Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
CC Resolution No. 19-061 Approving the January 25, 2019 Final Draft Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Conducted by Callander AssociatesJanuary 25, 2019
As Amended and Adopted by
City Council on May 21, 2019
Junipero Serra Trail
Feasibility Study
Introduction
Planning Process
Trail Alignment
Summary Recommendations
Acknowledgments
Appendix
Executive Summary
Figures
2
3
4
6
5
1
Background & Project Purpose
Local & Regional Policies
Project Goals & Objectives
Existing Conditions
Stakeholder and Agency Coordination
Trail Criteria and Standards
Community Outreach
Alternatives Evaluation & Preferred Alternative
Segment 1 - Mary Ave to De Anza Boulevard
Segment 2 - De Anza Boulevard to Vallco
Segment 3 - Vallco to Vallco Parkway
Safety, Privacy, and Security
5
6
7
9
22
30
34
1
5
9
39
85
91
92
39
49
57
75
81
Table of Contents
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
3-22
3-23
3-24
3-25
5
7
9
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
15
17
19
22
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
26
27
33
Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian Bridge
Cupertino Loop Trail
Existing Conditions – Less than 14’
Existing Conditions – 14’ or More
PG&E Utility Poles in SCVWD Corridor
Overall Site Map
Bike Lanes on Stelling Road
Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Trailhead
Existing Conditions at Stelling Road
Existing De Anza Boulevard Crossing
Existing Conditions along Lucille Avenue
Existing Conditions below Blaney Avenue
Underpass at Wolfe Road
Site Analysis – Segment 1
Site Analysis – Segment 2
Site Analysis - Segment 3
Vallco Parkway Potential Trailhead
CalWater Facility Fence
De Anza Boulevard On-Ramp
Loc-N-Stor Fence on Right
Hyatt Hotel House Under Construction
Lock It Up Self Storage Fence
PG&E Tower
Public Storage Wall and SCVWD Corridor
Fence Straddling SCVWD Corridor and Residents
Vallco Mall Sign
CalTrans Two-Way Class 1 Bikeway
Figures
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
Pedestrian Trail, Less than 14’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Min. 14’ Wide, Covered Channel
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, Min. 14’ Wide, On-Grade
Public Storage Sections
Alternative Alignment Plan – Segment 1
Alternative Alignment Plan – Segment 2
Alternative Alignment Plan – Segment 3
Mary Avenue Enlargement East Option
Mary Avenue Enlargement West Option
Mary Avenue Sections
High Visibility Crosswalk Example
Grade-Separated Under-Crossing under Stelling Road
Existing Conditions under Stelling Road
Stelling Road Intersection Enlargement
Under-Crossing Example
Stevens Creek Trail Tunnel Example 1
Stevens Creek Trail Tunnel Example 2
Tunnel Finishes
Tunnel Visual Simulation 1
Tunnel Visual Simulation 2
De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement – Tunnel Under-Crossing
Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Visual Simulation 1
Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Visual Simulation 2
De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement – Bridge Over-Crossing
40
40
40
41
43
45
47
50
51
52
53
54
54
55
56
57
57
57
58
58
59
62
62
63
4-25
4-26
4-27
4-28
4-29
4-30
4-31
4-32
4-33
4-34
4-35
4-36
4-37
4-38
4-39
4-40
4-41
4-42
High Visibility Crosswalk Example
De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement – At-Grade Crossing
– Alternative #2
Pinch Point between Sound Wall and Guard Rail
Lucille Avenue Sections
Blaney Avenue Trail Access Enlargement
North Portal Avenue Trail Access Enlargement
Hyatt House Hotel Enlargement
Apple Campus Sections
Calabazas Creek Sections
Privacy/Security Fence Example
Split Rail Fence Example
Under-Crossing Barrier Example
Guard Rail Example
Fencing Example Rendering – Before
Fencing Example Rendering – After
Trail Patrol
Security Camera
Milestone Marker
65
67
69
70
71
73
77
79
80
81
81
81
82
82
82
83
83
83
Executive Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 1Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Executive Summary 1
1
The purpose of this study is to determine
whether the Junipero Serra Trail is a feasible
project for the City of Cupertino. The
City anticipates the report will serve as a
springboard for further detailed study and
identification of project funding, if the trail is
deemed feasible. The trail was first identified
and approved in the City’s 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan and further supplemented
in the City’s 2018 Pedestrian Transportation
Plan. The Junipero Serra Trail is envisioned to
be one segment of a larger community wide
“Loop” of on and off-street bicycle facilities.
Through an extensive public outreach
process, it became clear the community has
a variety of opinions on the merits of a trail
at this location, with many supporting the
trail and others not. In addition, community
members indicated preferences for easy trail
access, grade separated street crossings,
neighbor privacy, and security. These and
other factors discussed in this report are
important considerations to carry forward in
the development of this trail.
The resulting feasibility study provides a
narrative and graphic road map to guide further
detailed study of the trail’s development.
Based on community input, City goals for
trail development, and input from key agency
stakeholders, trail alignment alternative #2 is
the preferred alternative.
Alternative #2 converts the Junipero Serra
Channel between the Don Burnett Bicycle-
Pedestrian Bridge and Wolfe Road into a box
culvert and allows the trail to be located over
the top of the culvert. The Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD) preliminarily agreed
to alternative #2 under the condition the City
accepts all right of way and maintenance of the
channel as part of the City storm drain system
prior to any construction improvements. Final
approval would be subject to approval from
SCVWD’s Board of Directors.
Other trail development considerations
are presented along the alignment and are
discussed as to their feasibility and costs of
implementation. The study also addresses
community concerns surrounding safety
and privacy by suggesting various measures
including fence options, police patrols,
security cameras and increasing the number
of access points as much as possible. Detailed
cost estimates are provided for each trail
alternative, as well as costs for standalone
items such as the grade-separated crossings
at Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study2Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility StudyExecutive Summary2
Top Image: Callander Associate’s Staff talking to a
community member at a community meeting
Middle Image: Santa Clara Valley Water District corridor
existing conditions
Bottom Image: Visual Simulation of a Bridge Over-
Crossing for De Anza Boulevard
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 3Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study Executive Summary 3
This report summarizes the feasibility study
process and contains the following sections:
Introduction
Provides a brief overview of the project
purpose, background, goals and objectives,
as well as project alignment with local and
regional trail policies.
Planning Process
Provides an overview of the planning process
including an assessment of existing site
conditions along the alignment, ranging from
typical corridor conditions, adjacent land
uses, relationship to nearby facilities and
existing roadway crossings; trail development
opportunities and challenges; and the
community outreach process with details from
each event and input received.
Trail Alignments
Provides an in-depth evaluation of each
alignment alternative; including design
considerations, trail access points, roadway
crossings, safety and security measures, and
other site-specific challenges.
Summary Recommendations
Provides a summary of the recommended trail
alternatives to further pursue.
Appendix
Includes meeting summaries, technical
documents, outreach materials, input
results, detailed cost estimates, and other
supplemental project information for
reference.
Introduction
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 5Introduction
2
Background & Project
Purpose
This feasibility study evaluates the potential
for development of the Junipero Serra Trail
identified in the City of Cupertino’s 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan and 2018 Pedestrian
Transportation Plan. If implemented, the trail
would create an important east west off-street
trail across the heart of the City providing
recreational opportunities, commuter options,
safe routes to school, and an off-street
alternative for bicycle trips.
This planning effort was commissioned by the
City in the summer of 2017 with the purpose
of developing a feasibility study for the trail.
As part of the study, a comprehensive public
outreach process was initiated to better
understand community concerns and desires
for the project. The study aims to identify
challenges, opportunities, and estimated
costs associated with implementation of the
2.91-mile trail.
This trail segment represents the northern
reach of the “Cupertino Loop”, identified
in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
The Junipero Serra Trail is one of three trail
segments being studied as part of the Loop.
The proposed alignment falls almost entirely
within Santa Clara Valley Water District right-
of-way and utilizes the existing maintenance
road that follows the Junipero Serra Channel
on the south side of Interstate 280 from
Mary Avenue at the western extent to the
intersection of Calabazas Creek and Vallco
Parkway at the eastern extent. See Figure 2-2.
A number of street crossings are required
within the alignment, including Stelling
Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Wolfe
Road. If completed, the trail would provide
connections to other on-street facilities,
the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge,
residential neighborhoods, schools, retail
centers, and employment hubs.
Figure 2-1Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian Bridge
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study6Introduction
Local & Regional Policies
The Junipero Serra Trail project is consistent
with a number of local and regional policies
relative to trail development.
