings
Bulbout: 4 High-Visibility Crosswalk: 8 Raised Crosswalk: 7
Median Island: 6 Pedestrian Signal: 5 Flashing Beacon: 9 None: 0
Why?
• Median island is best for bike safety – kids can judge traffic in one direction only
• Any safety measure is good. Flashing beacons are very visible as a driver. You can see them
well before the pedestrians and bikes
• All are fine solutions.
• Perhaps beacon as it is cheapest and most visible
• Best to stop flow
• Blaney will need all of these. Traffic already congested with trips to Collins Elementary. Will
increase traffic when everyone is already in a hurry
• High visibility crosswalk, raised crosswalk, and flashing beacon to slow traffic and make
motorists aware
• Raised crosswalk at E Estates Drive crossing
• Alternative 2 – S Blaney Avenue
• On Blaney, pedestrian signal ensures they’ll stop (only when pedestrians are there)
• Increase safety at crossings
• A well marked crossing is fine
• Don’t like raised crossing. Driving over is issue
• Visibility is the most important component of pedestrian safety
Are there any other design solutions not listed you would like to see along the potential trail?
• Benches
• Doggie walk bags
• Trash receptacles
• Interpretive signage if there is anything interesting
• Dotted-dash lines to divide directions to help keep order.
• Trail etiquette reminder signs – Bikes yield to peds
• Shade
• A minimal fence between sidewalk and street at trail entrances on Blaney so kids can’t bop
straight into the street
• Have access to future parking lot
• Split rail fencing at crossings
• Split rail at crossings (parallel to road crossings)
• Lanes marked to encourage bikes and walkers to stay out of the way of each other
• Pull outs with benches
• Lights illuminating trail heads and intersections
• Some trees/tall bushes for foliage screening may make residents less concerned and provide
better experience for people on the trail
From: Concerned Cupertino residents opposing Regnart Creek Trail
Subject: Negatives to be Addressed and Mitigated – Cumulatively
Considerable issues for the Proposed Regnart Creek Trail
Summary
Fundamental rights of the citizens of our neighborhood will be violated. These universal rights are safety,
security and privacy. A basic question that should be asked before each project is undertaken is “Will the
neighborhood want it?” The consensus answer in our case is a firm “no”. Retrofit trails in residential
neighborhoods are not soundly conceived. Regnart Creek is a flood control culvert and should be left as such.
In addition, Regnart Creek is not visible to the public and the project should be cancelled immediately for the
safety protection of the overall community.
Safety
Safety of the neighborhood will be compromised by all the reasons we have stated below. It is important to re-
emphasis the risks to the homeowners on Lozano Lane and DePalma Lane as the front of their homes are only
feet away the existing path. To expand the trail access along Regnart Creek will put these properties at a higher
safety risk caused by increase in traffic flow from pedestrians and bikers, many from outside the immediate
neighborhood.
Security
A fundamental right to security implies that everyone in America should be safe in one’s own home, and that
residents are not burdened by anxiety or fear when a major change is made to the neighborhood in which they
reside. Property damage is also a real concern. Our neighborhood would not be reacting so negatively towards
the opening of this path unless it was a clear threat to our security in our own homes and our well-being.
Privacy
Homeowner’s privacy will be greatly reduced by the constant increased noise level if the trail gets used as
expected by Cupertino’s planners. Homeowners appreciate the serenity of their personal space and converting
this section of Regnart Creek would jeopardize the calm of their own yards. Suburban backyards have this
calm. The impact of this path on the front yards on Lozano Lane and DePalma Lane would be enormous. Noise
levels are a complaint of those who back up to the path between Creekside and East Estates. They have a sound
wall between them and path users. There are portions of the path where uneven grading results in the path
having a direct view down into resident’s homes.
If these concerns are not addressed now, they will never be mitigated. We have become tired and frustrated by
having our concerns unaddressed and dismissed. All we are told is:
Path neighbors’ concerns don’t usually materialize (what mitigation is there if they arise?)