2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan,
City of Cupertino
“The City of Cupertino envisions an exceptional
bicycling environment that supports active
living and healthy transportation choices,
provides for safer bicycling, and enables people
of all ages and abilities to access jobs, school,
recreation, shopping, and transit on a bicycle
as a part of daily life.” - Vision Statement from
the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan
The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan
recommends implementation of a loop trail
around central Cupertino. The loop would be
accomplished by implementing Class I trails
along Regnart Creek, along the Interstate 280
Junipero Serra Channel (Junipero Serra Trail)
and along the Union Pacific Railroad corridor.
These trail segments would be connected to
each other by on-street bikeways. See Figure
2-2.
2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan,
City of Cupertino
The 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan
outlines goals to improve pedestrian safety,
access, and connectivity within the City. The
Junipero Serra Trail is identified as a Tier 1
project within the 2018 Pedestrian Plan. The
trail will supplement the extensive pedestrian
network the City is aiming for and supports all
of the plan’s goals.
General Plan – Community Vision 2040,
City of Cupertino
The City of Cupertino General Plan –
Community Vision 2040 contains twelve
guiding principles that encompass a broad
range of community aspirations. The following
guiding principles are consistent with the trail
being considered along Interstate 280:
#3 Improve Connectivity: Create a well-
connected and safe system of trails, pedestrian
and bicycle paths and create access to
interesting routes to different destinations.
#4 Enhance Mobility: Ensure the efficient and
safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists
to fully accommodate Cupertino’s residents,
workers, visitors and students of all ages
and abilities. Pedestrian and bike paths
should comprise of an integrated system of
fully connected and interesting routes to all
destinations.
Goal M-3 in the City’s General Plan says,
“Support a safe pedestrian and bicycle street
network for people of all ages and abilities”.
Further policies within goal M-3 encourage
adoption of bicycle and pedestrian master
plans along with encouragement of pedestrian
and bicycle crossings at physical barriers.
Policy LU-2.1: Gateways identifies the De Anza
Boulevard and Interstate 280 on/off ramp
intersection as a potential gateway location
into the City of Cupertino. Future design
for the trail crossing at this intersection may
consider incorporating a “gateway” design
feature.
Countywide Bicycle Plan,
Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority
The Countywide Bicycle Plan identifies the
Junipero Serra Trail as a Cross-County Bicycle
Corridor (CCBC).
District 4 Bike Plan,
Caltrans
The District 4 Bike Plan identifies policies,
strategies and actions for Caltrans and partner
agencies to improve the safety and comfort
of pedestrians and bicyclists. The Junipero
Serra Trail is identified as a “Top Tier” priority
project for Santa Clara County.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 7Introduction
Project Goals & Objectives
1. Form a clear understanding of the
project area, including adjoining
neighborhoods, businesses, and
community services; and align with
other City plans that impact the study
area.
2. Have an inclusive community outreach
process and encourage participation
and input throughout all phases of the
study.
3. Identify if the trail is feasible (in entirety
or in segments) and provide reasoning
for these findings to support future City
of Cupertino trail projects.
I-280
85
85
I-280
Junipero Serra Trail
Figure 2-2Cupertino Loop Trail
Planning Process
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 9Planning Process
3
Existing Conditions
The proposed trail alignment runs east-west
across the northern part of Cupertino, just
south of Interstate 280. The SCVWD currently
owns and maintains the right-of-way which
contains the Junipero Serra Channel and
maintenance road being considered for trail
development. The channel was originally
designed and constructed by Caltrans to
intercept drainage on the south side of
Interstate 280 when the freeway was built.
The right-of-way varies in width from 27’-0” to
140’-0” and the maintenance road is unpaved
and also varies in width from 7’-6” to at least
15’-0” within the project limits.
The Junipero Serra Channel generally has a
trapezoidal structure and is concrete lined
for much of the corridor. Where the channel
encounters roadway crossings, the channel
extends beneath the street via reinforced
concrete pipe culverts. East of Wolfe Road,
the channel is unlined until the confluence
with Calabazas Creek.
Figure 3-2Existing Conditions - 14’ or More
Existing Conditions - Less than 14’Figure 3-1
CHANNEL
LESS THAN 14’-0”
SCVWD
CHANNEL
14’-0” OR MORE
SCVWD
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study10Planning Process
Figure 3-4Overall Site Map
Trail
Segment Transition
Trailhead Opportunity
Street Crossing
Mary Ave Trailhead
Lucille Ave Trailhead
Calabazas
Creek Trailhead
North Portal Ave Trailhead
The corridor is currently access controlled and
has a combination of chain link fence, wood
fence, locked gates and freeway sound walls
enclosing the perimeter. Overhead PG&E
transmission and distribution lines are located
within or immediately adjacent to the corridor
starting at the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian
Bridge and extending to Blaney Avenue.
For purposes of studying feasibility, the trail
was divided into 3 segments. Segment 1
starts at Mary Avenue near the Don Burnett
Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge approach, heads
eastward along Interstate 280, across Stelling
Road, and terminates just west of De Anza
Boulevard. Segment 2 includes the De Anza
Boulevard intersection, Blaney Avenue, and
terminates just east of the CalWater facility at
North Portal Avenue. Segment 3 extends east
of the CalWater facility, past Vallco and Wolfe
Road to the confluence of the Junipero Serra
Channel and Calabazas Creek. The trail then
turns south along the west bank of Calabazas
Creek and terminates at Vallco Parkway. See
Figures 3-4 and 3-12 through 3-14.
Figure 3-3PG&E Utility Poles in SCVWD Corridor
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 11Planning Process
Land Use
The proposed trail spans a variety of adjacent
land uses. Between Mary Avenue and
Stelling Road, the trail is adjacent to single
family residences. Between Stelling Road
and De Anza Boulevard, adjacent land uses
include multi-family residences and general
commercial/light industrial. Between De
Anza Boulevard and Blaney Avenue, adjacent
land uses vary and include single family
residences, general commercial/office and
multi-family residences. Between Blaney
Avenue and Wolfe Road, adjacent land uses
include single family, residential duplex and
regional shopping. Finally, between Wolfe
Road and Vallco Parkway, adjacent land uses
include regional shopping and the “Heart of
the City” Specific Plan Area. See Figures 3-12
through 3-14 showing the different land uses
near the proposed trail area.
Existing Bicycle / Pedestrian Facilities
There are a number of existing bike and
pedestrian facilities that would have direct
connections to the Junipero Serra Trail
including:
• Mary Avenue: Class II bike lanes in both
directions
• Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian Bridge: Class
1 bike path over Interstate 280
• Stelling Road: Class II bike lanes in both
direction
• De Anza Boulevard: Class II bike lanes in
both directions
• Blaney Avenue: Class II bike lanes in both
directions
• Wolfe Road: Class IV separated bike lanes
planned as part of Interstate 280/Wolfe
Road interchange improvements
• Vallco Parkway: Class II bike lanes in both
directions
The proposed trail’s proximity to existing bike
infrastructure will improve connectivity across
the City, particularly for east to west travel. See
Figures 3-12 through 3-14 to see the existing
bicycle facilities relative to the proposed trail.
Nearby Facilities
The area surrounding the Junipero Serra
Trail alignment includes schools, residential
neighborhoods, commercial, retail, hotels and
major employment centers. The addition of a
trail would provide an off-street link between
these various uses. Below is a list of adjacent
facilities along with their travel distance from
the trail:
Schools
• Garden Gate Elementary School – 0.5 miles
• Homestead High School – 0.4 miles
• Lawson Middle School – 0.4 miles
Commercial/Retail/Hotels
• Vallco – direct connection to trail
• Hyatt House – direct connection to trail
• Courtyard by Marriot –0.5 miles
• Hilton Garden Inn – 0.5 miles
• Heart of the City Specific Plan Area – direct
connection to trail
Employment
• Apple – direct connection to the trail at two
locations, within 0.5 mile to other nearby
campuses including Apple Park
• Other various employers
Figure 3-5Bike Lanes on Stelling Road
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Don Burnett Bike-Pedestrian
Bridge Trailhead
Existing Conditions at
Stelling Road
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study12Planning Process
Roadway Crossings
Much of the trail alignment runs through
residential, commercial and retail areas as
described in the Land Use section. The trail
alignment encounters multiple roadways
within the project limits: Mary Avenue,
Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, Lucille
Avenue, Blaney Avenue, Wolfe Road and
Vallco Parkway.
Mary Avenue
Mary Avenue is a two-lane road with a speed
limit of 35 mph. It runs north and south
between Stevens Creek Boulevard and
Meteor Drive, continuing north of Interstate
280 at Homestead Road into the Sunnyvale
city limits. The existing Don Burnett Bike-
Pedestrian Bridge spans over Interstate 280
to connect these two segments of Mary
Avenue with a Class I bike path. The trailhead
at Meteor Drive also serves as the western
extent of the Junipero Serra Trail. The section
of Mary Avenue closest to the trailhead is
surrounded mostly by single family and multi-
family residential as well as a City corporation
yard and storage facility. See Figure 3-6.
Stelling Road
Stelling Road runs north and south between
Homestead Road and Prospect Road. It is
a two-lane collector road with a speed limit
of 30 mph and crosses Interstate 280 with an
overcrossing bridge. Stelling Road intersects
the Junipero Serra Channel and is one of the
major crossings for the Junipero Serra Trail.
This portion of Stelling Road is located within
residential neighborhoods of single-family
residences to the west and apartments to
the east. Stelling Road currently has class II
bike lanes in both directions and there is no
existing crosswalk where the trail would cross
Stelling Road.
The trail’s intersection with Stelling Road will
need careful consideration as an at-grade
crossing would represent a new mid-block
crossing. Sightlines, traffic volumes and speed
are all factors that will need to be considered
in designing for a mid-block crossing at this
location. See Figure 3-7.
Figure 3-8
Figure 3-10
Figure 3-9
Existing De Anza
Boulevard Crossing
Existing Conditions
below Blaney Avenue
Existing Conditions
along Lucille Avenue
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 13Planning Process
De Anza Boulevard
De Anza Boulevard is an arterial with a speed
limit of 35 mph that runs north and south
between Homestead Road and Prospect Road.
De Anza Boulevard intersects the Junipero
Serra Channel and is another major crossing
for the Junipero Serra Trail. The street at this
location has five northbound through lanes
and one right turn lane and four southbound
lanes. There is an existing crosswalk across
De Anza Boulevard just south of the on and
off ramps to southbound Interstate 280 with
a pedestrian refuge island at the landscape
median.
The trail’s intersection with De Anza Boulevard
will require considerable attention as there are
numerous constraints affecting any crossing
alternative under consideration. A bike-
pedestrian bridge is constrained by overhead
utilities, while a tunnel is constrained by
underground utilities. An at-grade crossing
has impacts to traffic operations. Each of
these alternatives are discussed in greater
detail later in this report. See Figure 3-8.
Lucille Avenue
Lucille Avenue is a two-lane road with a speed
limit of 25 mph, running east and west from
approximately Larry Way to North Blaney
Avenue. This section of roadway parallels the
trail corridor and provides opportunities for
trail access and visibility. See Figure 3-9.
Blaney Avenue
Blaney Avenue crosses over Lucille Avenue
and Interstate 280 with a bridge and does not
intersect with the trail alignment. However,
there is a separate section of Blaney Avenue
separate from the overcrossing that connects
to Lucille Avenue at a sharp 90-degree bend
just east of the overcrossing bridge. A trail
access opportunity is possible at this location
as well. See Figure 3-10.
Figure 3-11Underpass at Wolfe Road
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study14Planning Process
Wolfe Road
Wolfe Road runs north and south between
Homestead Road and Stevens Creek
Boulevard, bisecting the Vallco property.
Wolfe Road crosses over Perimeter Road
near the on and off ramps to Interstate 280.
The proposed trail is anticipated to utilize
the existing Perimeter Road undercrossing
beneath Wolfe Road. Additionally, plans
are in development for a new interchange at
Interstate 280 and Wolfe Road. Preliminary
plans make provisions for trail connections
from the sidewalks on Wolfe Road to the
proposed trail. See Figure 3-11.
Vallco Parkway
Vallco Parkway runs east and west between
Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue and has
class II bike lanes in both directions. Vallco
Parkway is a four-lane road with a speed limit
of 30 mph. The trail is planned to terminate at
Vallco Parkway on the west bank of Calabazas
Creek, which presents an opportunity for a
trailhead. However, careful consideration is
needed at this location as the trail does not
end at a signalized intersection.
Site Analysis Plan
The process for developing the feasibility
study included an extensive evaluation of
existing conditions and criteria as previously
described. A Site Analysis Plan was prepared
to synthesize the existing conditions into an
exhibit to analyze opportunities and challenges
at a corridor-wide scale. Preliminary steps
included gathering base data, conducting a
detailed site reconnaissance, and reviewing
easements, utilities, and property ownership.
The City’s geographic information system
(GIS) files were used to develop base mapping
including parcel identification, streets,
sidewalks, tree canopies, structures, utilities,
contours, and other pertinent information.
The consultant team and City staff walked the
full length of the trail to photograph existing
conditions and make observations relevant to
trail development.
A critical component of the site reconnaissance
was to identify available width for a trail.
During the field walk, width measurements
were taken of the existing maintenance
road throughout the corridor. Because a
class I multi-use trail is desired to meet the
goals of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian
policies, a minimum 14’-0” overall trail width
would be preferred. Generally, most of the
maintenance road within the limits of the
project is less than 14’-0” wide. In some
pinch point locations, the maintenance road
narrows to approximately 7’-6” wide. The
section between Wolfe Road and Vallco
Parkway is the only exception and provided
widths in excess of 14’-0”. The variation in
maintenance road width is depicted on the
Site Analysis Plan. See Figures 3-1 and 3-2
for graphics showing the width of the corridor.
Using the base map and site observations,
a Site Analysis Plan was prepared. The plan
identified the existing maintenance road
widths, City limits, utilities, potential trail
access locations, adjacent land uses, schools,
major retail centers, major employers, existing
on-street facilities, among other existing
features. See Figures 3-12 through 3-14.
Additionally, cross sections and Site Analysis
were generated to better understand various
trail configurations. See Figure 4-4, 4-10,
4-28, 4-32, and 4-33.
Planning ProcessJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 15
Available Width, less than 14’-0”
(does not meet class 1 multi-use standards)
City Limits
Available Width, 14’-0” minimum
(meets class 1 multi-use standards)
Trail Connection Point
Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area
Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
Public Building (BA)
Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor
General Commercial (CG)
Office/Planned Office (OA/OP)
Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor
Agricultural Residential (A1)
Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element)
*residential zoning is not shown
Bike Lanes on Street
Existing Connections
Bike Route
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Overhead Utilities
Gateway
Class 1 Bike Path Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP)
0 50 100 200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
(BA)
(CG, ML)
(BA)
(BQ,
Mini-
Stor)
(BA)
(BQ)
HOMESTEAD
HIGH SCHOOL
GARDEN GATE
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Don Burnett
Bike-Pedestrian
Bridge
MARY AVENUESTELLING ROADI-280
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
Figure 3-12Site Analysis - Segment 1
Planning Process Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study16
this page intentionally left blank
Planning ProcessJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 17
(CG, ML, OA)(BQ)
(R2, Mini-Stor)
(A1)
(BQ)
APPLE
LAWSON
MIDDLE
SCHOOL BLANEY AVENUEDE ANZA BOULEVARDI-280
12 13
14 15 16 17 18
19
20
21
22
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
0 50 100 200Available Width, less than 14’-0”
(does not meet class 1 multi-use standards)
City Limits
Available Width, 14’-0” minimum
(meets class 1 multi-use standards)
Trail Connection Point
Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area
Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
Public Building (BA)
Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor
General Commercial (CG)
Office/Planned Office (OA/OP)
Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor
Agricultural Residential (A1)
Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element)
*residential zoning is not shown
Bike Lanes on Street
Existing Connections
Bike Route
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Overhead Utilities
Gateway
Class 1 Bike Path Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP)
Figure 3-13Site Analysis - Segment 2
Planning Process Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study18
this page intentionally left blank
Planning ProcessJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 19
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
HE
HE
(Regional
Shopping)
(Heart of the City
Specific Plan Area)
HE
Enlargement Area - Hyatt House Hotel Bike/
Ped Path Connection
(Hotel)
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014AADROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
OUTDOOR DINING
POOL
EXISTING TREE
SHADE TREE
FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE
UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE
STREET TREE IN GRATE
PUBLIC ART
DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE)
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
TRASH/RECYCLING BIN
STORMWATER PLANTING
ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP
SCREENED TRANSFORMER
LEGEND
NORTH
SCALE:1” = 20’-0”
L-1
12
12
13 13
8
1
3
4
6
7
2
2
2
7
7 10
11
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
16
15
14
13
8
0’5’20’10’10’
proposed class IV separated bike
lane as part of I-280/Wolfe Road
interchange improvements
Green-backed bike
lanes along N Tantau
Ave. and Vallco Pkwy.