More eyeballs are better (this is a loss of privacy)
Housing values will rise (has there been a survey that a bike path directly in front of a home is
desirable by prospective buyers?)
Safety issues for school children is the primary focus for pushing for this trail (to the contrary, a path
hidden from public view and adjacent to a creek that can overflow is not a safe path for children)
Additionally, the east side of Cupertino seems to bear the majority of collateral damage for much of the future
development of the City. Council members are elected to represent all of Cupertino.
2
We disagree strongly that safety is the primary consideration by the city, as the public commentary summation
by the city regarding the November 2017 Walkshop made no mention of safety as a concern by attendees. In
review of the cards posted online safety is a very important consideration by path opponents who were in
attendance. Below is the city’s summarized list of public feedback.
City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study | City of Cupertino Public Feedback
The feedback received from the comment cards fell into several “themes.” Many cards touched on multiple
themes. The themes were:
Concerns about security and privacy for those who live adjacent to the potential trail
Concerns about aesthetics of the fence or wall that would separate the potential trail from homes
Concerns about potential trail crossing at Blaney Avenue
Concerns about cost to implement the trail
Concerns about activities trail users may partake in
Support for the project as it provides an off-street option for bicyclists and pedestrians
Support for the project as it will help reduce traffic concerns (gets people out of their cars)
Support for project as it provides more green space for families and community members to enjoy
Questions regarding liability
Identifying preferred potential trail features including:
o Decomposed granite
o Bollards with lights
o Dog cleanup bag kiosks
o Paved trail with unpaved shoulders
List of concerns cited by Cupertino Citizens:
Safety for Users:
1. This area would provide an unsupervised and secluded gathering place for groups of teens or
children. It has the added attractive nuisance of flowing water which includes the street water
runoff. Children would want to hop right down into it (or could fall into it) but will have a very difficult
time climbing back out of the ditch. There will be no Neighborhood Watch in effect, everyone will be
on their own back there.
2. The path is inaccessible for any emergency vehicles or police cars due to the V-cut out on the
existing path. It is like the surface of the Bay Bridge after the ’89 earthquake and this V-cut can
swallow up a whole car. This very issue was one of the main reasons for not opening up the path in
2005. It was termed “The Fatal Flaw”. The V-cut is still there and it is still a fatal flaw. The V-cut is
required for emergency SCVWD access to the creek. For all the study of this issue, it has yet to be
resolved with bridging. There is a driveway off of South Blaney and East Estates to get onto the path
that is required for emergency and maintenance vehicle access. Thus the trail is left as a thruway for
unauthorized vehicles too.
3. It is a steep V-shaped drainage ditch that is difficult to climb out of. One side of the path would be
homeowner’s bare wood back fences and the other side would be this steep drainage ditch. We realize
that a trails main benefit is for bikers who will quickly pass through these sections. However, for a
pedestrian, it would have the effect of trapping them in, almost like a cage or a tube. In case of
emergency, it could be a very long way out to the city streets as there are no outlets for > 1/3 mile in
some spots.
3
4. Authorized access by SCVWD and Utilities would necessitate advance planning for the trail
closure for maintenance and/or emergency service.
5. When a driver is maneuvering a right turn from, for example, La Mar onto South Blaney, a driver will
be accelerating on to a busy street connector and within 100 feet be required to come to a full stop
for either a pedestrian or biker crossing the street to get to the other side of the path. This is also
true at Whitney, Pacifica, Farallone, East Estates, Vicksburg, and De Palma. This could be a potential
hazard for a serious accident involving a car and a biker or pedestrian. This is especially true as the
pilot program AB-1103 allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs.
6. The creek curves at several spots and creates a secluded environment that is simply unsuitable for
children to walk to school on.