See enlargement area
connection to
proposed trail
hotel bicycle/
pedestrian path
CALABAZAS CREEKN
TANTAU
AVENUE
VALL
C
O
P
A
R
K
W
A
YN WO
L
F
E
ROAD
I-280
Vallco marquee sign
P(MP)
APPLE
33
32
31
30292827
2625
24
23
0 50 100 200
Available Width, less than 14’-0”
(does not meet class 1 multi-use standards)
City Limits
Available Width, 14’-0” minimum
(meets class 1 multi-use standards)
Trail Connection Point
Existing Conditions Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area
Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
Public Building (BA)
Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor
General Commercial (CG)
Office/Planned Office (OA/OP)
Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor
Agricultural Residential (A1)
Regional Shopping / Hotel HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element)
*residential zoning is not shown
Bike Lanes on Street
Existing Connections
Bike Route
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Overhead Utilities
Gateway
Class 1 Bike Path Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP)
Figure 3-14Site Analysis -Segment 3
Planning Process Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study20
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 21Planning Process
Below is a summary of the opportunities and constraints identified during site analysis.
Opportunities
1. Suitable overall width of corridor
for trail
2. Connections to existing on-street
facilities at Mary Avenue, Stelling
Road, De Anza Boulevard, Blaney
Avenue, North Portal Avenue,
Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway
3. Corridor owned by single agency
Constraints
1. Utilities below grade and overhead
throughout corridor
2. PG&E easement restrictions with
regard to placement of structures
at De Anza Boulevard
3. Narrow maintenance road in much
of the corridor
4. Difficult grade separated crossings
at Stelling Road and De Anza
Boulevard
Vallco Parkway Potential Trailhead Figure 3-15
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study22Planning Process
Stakeholder and Agency
Coordination
Stakeholders
With any project, there are numerous agencies,
utility companies and property owners
directly or indirectly affected by the proposed
improvements. This is especially true with
trail projects, due to their linear nature. Trails
interface with more stakeholders than just
about any other project type. The Junipero
Serra Trail is similar in that regard.
Below is a list of adjacent stakeholders along
with preliminary opportunities and challenges
for each. Specific design considerations
pertaining to each stakeholder are discussed
further in Chapter 4. Stakeholders are listed
in alphabetical order.
Apple
To date, the City has had informal conversations
with Apple regarding the trail project. Apple
has expressed interest in the project as the trail
would provide an off-street trail connection
between their various campuses in Cupertino.
Should the trail project advance into the
design phase, further coordination will be
needed to better understand Apple’s needs
and to ensure the community’s concerns
about Apple’s impacts on the trail are met.
Primary topics to be coordinated further with
Apple include:
Trail Access
The proposed trail alignment passes directly
adjacent to Apple’s Infinite Loop and Vallco
Parkway campuses. Employees using the trail
would have quick access to restaurants, retail
and other Apple campuses.
Security and access control would need to be
addressed in the design. Fencing at the Apple
campuses may need to be upgraded in terms
of height and durability for security needs.
Property Impacts
De Anza Boulevard Tunnel Option
The proposed stairs shown in the tunnel
option under De Anza Boulevard encroach
into Apple’s property. If this option is
selected, an easement or property acquisition
would be required. The bridge option would
not require an encroachment into Apple’s
property. Further discussion about the tunnel
and bridge options follow in Chapter 4.
Vallco Parkway Trail Head
The proposed trail terminates near Calabazas
Creek at Vallco Parkway between two
signalized intersections. The most ideal
trailhead in this area would be at the northeast
corner of the Vallco Parkway and Main Street
Driveway signalized intersection. To better
facilitate bicycle and pedestrian movement
at this corner, an easement within Apple
property may be necessary. See Figure 3-15.
CalWater Facility Fence Figure 3-16
Figure 3-17De Anza Boulevard On-Ramp
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 23Planning Process
CalWater
CalWater has underground facilities in and
around the proposed trail alignment which
need to be considered in the trail design
process. There are several CalWater lines
that cross the trail alignment, including but
not limited to:
• Stelling Road – 6” and 18” water lines
• De Anza Boulevard – 8” water line
• East edge of Apple Infinite Loop – 8”
water line
• Blaney Avenue – 6” water line
• Western extent of Vallco – 12” line
• Interstate 280 off-ramp at Wolfe Road
– 12” water line
One of CalWater’s facilities is an underground
water tank and service yard at the north end
of North Portal Avenue. This facility serves
a large portion of Cupertino’s water needs.
The CalWater service yard also provides an
opportunity for an additional trail access point.
Trail users would access the trail from North
Portal Avenue, following CalWater’s driveway
and the southern portion of the service yard
for a direct connection to the trail. CalWater
would need to grant a trail easement to the
City of Cupertino for the trail connection on
their property, and access control security
would need to be addressed. Public trail
access through their North Portal Avenue
facility’s driveway was preliminarily discussed
with CalWater and would require further
coordination with them. A draft concept
was prepared to illustrate how access to the
trail could be addressed, while maintaining
security and access control. This is further
discussed in Chapter 4. See Figure 3-16.
Caltrans
The proposed trail runs along the south side of
Interstate 280. While much of the trail would
remain outside of Caltrans right-of-way, there
are two locations where the trail is proposed
to encroach:
• Stelling Road: Due to constraints with an
at-grade crossing, a grade-separated
undercrossing is proposed within the
embankment along Interstate 280.
• De Anza Boulevard: A bike-pedestrian
bridge over De Anza Boulevard may
require encroachment into Caltrans
right-of-way.
Preliminary concepts have been shared with
Caltrans depicting these improvements
and are further discussed in Chapter 4.
Additionally, Caltrans has reserved ingress-
egress rights through SCVWD’s corridor and
will need to review the plan development
process to confirm their access needs are
met. See Figure 3-17.
Loc -N-Stor Fence on Right
Hyatt Hotel House Under Construction
Lock It Up Self Storage Fence
Figure 3-18
Figure 3-19
Figure 3-20
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study24Planning Process
City of Sunnyvale
At two locations, the proposed trail passes
through the City of Sunnyvale’s City limits:
1. Between Mary Avenue and Stelling
Road behind single family residential
homes, encompassing approximately
330 feet of the trail
2. Directly north of North Portal Avenue
and in an undeveloped, triangular
shaped parcel, encompassing
approximately 360 feet of the trail.
Any trail development, within the locations
above, would need to be coordinated with
the City of Sunnyvale, especially as it pertains
to trail maintenance, plan approvals, and cost
sharing if applicable.
Cupertino Loc-N-Stor
Cupertino Loc-N-Stor is a storage facility
located at 10655 Mary Avenue, at the
western extent of the proposed trail, near
the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge.
Two trail access alternatives have been
prepared showing how trail users would get
from Mary Avenue to the proposed trail.
One alternative shows the path immediately
adjacent to Cupertino Loc-N-Stor’s facility.
Additional coordination during the design
phase will be required to address concerns
related to security and privacy along this
edge. Cupertino Loc-N-Stor is currently
considering upgrades to their facility and any
improvements made should not preclude trail
development. See Figure 3-18.
Hyatt House Hotel
Currently under construction, the Hyatt House
Hotel located on Perimeter Road just east of
Wolfe Road and near Vallco Mall, is scheduled
to be finished by early 2019. In anticipation of
the Junipero Serra Trail being constructed in
the future, the hotel project is constructing a
10’ wide trail on the west side of the property
that connects to the sidewalk undercrossing
on Perimeter Road and the SCVWD property
to the north. See Figure 3-19.
Lock It Up Self Storage
The Lock It Up Self Storage facility is located
at 10730 North Blaney, along the proposed
trail immediately east of North Blaney Avenue.
The back wall of the storage units faces the
proposed trail. Security, access control and
vandalism will need to be considered in
concert with the property owner during the
design phase. See Figure 3-20.
PG&E Tower Figure 3-21
Public Storage Wall and SCVWD Corridor Figure 3-22
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 25Planning Process
PG&E
PG&E has numerous facilities throughout
the project. Most notably, high voltage
overhead transmission lines and lower voltage
distribution lines run adjacent to or directly
above the proposed trail from the western
extent at Mary Avenue to just east of Blaney
Avenue, where the overhead lines traverse to
the north side of Interstate 280. See Figure
3-21.
PG&E easements are located within and
immediately adjacent to the corridor. At De
Anza Boulevard, the PG&E easement is within
SCVWD property where a potential bridge
or tunnel crossing may be located. PG&E’s
easement language prohibits structures within
the easement, taller than 15’-0”. Additionally,
CPUC General Order 95 mandates clearances
between structures and wires. For these wires,
12’-0” vertical and 6’-0” horizontal clearance
is required.
Detailed plan enlargements were prepared
for Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard to
show how trail improvements avoid or impact
PG&E facilities. At Stelling Road, overhead
and underground PG&E facilities cross the
proposed trail. Overhead lines run north and
south along Stelling Road as well as east and
west along the trail alignment. Underground
gas lines are also present in Stelling Road.
The PG&E easement on both sides of De Anza
Boulevard was mapped to better understand
the location and width of the easement. With
this supplemental mapping, it was determined
the various crossings under consideration are
feasible. See chapter 4 for further discussion.
There are also underground utilities (electrical
and gas) that would impact in the tunnel
option under De Anza Boulevard. On-going
coordination will be required with PG&E to
determine the best overall means of achieving
street crossings near their facilities.
Public Storage
Public Storage is located at, 20565 Valley Green
Drive, west of De Anza Boulevard. The back
wall of the storage units faces the proposed
trail. Security, access control and vandalism
will need to be considered with the property
owner during the design phase. Public
Storage is currently considering upgrades
to their facility and any improvements made
would not preclude trail development. See
Figure 3-22.
Fence Straddling SCVWD Corridor
and Residences
Figure 3-23
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study26Planning Process
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
The proposed trail alignment alternatives
lie almost entirely within SCVWD right-
of-way. Currently, SCVWD manages and
maintains the Junipero Serra Channel in the
corridor. Occasional maintenance activities
are required to clear the channel of debris
and provide general upkeep of the facilities.
SCVWD is most concerned with maintaining
sufficient access after trail development
occurs. Concept plans have been shared with
the SCVWD for review and comment.
Alternative #1 proposes constructing a trail
over the existing maintenance road with a
guard rail placed between the maintenance
road and the open channel. In reviewing trail
alternatives, SCVWD indicated that guardrails
at the edge of the open channel would not
be acceptable. Reasons for opposing a
guardrail include narrowing of the existing
maintenance road and limited channel access
for maintenance operations. Due to the
SCVWD’s position on guardrails, alternative
#1 is not feasible as currently envisioned in
this study.
The steep drop-off adjacent to the trail
edge is recommended to be mitigated with
a guardrail. For this reason, guard rails are
still shown in all alternative #1 graphics. If
alternative #1 is selected for further study,
an alternative edge treatment will need to
be vetted with the SCVWD. A potential
solution may include constructing a wider
maintenance road with removable
guardrail. There would be additional
capital costs, design effort and time
associated with mitigating these concerns.
Alternative #2 involves converting the Junipero
Serra Channel into an underground
box culvert. SCVWD staff has preliminarily
agreed to alternative #2 on the condition
that the City of Cupertino assume full
ownership and maintenance of the
Junipero Serra Channel as part of the City’s
storm drain system prior to any
modifications being implemented. The
transfer of the District’s right of way and
Junipero Serra Channel to the City is subject
to prior approval by the District’s Board of
Directors. Additionally, regulatory approval
may be required by the US Army Corps of
Engineers, California State Department of
Fish and Wildlife, and the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA)
VTA has an interest in many modes of
transportation including trail development
as planned from a regional perspective. This
project is consistent with their goals and
policies for Cross County Bicycle Corridors
(CCBC) and is shown on their 2018 Countywide
Bicycle Plan. VTA is also managing the
Interstate 280 and Wolfe Road Interchange
project. Preliminary alternatives have been
prepared for the interchange project, each
of which depict connections from sidewalk
facilities to the future Junipero Serra Trail.
Single-Family Residential
A large portion of the proposed trail is abutted
by single-family residences. Through multiple
community meetings and events, a number
of comments and concerns have been raised
by this critical stakeholder group. The most
common concerns revolved around safety and
security of having a trail directly behind their
homes. A number of measures have been
suggested to help mitigate these concerns
and are described in more depth in Chapter
4. Detailed community input can be found in
Chapter 3 and the Appendix. See Figure 3-23.
Vallco Mall Sign Figure 3-24
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 27Planning Process
Vallco Special Area (Shopping Mall)
The Vallco Special Area consists of
approximately 70 acres under the ownership
of three different entities: Vallco Property
Owner LLC, Simeon Properties, and KCR
Properties. It is bisected by North Wolfe
Road and bounded by Stevens Creek Blvd
to the south, Main Street Cupertino and
commercial/office developments to the east,
Interstate 280 to the north, and the North
Blaney neighborhood to the west.
On September 19, 2018, the Cupertino City
Council adopted the Vallco Town Center
Specific Plan (Plan), which specifies the
requirements for land uses, design standards
and guidelines for any development within
the Vallco Special Area. The Plan aims to
transform the existing Vallco Shopping
Mall site into a walkable, mixed-use district
anchored by retail, entertainment and cultural
uses, and supported by new neighborhoods,
employment areas and public open spaces.
City Council approved the Tier 2 development
program identified in the Plan, and community
benefits identified within the development
agreement. The Tier 2 program includes up
to 2,923 residential units, up to 1.75 million
square feet of office and office amenity spaces,
and up to 485,000 square feet of commercial/
retail and civic/cultural spaces. The community
benefits include a new City Hall, a Performing
Arts Center, affordable housing to moderate
income households, and financial and in-kind
contributions toward local transportation
improvements and public schools. The Plan
acknowledges the proposed Junipero Serra
Trail, identifying potential future connections
to the trail as part of the development.
The Plan is one of two development options,
the other being a development pursuant to
Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), a new state law targeted
to streamlining city approvals for housing
developments in cities that do not currently
meet state guidelines for affordable housing.
City staff approved the SB 35 development
on September 21, 2018, which includes up
to 2,402 residential units, up to 1.81 million
square feet of office space, and up to 400,000
square feet of retail space. Fifty percent of the
residential units would be affordable housing
in compliance with SB 35.
With either development, the City would
incorporate a 20-foot wide trail easement
along the northwest quadrant of the Vallco
Special Area, following the alignment of
the Interstate 280 off-ramp, as part of the
entitlement process.
Villages at Cupertino
The Villages at Cupertino is a large apartment,
townhome and cottage residential complex
located between Stelling Road to the west and
Beardon Drive to the east, centered around
Valley Green Drive. The proposed trail abuts
perimeter parking for most of the Villages
development. Additional coordination during
the design phase will be required to address
concerns related to security and privacy along
this edge.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study28Planning Process
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
A critical part of determining project feasibility
was to identify and engage key stakeholders
and agencies early in the process. This
assembled group was called the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC consists
of utility companies, affected municipalities,
and other agencies critical in decision-making.
The TAC convened on multiple occasions to
vet materials being prepared for community
outreach meetings and provide overall input.
The TAC included members from the following
agencies:
• Access control review may be needed
if the trail alignment moves onto
the north side of the sound wall at
Blaney Avenue. The review process is
dependent on the size of the project.
• Caltrans approval may be required for
any changes to the District’s fee title
right-of-way for the Junipero Serra
Channel where Caltrans has reserved
ingress egress easement.
CalWater
• Support a wider trail for maintenance
purposes. Main concerns are related to
security around their facilities.
• There is a water main along Stelling
Road across I-280 through the bridge.
• There is a water main along De Anza
Boulevard, which may conflict with the
tunnel option.
• Open to providing access through
their service yard site at North Portal
Avenue for a trail access point.
City of Sunnyvale
• No comments
PG&E – Pacific Gas and Electric
• The tunnel option running East to West
through De Anza Boulevard would
impact gas lines and other utilities
currently below De Anza Boulevard.
Relocating these utilities for the tunnel
option will be costly.
• The bridge option must meet required
clearances from the existing overhead
transmission lines.
• PG&E expressed concern for relocating
one of the tubular steel pole (TSP)
towers in either the tunnel or bridge
option. Relocation would be very
disruptive and expensive.
• There may be no structures taller
than 15’-0” located within the PG&E
easement.
• City of Cupertino
• City of Sunnyvale
• CalWater
• Caltrans
• PG&E – Pacific Gas and Electric
• SCVWD – Santa Clara Valley Water
District
• VTA – Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority
In addition to hosting two TAC meetings with
all TAC members, individual meetings with
some agencies were held to gather more in-
depth technical input and discuss initial design
alternative options for the study area on an as-
needed basis. Input from TAC members was
used to directly inform preliminary concepts.
Below is a brief summary of the primary
comments from each commenting TAC
member:
Caltrans
• The Lucille Avenue trail segment under
the Blaney Avenue overpass is within
Caltrans right-of-way, but Caltrans has
a maintenance agreement with the
City.
• An encroachment permit would be
needed for any trail development on
Caltrans right-of-way. Encroachment
may occur at De Anza Boulevard
depending on which alternative is
pursued.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 29Planning Process
SCVWD - Santa Clara Valley Water District
• Open to covering the channel
to accommodate trail, however
maintenance would become City’s
responsibility. SCVWD would quit
claim and transfer right-of-way to the
city in the event the channel is covered.