7. E-bikes, distracted pedestrians using cell phones, skateboarders and potentially wheelchairs at times will
be accessing this proposed trail along with high-speed cyclists
8. In conversation with one cyclist (path proponent), she said she did not want to have to slow down to 15
MPH or have to deal with S-curves when biking through Wilson Park. If children are to be walking and
biking on this proposed trail alongside adults, there needs to be a very slow speed limit set. 10 MPH is
the standard speed for children. 25 MPH is standard speed for experienced cyclists. Average speed of a
pedestrian is 2 miles per hour. The length of this path invites bicycle usage at high speeds which is
inconsistent with pedestrian traffic and youth cycling causing increased chance of collision.
9. Money for a Regnart Creek Trail should be diverted and used in a more appropriate manner to address
safety issues on the West side where there are sidewalk deficits and don’t receive high safety ratings.
To do otherwise is to imply that connectivity, not safety is what’s most important to the city. Safety
should be of utmost importance.
10. Most parents who are being persuaded in favor of the path have never seen it. We can't imagine a
child riding his/her bike back home after a study session at the library in the dusk or dark on this
long, isolated trail. The child would find it much safer to bike home on the surface streets in darkness.
Walking alone on the path in the middle of the day is unacceptable as well.
11. In trying to get easier access to the path at the library opening, children may be tempted to jaywalk on
Rodrigues instead of walking up to the crosswalk at Torre.
Safety for Community
1. Drivers will resent more traffic restricting devices or more stop signs on busy streets in close
proximity to existing stop signs on South Blaney. A stressed and irritated driver will tend to make bad
decisions.
2. Our neighborhoods have paved sidewalks and a very bikeable streets. In Wilson Park
neighborhoods there is a very bikeable street on one side (Le Mar) and a bikeable park on the other side
leading to yet another very bikeable street (Vicksburg) just yards from this proposed trail, all of which
are a much more attractive option for a stroll. The fences of the backs of our homes aren’t much to look
at but we think the fronts of our homes are just great!
3. The proposed trail will be inconvenient for feeder streets adjacent to the proposed trail where the most
school children reside. There very likely could be very little usage by other than recreational
cyclists.
4. The noted reason many parents do not allow their children to walk to school are the conditions at
the school itself or safety issues reported from the west side. The problems are not in the
neighborhoods but when they reach the school. Our neighborhood has a safety rating of 0 – it could
not be safer. Reassigning the blame for safety issues in other parts of the city to our neighborhood
is unjust.
5. The overall conclusion of the Negative Mitigation Declaration was that the project has individually
limited problems, but are not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this project is deemed to have less
than significant impact. Nowhere in this report does it address neighborhood acceptance or issues
4
regarding privacy, safety and security of the neighborhood it resides in. All of our aforementioned
concerns create cumulatively considerable impact for the community as a whole.
Security/Privacy
1. Cars have driven onto the already existing path at the end of DePalma Lane only to discover it is not a
street and there is no outlet on the other end. There is no space to turn around on this narrow section
which creates a hazard in having to back out of the path. With the opening of the path, cars could
drive the length of the path. As on La Mar Drive, Blaney, Pacifica, East Estates and DePalma, the path
needs to be quickly accessible for emergency vehicles.
2. Opening access for the proposed trail at the end of the existing Lozano path would conceivably allow
autos and unauthorized vehicles the ability to drive on the trail the full distance to Pacifica. Frightening.
3. Fencing and lighting will need to be acceptable to the impacted neighborhood.
4. Neighbors backing directly up to the creek have expressed fear that an increase in home invasion
crimes will be the inevitable consequence of opening this area up to the public. Perception becomes
reality.
5. The backside of Farallone was open at one time. Property damage in the form of rocks thrown into
pools and on roofs were common occurrences. Windows and sliding glass doors were broken. There
is also the potential that a resident could be injured by such things flying over the fence. Insurance
companies don’t look favorably on repeated claims of this nature.
6. There are so many nefarious things that will go on in that darkened area that will never be known
by parents and law enforcement. We need to be proactive and stop those types of things from
occurring before they happen. On October 4, 2005, this path was removed unanimously by all five
members of the City Council. A petition was signed by 432 concerned neighbors to keep the path
closed.