• Will not approve any physical barriers
between the maintenance road and
Junipero Serra Channel. Barriers
impede maintenance operations.
Also, concerned that a guardrail would
effectively narrow maintenance access
road.
• Primary need for access is vegetation
control.
• Maintenance vehicles require a
minimum of 15’-0” vertical clearance.
VTA – Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority
• Develop a trail consistent with the
updated Countywide Bicycle Plan.
• Concern about lack of access points.
Adding one at CalWater’s North Portal
Avenue facility would help.
• Project could be eligible for 2016
Measure B, Safe Routes to School, and
ATP funding.
• Concern about removal of crosswalk
at De Anza Boulevard. People will still
cross instead of using circuitous route
to the ramp and over the bridge.
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC)
On December 19th, 2018; the feasibility study
was presented to the City of Cupertino Bicycle
and Pedestrian Commission. Members of the
commission discussed the study and voted
4 to 1 in favor of recommending alternative
#1. The sub-alternatives recommended as
part of the motion included the West Option
at Mary Avenue, both the undercrossing
and at-grade crossing at Stelling Road and
the at-grade crossing at De Anza Boulevard.
The commission appreciated the benefits of
alternative #2, but were concerned about
the high implementation costs, especially
with other trail projects planned elsewhere
in the City. Many commission members also
observed that building the at-grade option
at De Anza Boulevard would not preclude
a bicycle-pedestrian bridge in the future. A
couple commission members suggested that
covering the channel should be considered
at pinch points, in order to make alternative
#1 more user-friendly. See page 148 for
the 12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes in the
appendix.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study30Planning Process
Trail Criteria and Standards
There are numerous trail design standards
and guidelines, sometimes in direct conflict
with one another. The following references
were reviewed to develop a design basis for
the Junipero Serra Trail project.
ADA, GDHS, and CHDM provide mandatory
standards for trail design.
GSLU, NACTO, SJTN, UITD, and WRPM
are references providing guidelines and
recommendations.
Reference
Code
Reference Title
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
Standards for Accessible Design
CHDM Caltrans Highway Design
Manual, Chapter 1000
GDHS American Association of State
Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO): A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets
GSLU Guidelines and Standards for
Land Use Near Streams: A
Manual of Tools, Standards, and
Procedures to Protect Streams
and Streamside Resources in
Santa Clara County
NACTO National Association of
City Transportation Officials
(NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design
Guide
SJTN City of San Jose Trail Network
Tool Kit Planning & Design,
Chapter 4
UITD Santa Clara County Uniform
Interjurisdictional Trail Design,
Use, and Management
Guidelines
WRPM Water Resources Protection
Manual
Trail Structures
Trail structures, such as bridges or tunnels,
may be necessary for trail continuity or to
create safer trail connections.
Intersections with Highways
• Where motor vehicle cross traffic and
bicycle use are heavy, grade separated
crossings are desirable to eliminate
intersection conflicts. Where grade
separations are not feasible, assignment
of right of way by traffic signals shall be
considered. Where traffic is not heavy,
“STOP” or “YIELD” signs for either the
path or the cross street (depending on
volumes) may suffice – CHDM – 1003.1
(5)
Trail Bridges
• Bridges should be a minimum 12’ wide
and structurally capable of carrying
maintenance vehicles. Fill over culverts,
at a minimum, should equal the trail
and shoulder widths combined – UITD
– 4.1.2
Trail Under-crossings
• Clearance of 14’ is desirable to allow
for maintenance access – SJTN – p.61
Retaining Walls
• Retaining walls parallel to trails are
usually discouraged. Where necessary,
they should be signed as a hazard –
UITD – 4.1.4
Access Controls and Safety Barriers
• Where necessary, to prevent motor
vehicles from entering the trail, bollards
and/or metal gates shall be used at any
trail crossing of a public road right-of-
way – UITD – 4.2.1
Fencing
• Chain-link is only appropriate
for temporary installation during
construction - SJTN – p. 63
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 31Planning Process
Trail Relationship to Properties
The trail’s proximity to neighbors – single family
residential, businesses, apartments, utility
facilities – should be taken into consideration.
Areas Where Trail Routes are Adjacent to
Private Property
• Visible fencing should be used, if
requested by the adjacent property
owner to deter users from leaving
the trail. Type of fencing should be
determined in consultation with the
property owner(s). Security fencing or
walls should be no closer to the trail
than 3’-6” and no lower than 4’-8” –
UITD – 1.1.4
Trail Safety
Consideration of trail user safety and security
is a key consideration, especially where there
are limited access points and opportunity for
visual surveillance.
Trail Alignments and Intersections with
Motorized Vehicles
• Trail Alignments should be selected
that minimize intersections with
motorized vehicles. Where feasible,
trail grades should be separated from
roadway grades at crossings. Where
separated crossings are not possible,
at-grade crossings must be designed
to equally consider vehicular and trail
user safety – UITD – 1.1.5
At-Grade Trail Crossings
• At-grade trail crossings should be
developed with appropriate safety and
regulatory signs for both trail users and
motorists where either: a trail route
crosses the street; or where a trail
terminates at a street designated as an
on-street bicycle route – UITD – 1.1.6.2
Grading and Drainage
Good grading and drainage need to be
designed into the trail to ensure ease of using
the trail and to ensure water drains properly
throughout the trail site.
Grades
• Cross slope grades should be limited
to 2% – HDM – 1003.1 (14)
• Grades are to be held to a minimum.
Longitudinal grades of 5% or less are
desirable and are to not exceed 8.33%
– UITD – 2.3
Drainage
• The bike path shoulder shall slope
away from the traveled way at 2% to
5% to reduce ponding and minimize
debris from flowing on to the bike path
– CHDM – 1003.1 (16)
• Surface water shall be diverted from
trails by out sloping the trail tread
between 2% and 3% – UITD – 3.5.5
Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, and Driveways
• Drainage inlet grates, manhole covers,
etc., should be located out of the travel
path of bicyclists whenever possible.
When such items are in an area that
may be used for bicycle travel, they
shall be designed and installed in a
manner that meets bicycle surface
requirements. See Standard Plans –
CHDM – 1003.5 (2)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study32Planning Process
Trail Design Practices
Trail design and construction practices set
standards to create safe trails.
Clearance to Obstructions
• A minimum 2’ horizontal clearance
from the paved edge of a bike path
to obstructions shall be provided.
The clear width of a bicycle path on
structures between railings shall not
be less than 10’. There should be a
minimum vertical clearance of 8’ across
the width of the trail and 7’ over the
shoulders – CHDM – 1003.1 (3)
Sight Distance
• The trail design should provide an
optimum 100’ average sight distance
where possible., If sight distances on
curves, around hills or through densely
vegetate areas are less than 100 feet,
safety signs and reduced speed limits
should be considered – UITD –2.5
Pavement Structure
• It is important to construct and maintain
a smooth, well drained, all-weather
riding surface with skid resistant
qualities, free of vegetation growth.
Principal loads will normally be from
maintenance and emergency crews –
CHDM – 1003.1 (15)
Widths and Cross Slopes
Trail Width for a Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
See Figure 3-25.
• Shared-use trails should be designed as
paved two-way paths and should have
an optimum width of 12’ with a center
stripe and a minimal 2’, flush graded
shoulders or clear – UITD – 2.2.1
• The minimum paved width of travel way
for a Class I, two-way bike path shall be
8’, 10’ preferred – CHDM – 1003.1 (1a)
Trail Width
• Trail tread width should be determined
by amount and intensity of trail use
and field conditions. Where treads
are narrower than 8’, they should be
signed and wider turn-out passing
areas, should be provided at regular
intervals. In most cases these trails
should not be narrower than 6’ in order
to allow two wheelchairs to pass easily
– UITD – 2.2.1
Shoulder
• A minimum of a 2’ wide shoulder,
composed of the same pavement
materials as the bike path or all-
weather surface material that is free of
vegetation, shall be provided adjacent
to the traveled way of the bike path
when not on a structure. A shoulder
width of 3’ should be provided where
feasible. A wider shoulder can reduce
bicycle conflicts with pedestrians.
Where the paved bike path width is
wider than the minimum required, the
unpaved shoulder area may be reduced
proportionately – CHDM – 1003.1 (1b)
Private Access to Public Trails
• Private gates onto public trails are
typically not allowed where they
present a public safety concern due to
operation and maintenance needs –
SJTN – p. 40
Based on the above trail design criteria, a
class I multi-use trail is defined for this project
as having a minimum 10’ wide paved trail with
2’ shoulders on either side, for a total width
of 14’-0”. Alternative #1 does not meet the
minimum standard for a class I multi-use trail
between Mary Avenue and the Hyatt House
hotel site. For this reason, sections of trail
not providing 14’-0” width are described as
a Pedestrian Trail. Alternative #2 provides a
minimum of 14’-0” width throughout and is
designated as a class I multi-use trail.
CalTrans Two-Way Class 1 Bikeway Figure 3-25
ES = Edge of Shoulder
ETW = Edge of Traveled Way
HP = Hinge Point
* 1% cross-slope minimum
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 33Planning Process
Trail Next to a Stream
Local policies dictate trail development
along streams. For the Junipero Serra Trail,
the portion along Calabazas Creek will be
affected.
• Trail alignment will be limited to one
side of the stream to minimize impacts
to impact to habit – WRPM – 3.52
• Goal is to remove the minimum of
vegetation as necessary – WRPM – 3.51
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study34Planning Process
Community Outreach
Community meetings and events were the
primary means of obtaining input from the
public on the project. Input was gathered
throughout the design process using a
variety of methods. Public input was critical
in identifying and evaluating impacts and
developing the preferred alternative. To
help guide the process, a public outreach
plan was prepared and reviewed by City staff
and included a total of three (3) community
meetings and two(2) community events
between September 2017 and June 2018.
Additionally, a series of Bike and Pedestrian
Commission meetings and Council meetings
were utilized to gather more community input
and feedback from advisory and decision-
making bodies.
The community meetings were designed as
“open house” style events held within a two-
hour window of time on weekday evenings.
This allowed participants to arrive at a time
that worked best for them. The rooms were
set up with stations where participants could
navigate project background information,
and review segment specific details. Other
opportunities for input included written
surveys. Meeting locations alternated
between the Quinlan Community Center
and Community Hall to allow a broader cross
section of the community to attend.
In addition to community meetings, the
project team attended two community events
including the Diwali Festival at the Quinlan
Community Center on September 30, 2017
and the Earth Day Festival on April 21, 2018.
Booths were utilized to disseminate project
information and meeting dates, and to allow
the community to review and comment on
plans.
Outreach Methods
Below is a list of methods used to notify the
community:
• City Website
• City Channel
• Social Media – Next Door, Facebook,
Twitter
• Tabling/Flyer Distribution at the Fall
Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family
Bike Fest, and Earth Day
• Flyer postings at the Library and City
Hall
• Door hangers and flyers to residents
and businesses directly adjacent to the
proposed trail
• Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly
newsletter
• Postcard mailings to residents and
businesses within 300 feet of the
proposed trail
• Email notification to subscribers of the
“Bicycle Transportation Plan” e-mail
list
• E-mail notification to the Cupertino
Block Leaders in the nearby surrounding
neighborhoods
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 35Planning Process
Community Outreach Events
Diwali Festival
Date: September 30, 2017
Time: 11:00am to 4:00pm
Location: Memorial Park, Cupertino, CA
A booth was set up at the Cupertino Chamber
of Commerce’s annual Diwali Festival
to announce the project and upcoming
outreach process. The goal was to inform
the community about the project and how
the project ties into the City of Cupertino’s
overarching goal to create a loop trail around
the city for pedestrians and cyclists.
Community Meeting #1
Date: December 6, 2017
Time: 6:00pm to 8:00pm
Location: Quinlan Community Center,
Cupertino Room
Number of people who signed in: 29
Number of input packets received: 13
The goal of community meeting #1 was to
introduce the project goals and objectives,
related planning efforts, review opportunities
and constraints, and to obtain initial thoughts
and concerns from the public. Participants
were asked to complete an input packet.
Key Comments/Concerns
from Meeting:
Safety from Vehicles
o Prefer grade-separated crossing at
Stelling Road
o Prefer grade-separated crossing at
De Anza Boulevard
Safety along trail
o Requests for lighting, emergency
phones, access control fencing
behind residences
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study36Planning Process
Community Meeting #2
Community Meeting #2 was held on two
separate dates at two different locations to
provide an opportunity for the community to
attend at least one of the meetings and provide
input. The same material was presented at
both meetings.
This meeting followed the same format as
community meeting #1, with the addition
of a recap of all of the project activities that
had transpired since the first meeting. Trail
alternative alignments, trail sections and
enlargement plans were presented to the
public by segment. Participants had the
opportunity to evaluate the material presented
and provide feedback.
Number of people who signed in between
meetings 2A and 2B: 37
Number of input packets received between
meetings 2B and 2B: 37*
*5 packets were submitted by a neighbor for
others who could not attend either meeting
Community Meeting #2A
Date: February 20, 2018
Time: 6:00pm to 8:00pm
Location: Quinlan Community Center,
Cupertino Room
Community Meeting #2B
Date: February 26, 2018
Time: 6:00pm to 8:00pm
Location: Community Hall, Cupertino Civic
Center
Key Comments/Concerns between
Meetings 2A and 2B:
Majority of attendees:
o Live in Cupertino
o Are supportive of the trail
o Would bike on the trail
o Did not attend community meeting
#1
55% of attendees preferred Alternative
#2, 16% preferred Alternative #1 and
29% preferred neither alternative
o Trail width was a major factor
for attendees on deciding which
alternative they prefer
58% of attendees live next to the trail
56% of attendees prefer both a grade-
separated crossing under Stelling Road
and a spur trail access with a crosswalk
across Stelling Road
When asked which crossing they prefer
at De Anza Boulevard, the Bridge
Over-Crossing (43%) and Tunnel Under-
Crossing (50%) were closely preferred
Safety, Security, and Privacy were some
of the main concerns amongst attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 37Planning Process
Earth & Arbor Day Festival
Date: April 21, 2018
Time: 11:00am to 3:00pm
Location: Civic Center Plaza, Cupertino, CA
A booth was set up at the City of Cupertino’s
annual Earth & Arbor Day Festival. Materials
presented were similar to what was presented
at Community Meeting #2. Instead of an input
packet, an interactive board was displayed
where community members could vote by
placing stickers on the board.
Community Meeting #3
Date: June 6, 2018
Time: 6:00pm to 8:00pm
Location: Community Hall, Cupertino Civic
Center
Number of people who signed in: 19
Number of input packets received: 13
This meeting followed the format of
community meeting #1 and #2, with the
addition of a recap of all project activities
that transpired since the first meeting.
Visual simulations were provided to assist in
understanding the undercrossing at Stelling
Road and the pedestrian bridge and tunnel
options at De Anza Boulevard. Additionally,
there was more information pertaining to
fencing improvements.
Sergeant Brown from the Santa Clara County
Sherriff’s office was present to address
concerns about safety and security along the
trail.
Key Comments/Concerns
from Meeting:
Majority of attendees:
o Had not attended previous
meetings
o Supported the location of the trail
o Would primarily walk on the trail
o Live in the City of Cupertino
Mixed feedback about the De Anza
Boulevard crossing
o Some attendees liked the having
a grade-separated crossing option
o Other attendees were concerned
about safety of a tunnel
Concerns about trail access for Apple
employees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study38Trail Alignments
Trail Alignments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 39Trail Alignments
4
Based on input received from the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) and community,
and evaluation of existing conditions, two trail
alignment alternatives were studied in further
detail. See Figures 4-5 through 4-7 for the
Alternative Alignment Plans. The alternatives
represent different solutions for achieving the
City’s goal of providing the community with an
off-street trail. In addition, opportunities for
trailheads and street crossings were studied
and are discussed at length in this chapter.
Alternatives Evaluation &
Preferred Alternative
The alternatives evaluated include different
options for accessing the trail around the Don
Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge approach
and crossing alternatives at Stelling Road
and De Anza Boulevard. The alignment
alternatives also suggest trail heads at Mary
Avenue, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard,
Blaney Avenue, North Portal Avenue, Wolfe
Road, Lucille Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and
connecting to approved trail plans at Vallco
and Hyatt House.
The community generally expressed a
preference for grade separated crossings
where possible. They also preferred alternative
#2 as it provided a wider trail with more
physical separation from residential fences
and more potential for trail enhancements.
Alternative #2 is also preferred by SCVWD.
Alternative #1 is preferred by the City’s Bike
Pedestrian Commission.