Additional Factors
1. For those who have not seen the so-called creek, it is not at all a natural creek. This is not a venue for a
nature trail. It would potentially be cost-prohibitive to make it an attractive, natural-looking trail.
2. The concerns that the gates will not be consistently closed at nighttime are real. The city has said the
gates of the proposed trail can be closed at nighttime. There are many gates that need to be closed at
varying dark/dusk times that it is logistically nearly impossible to maintain without additional night
time staffing.
3. The Negative Mitigation Declaration claims that there would be no impact on emergency access. It also
claims that impact on fire and police services would have no significant impact because a new facility
would not be required due to the path. The proposed Regnart Creek Trail would definitely require
the Sheriff beat deputies to actively watch the trail for potential misuse and dangerous situations.
Policing of the trail will be very limited due to the physical nature of the trail. Patrolling only at
school start and end hours is not enough.
4. The money that the City intends to spend on this path and the cost of regular maintenance will likely be
enormous. We think our citizens would wish to have this money spent on things that would benefit
all of Cupertino, not just some select (biking) group.
5. As City Council Member Chang has brought up several times, how many people will use this path?
6. Not all trails are worth implementing and Regnart Creek is not a good place for a trail. It was
dredged for flood control. Santa Clara Valley Water District has controlled access to keep people from
disturbing it, thereby insuring its intended purpose as a flood-control mechanism. In the past decade
however, the City of Cupertino has decided its intended purpose shall be completely changed to a public
access area. We strongly disagree with this position. Trails don’t belong in this residential area.
5
7. The criteria that has bumped Regnart Creek Path to Tier 1 priority in 2018 is connectivity, not
safety as originally stated. Our streets rank as high as they possibly can for safety and this is clearly
demonstrated in the criteria scoring. Also, this path is redundant as a pedestrian pathway because our
neighborhood has no deficit of sidewalks.
8. Information has not been provided as to why the proposed Regnart Creek Trail scoring changed from
Tier II project to a Tier I. Also, the scoring dramatically increased from 48 to 70. It appears the
criteria changed and these documents are in conflict: 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan (Tier II;
score 48) and Resolution 18-015 Pedestrian Plan Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (Tier I,
score 70) which was approved January 2018 by the city council.
9. You can find any study to backup whatever point you wish to make. A study can be made of an
attractive and safe path that does not impinge on the surround neighborhood’s wish for safety, security
and privacy. This path will indeed improve property values and be an amenity to the community it runs
through. There are many, many examples of paths like this in California. This is not that kind of a path
so it cannot be compared to such paths. Regnart Path is a retrofit that just doesn’t fit.
In summary, the opening of Regnart Creek is a bad idea. Path proponents are not presenting the many
downsides of the path, referring to the path as an “amenity for the community”.
Regnart Creek Trail Site Elements
Please place an X next to your preferred design element and explain why. Refer to the Regnart Creek
Trail Site Elements board for pros and cons of each.
Railing
Chain Link Fence Split Rail Fence (wood) .J{}. Split Rail Fence (steel)yJ_ None .i}_
# 1/ •. -, .,. ...:>----II 11111 � , . . . . "'" --. tt���' .,
Why ? /11{, fly/) ;te ,> U J (/vC/C clt()k /7 fJrv ctP.ri & I/ C.J] f: h -I ft!>� w /J vd 4
/z_e J UA f q b If. ;wf Jl,t,� ti-;--€ r1,-I; n:) 11-£ �.,,,o ot.J.
Privacy Screen
� Extension
None of these
Metal Panel Screen Acrylite Screen
� .,
Sound Wall
None
Regnart Creek Trail Site Elements
Please place an X next to your preferred design element and explain why. Refer to the Regnart Creek
Trail Site Elements board for pros and cons of each.
Railing
Chain Link Fence
Privacy Screen
Fence Extension
None of these
Trail Surface
Metal Panel Screen Acrylite Screen
� --. .e.l!W ___,
:i:ii., . _
_ ,ij;·
;-
. � •. . . .. .......:,�
C,�C>"·
Sound Wall
None
Replace Wood
Fence
None
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
HMH |
APPENDIX D
SCVWD MEETING MINUTES
• SCVWD Coordination Meeting #1 Minutes
• SCVWD Coordination Meeting #2 Minutes
• SCVWD Coordination Meeting #3 Minutes
D
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1
MEETING MINUTES
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Kick-off Meeting
Date and Time: November 28, 2017 – 3:00 p.m.
Location: SCVWD Offices, 5750 Almaden Expy San Jose, CA 95118
Minutes By: HMH
Attended By:
Sue Tippets
Usha Chatwani
Cody Houston
Devin Mody
Brian Fletcher
SCVWD
SCVWD
SCVWD
SCVWD
Callander
David Stillman
Jennifer Chu
Jon Cacciotti
Michelle Vera Cruz
Jodi Starbird
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino
HMH
HMH
David J. Powers
DISCUSSION ACTION
1. Introductions & Key Staff
a. Usha Chatwani – SCVWD
b. Jen Chu – City of Cupertino
c. Jon Cacciotti – HMH Engineers
2. Project Description
a. A portion of the Cupertino Loop known as Regnart Creek Trail is subject to a
feasibility study conducted by HMH. The feasibility study is projected to be
reviewed by Cupertino City Council in Spring 2018.
b. The Regnart Creek Project would utilize the existing Regnart Creek maintenance
access road from Pacifica Dr to the west to E. Estates Dr to the east.
3. SCVWD Long Term Plans
a. SCVWD has an Asset Management Plan that describes the operations and
maintenance work to be performed on existing SCVWD facilities.
i. Regnart Creek is subject to routine maintenance such as vegetation removal
and herbicide applications.
b. Regnart Creek in the project area has known slope failures and SCVWD may have
future slope stability projects.
c. No specific capacity improvements for Regnart Creek are planned at this time.
4. SCVWD Creek History
a. Current Creek Conditions
i. Regnart Creek has been stable until the past few years.
2
1. FEMA maps are outdated and are not representative of the current
flooding status.
2. Erosion of the creek has caused incising of the creek bank.
3. SCVWD may not have a current model of this creek, however they do
have information about flooding “hotspots” and problematic areas along
the reach.
5. SCVWD Design Guidelines
a. The project development team proposed to use the following Design Guidelines:
i. SCVWD User Manual: Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams
(Guide 16 – Guidance for Trail Design)
ii. Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000 – Bikeway Planning and
Design)
iii. SCVWD indicated that the City of San Jose is underway with a document that
will provide updated guidelines for creek trails.
1. This document will be adopted by SCVWD.
2. Draft document previously circulated. Final document expected early
2018.
6. Project Specific Considerations
a. Creek Maintenance Access Location
i. Regnart Creek Trail must preserve SCVWD maintenance access including
existing access ramp to the creek bed.
ii. The existing concrete maintenance ramp down into the creek bed can be
removed for trail continuity as long as a similar access ramp can be
constructed elsewhere within the same reach.
b. Proposed Bike/Ped Overcrossing Structures
i. Two bike/ped bridges are proposed for user access points from Wilson Park
and to deviate the trail away from the existing access ramp.
ii. Structures that cross SCVWD creeks are allowed but are discouraged.
c. SCVWD operates a ‘Good Neighbor Program’ where SCVWD will pay ±50% of the
capital cost of a new fence. The property owner is responsible for maintenance.
7. SCVWD Criteria Summary
a. HMH summarized design criteria extracted from SCVWD User Manual and Santa
Clara County Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management
Guidelines.
b. HMH requested identification or other criteria not explicitly stated in the Trail
Design Guide. SCVWD Identified the following criteria:
i. Minimum access road width shall be 18’ or match existing conditions.
ii. Minimum trail paved width shall be 8’ in areas where existing access road is
narrow.
iii. Grade trail away from the creek, allowing water to drain to existing outfalls.
SCVWD to provide
information about
known “hotspots”
and problematic
areas.
HMH to request
draft copy from the
City of San Jose.
SCVWD to provide
minimum vertical
clearance for
maintenance
vehicles within
creek.
3
iv. Lighting along trail is not permitted.
v. SCVWD regular maintenance of trail and associated closures should be
properly conveyed and communicated to trail users through signage and
public outreach.
vi. SCVWD may need gates at all access points to close the trail for maintenance.
vii. No physical separation between the creek and the trail is preferred, however
to address safety concerns; low-height, open fencing is allowed.
viii. SCVWD interested in alternative, permeable trail surfaces.
ix. SCVWD indicated that a new joint-use agreement will need to be established
between the City of Cupertino and SCVWD if the trail is constructed.
HMH to research
alternative paving
solutions for trail.
1
MEETING MINUTES
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Kick-off Meeting
Date and Time: April 4, 2018 – 2:00 p.m.
Location: SCVWD Offices, 5750 Almaden Expy San Jose, CA 95118
Minutes By: HMH
Attended By:
Sue Tippets
Usha Chatwani
Cody Houston
Devin Mody
SCVWD
SCVWD
SCVWD
SCVWD
David Stillman
Jennifer Chu
Jon Cacciotti
Michelle Vera Cruz
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino
HMH
HMH
DISCUSSION ACTION
1. Introductions & Key Staff
a. Usha Chatwani – SCVWD
b. David Stillman – City of Cupertino
c. Jon Cacciotti – HMH Engineers
2. Project Status Update
a. Two public outreach meetings, one “Walkshop”
i. Primary concerns of the public are privacy, safety, and security.
b. Proposed Improvements
i. Various trail element alternatives aim to address the public’s concerns
ii. Bridge crossings at Wilson park are proposed in order to maintain SCVWD
access ramp and to create a connection to Wilson Park.
3. Proposed Improvements
a. Conceptual Alignment
i. Trail alignment begins at the intersection of Torre Ave and Pacifica Dr and
terminates at E Estates Drive before existing Regnart Creek trail tees into
Creekside Park.
ii. Trail alignment crosses Regnart Creek twice near Wilson Park to avoid existing
SCVWD maintenance ramp. Bridges are proposed to achieve this crossing.
b. Trail Features
i. Railing
2
1. To address safety concerns, railing along the top of bank, adjacent to
the trail, is proposed for the entirety of the trail as the creek bank
exceeds a 3:1 slope.
2. SCVWD opposes railing as it restricts maintenance and contributes to
bank instability and erosion.
3. Slope instability and susceptibility to erosion increase as bank slopes
increase.
4. City to evaluate liability concerns for pedestrian safety along steep
banks.
ii. Privacy Screening
1. Screening provided by fencing, fence extensions, soundwalls, and
metal/acrylic panels are proposed to potentially address privacy
concerns.
2. Proposed privacy screen footprint shall be minimized and shall abut
existing fencing to the extent practicable as to not decrease
maintenance access width substantially.
3. SCVWD has a cost-sharing program for the replacement or installation
of wooden or chain link fencing between District land and adjoining
properties. City of Cupertino is to adopt similar cost-sharing agreement
for fencing/screening installed by this project.
iii. Safety Features
1. Security cameras and emergency push buttons may only be placed in
public open spaces (road crossings, Civic Center), not along trail.
2. Yves Zsutty from the City of San Jose can provide insight on the
feasibility of providing security measures along trails.
iv. Trail Surface
1. Trail surfaces shall be capable to withstand loading from SCVWD large
maintenance vehicles and machines.
2. Preferred SCVWD access width is 18’-22’.
3. Trail surface width shall be as wide as possible but not less than 12’
wide.
4. Pervious pavement is the preferred trail surface as it will avoid C3
requirements.
5. No new outfalls are proposed. The project proposes to tie into the
existing system.
6. Bioswales triggered by C3 treatment shall be minimized and shall abut
existing fencing as to not decrease maintenance access widths
substantially.
v. Bride Crossing
SCVWD to provide
City of Cupertino
with fence cost-
sharing agreement
language.
3
1. 13’-15’ vertical clearance from channel bottom to bridge deck is needed
for maintenance equipment.
2. For maintenance purposes, access points to the trail shall have gates.
3. The maintenance ramp in this location is accessed approximately every
10 years. SCVWD is agreeable to removeable bridge structures that can
be removed and preplaced by the City to facilitate creek work.
4. Next Steps
a. Public Outreach
i. Trail alignment and trail elements that address public concerns will be
presented at the public outreach meeting on April 23, 2018.
ii. Public preferences and SCWVD preferences will be considered and evaluated
in order to arrive at a recommended trail design.
1
MEETING MINUTES
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Kick-off Meeting
Date and Time: July 11, 2018 – 10:00 a.m.
Location: SCVWD Offices, 5750 Almaden Expy San Jose, CA 95118
Minutes By: HMH
Attended By:
Sue Tippets
Usha Chatwani
Chad
SCVWD
SCVWD
SCVWD
David Stillman
Jennifer Chu
Jon Cacciotti
Michelle Vera Cruz
City of Cupertino
City of Cupertino
HMH
HMH
DISCUSSION ACTION
1. Introductions & Key Staff
a. Usha Chatwani – SCVWD
b. David Stillman – City of Cupertino
c. Jon Cacciotti – HMH Engineers
2. Project Status Update
a. Public Outreach Meeting & Meeting with Lozano Ln/De Palma Lane Residents
i. Primary concerns of the public are privacy, safety, and security.
ii. Creek structure alternatives presented to Lozano Ln/De Palma. If project was
approved, Lozano Lane/De Palma Lane residents preferred the box culvert
alternative.
b. Trail Feasibility Study
i. HMH is providing creek trail alternatives based on community, City, and
SCWD input and will evaluate these alternatives based on, but not limited to,
SCVWD maintenance access and environmental impacts
3. Recommended Improvements
a. Railing
i. Removable split railing is proposed along the edge of the trail, at least 2’ from
top of bank to allow for SCVWD maintenance and to not contribute to slope
failures of creek bank.
SCVWD to provide
vegetation
maintenance
schedule
2
b. Fencing
i. Fence replacement is the proposed privacy screening alternative as other
alternatives have a footprint that will reduce SCVWD maintenance access if
constructed on the creek side of existing private fencing.
c. Trail Surfacing
i. Porous pavement is the proposed trail surface material to mitigate
stormwater runoff.
d. Alignment
i. The box culvert and cantilevered trail alternatives adjacent to Lozano Lane
and De Palma Lane are not recommended by the SCVWD due to major local
and federal environmental implications regarding the creek.
ii. Removable bridge crossings to and from Wilson park are recommended to
make it possible for SCVWD to maintain the creek in this section. Bridges shall
be as far away from existing creek maintenance ramp as feasible.
4. Next Steps
a. Finalize Feasibility Study
i. HMH will provide a draft study for SCVWD review by 8/1/2018
ii. Council meeting for project approval on 8/21/2018
HMH |
APPENDIX E
FEMA MAPS
• Flood Map Area
• Flood Insurance Rate Map
E
REGNART CREEK TRAIL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed October 2017.
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Feet
Ü122°1'45.20"W 37°19'24.19"N 122°1'7.74"W 37°18'55.57"N
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AR EAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)Zone A, V, A99With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulator y Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areasof 1% annual chance flood with averagedepth less than one foot or with drainageareas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% AnnualChance Flood Hazard Zone XArea with Reduced Flood Risk due toLevee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREE N Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culver t, or Storm SewerLevee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance17.5 Water Surface ElevationCoastal Transect
Coastal Transect BaselineProfile BaselineHydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of StudyJurisdiction Boundar y
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from theauthoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This mapwas exported on 7/18/2018 at 5:07:41 PM and does notreflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date andtime. The NFHL and effective information may change orbecome superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following mapelements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images forunmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used forregulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OFFLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERALSTRUCTURES
OTHERFEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
1:6,000
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative proper ty location.
DRAFT