Pedestrian Trail (less than 14’-0” wide)
Alternative #1, next to channel
The primary difference between the alternative
alignments is their relationship to the existing
Junipero Serra Channel in the SCVWD corridor
between the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian
Bridge and Wolfe Road. Alternative #1
utilizes the existing SCVWD maintenance road
adjacent to the channel. This trail alternative
varies in width, between approximately 7’-6”
and 13’-0”. The available width is insufficient
in most areas to accommodate a Class I multi-
use trail, as described in Chapter 3. This limits
the usefulness of this alternative as a two-way
bike facility. Bicycles may still use the trail,
but the trail would be more uncomfortable for
users and could lead to unsafe conditions due
to its sub-standard width.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study40Trail Alignments
Because the trail would be immediately
adjacent to the steep drop-off at the channel,
a barrier railing would be required to prevent
trail users from falling into the channel.
SCVWD expressed they will not approve this
alternative because the barrier railing would
reduce the usable width of the maintenance
road and could impede channel maintenance
activities. See Figure 4-1 for typical alternative
#1 section.
Class I Multi-Use Trail (min. 14’-0” wide)
Alternative #2, covered channel
and on-grade
Alternative #2 converts the open channel into
a concrete box culvert, allowing the trail to
be located directly over the box culvert. This
alternative can accommodate a full Class I
multi-use trail including a 10’ wide paved trail,
with 2’ wide shoulders on each side, for a total
width of 14’. Locating the trail over the box
culvert also allows the trail to shift northward
and be more centered within SCVWD right-
of-way. By shifting the trail, there are more
opportunities for trail enhancement and
screening for the neighboring properties.
Trail enhancements may include planting
areas that address storm water treatment as
well as provide visual screening.
Converting from an open channel to a box
culvert will require storm water connections
to be re-established and tied into the box
culvert. Surface run-off, within SCVWD right-
of-way, previously entering the channel will
also need to be captured and piped into the
box culvert. Access manholes would need to
be provided at approximately 400’ intervals
to allow for box culvert maintenance.
Another consideration related to the
conversion from an open channel to a covered
box culvert is a change in maintenance
responsibility. Maintenance of enclosed
culverts or channels is not SCVWD’s expertise.
If Alternative #2 is pursued by the City, SCVWD
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail,
Min 14’ Wide,
Covered
Figure 4-2
will request that the City accept ownership
and maintenance responsibility prior to
project construction. Based on a preliminary
engineering analysis of the watershed
contributing to the channel, approximate
culvert sizes were determined. From Mary
Avenue to Stelling, the culvert would be
4’x4’. From Stelling to De Anza Boulevard,
the culvert would be 5’x8’. From De Anza
Boulevard to Wolfe Road, the culvert would
be 6’x10’. East of Wolfe Road, the channel
would remain unlined. Periodic flushing of
the box culvert will be required via access
manholes spaced at approximately 400’. See
Figure 4-2 for typical alternative #2 section.
East of Wolfe Road, the existing maintenance
road widens sufficiently to support a class
I multi-use trail. Trail improvements in this
section would leave the unlined channel
as-is and would be described as on-grade
improvements. See Figure 4-3 for typical
standard section.
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail,
Min. 14’ Wide, On-Grade
Figure 4-3
The sections that follow describe the trail
alignments by segment. The alignments are
illustrated and detailed in this chapter through
the use of the following:
• Narrative Description
• Alternative Alignment Maps
• Enlargement Plans
• Sections
• Visual Simulations
Figure 4-1
Pedestrian Trail,
Less than 14’ Wide
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 41Trail Alignments
Pedestrian
Trail
Guardrail, 4’- 6” Tall
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
Public
Storage
PG&E
Transmission
Lines To
Remain
Existing Tree
To Remain
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
Drainage Channel
To Remain+-35’- 0”
PG&E Transmission
Pole To Remain
Chainlink Fence To Remain
+-9’- 0”
2’-0”
Shoulder
Alternative #1
Existing
Public
Storage
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
11’- 6”+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
PG&E
Transmission
Lines
Existing Trees
PG&E
Transmission Poll
Existing Concrete Lined
Drainage Channel
Existing Chainlink
Fence
35- 0”+-
Alternative #2
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
Public
Storage
10’-0” Min.2’-0”2’-0”
Existing Tree
To Remain
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
Planted Stormwater
Treatment Area Decomposed Granite Shoulder
Concrete Box Culvert
Shoulder, Typ.Asphalt
Trail
+-35’- 0”
PG&E Transmission
Pole To Remain
Chainlink Fence
To Remain
PG&E Transmission
Lines To Remain
Access Manhole
at 400’- 0, typ.
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail
Figure 4-4
Public Storage
Sections
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study42Trail Alignments
this page intentionally left blank
Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 43
0 50 100 200
HOMESTEAD
HIGH SCHOOL
GARDEN GATE
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
PUBLIC STORAGE
Mary Avenue Bridge
MARY AVENUESTELLING ROADI-280 See Stelling
Road Intersection
Enlargement
HOMESTEAD ROAD
CASTINE DRIVEGARDENA DRIVE
METEOR
D
RI
V
E
See Mary Avenue Enlargement
(East Option and West Option)
City Limits
Trail Connection Point /
Enlargement Area
Existing ConditionsTrail Types
Bike Lanes on Street
Existing Connections
Bike RouteGateway
Class 1 Bike Path
Alternative #2, covered channel
On-grade
Alternative #1, next to channel
Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide
Pedestrian Trail, less than 14’ wide
Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide
Figure 4-5Alternative Alignment Plan - Segment 1
Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study44
this page intentionally left blank
Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 45WOLFE ROADCity Limits
Trail Connection Point /
Enlargement Area
Existing ConditionsTrail Types
Bike Lanes on Street
Existing Connections
Bike RouteGateway
Class 1 Bike Path
Alternative #2, covered channel
On-grade
Alternative #1, next to channel
Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide
Pedestrian Trail, less than 14’ wide
Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide
0 50 100 200
APPLE LAWSON
MIDDLE
SCHOOL BLANEY AVENUEDE ANZA BOULEVARDI-280
See Blaney Avenue
Intersection EnlargementSee De Anza Boulevard
Intersection Enlargement
(Tunnel Under-Crossing and
Bridge Over-Crossing)
HOMESTEAD ROAD
Potential Trail
Access Point
LUCILLE AVENUE
Figure 4-6Alternative Alignment Plan - Segment 2
Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study46
this page intentionally left blank
Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 47
0 50 100 200
1
2
Area in-flux, especially on the west side of Wolfe Road.
Goal is the get a class 1, multi-use trail into the planning process.
Hyatt House development made provisions for trail.
City Limits
Trail Connection Point /
Enlargement Area
Existing ConditionsTrail Types
Bike Lanes on Street
Existing Connections
Bike RouteGateway
Class 1 Bike Path
Alternative #2, covered channel
On-grade
Alternative #1, next to channel
Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide
Pedestrian Trail, less than 14’ wide
Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide
Figure 4-7Alternative Alignment Plan - Segment 3
CALABAZAS CREEKCALABAZAS CREEKTANTAU
AVENUE
VALL
C
O
P
A
R
K
W
A
YWOL
FE
ROAD
I-280
Vallco Marquee Sign
APPLE
See Hyatt
House Hotel
Enlargement
Vallco / I-280
Interchange Projects
Class 1 Multi-
Use Trail,
Proposed 20’
Wide Public
Trail Easement
Potential Future
Connection to Vallco
Special Area Specific
Plan, Typ.
1 2
APPLE
Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study48
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 49Trail Alignments
Segment 1 – Mary Avenue to
De Anza Boulevard
The community expressed concern with this
alternative, including privacy and security for
the neighbors, impacts to the trees and the
narrower trail width. This alternative is not
preferred for the trail because significant tree
removal and grading will have to occur. See
Figure 4-8 for an enlargement of the East
Option.
West Option Near Mary Avenue
The West Option runs along the west side
of the bridge approach, adjacent to the Loc-
N-Stor facility. This alternative stays entirely
within the existing slope easement on Loc-
N-Stor’s property. Due to the location of the
slope easement, the trail ties into the bridge
approach path further north. There is more
physical space on this side of the bridge
approach, which allows for a full Class I multi-
use trail.
Additionally, the grades are gentler than the
East Option, thus requiring less retaining
wall length and is anticipated to be shorter in
height (approximately 1’ to 3’ tall). A few trees
would need to be removed, but not as many
as the East option. Loc-N-Stor expressed
concern with security having the trail so close
to the fence line, as they have had break-ins in
the past. Loc-N-Stor is proposing to improve
their property and has submitted preliminary
plans for City approval. The City may request
a condition of approval on the redevelopment
of Loc-N-Stor’s property to allow for future
implementation of a trail. Continued
coordination will be required between the
City and Loc-N-Stor along this edge to satisfy
any outstanding concerns of having a trail in
this location.
The community expressed a preference for
this alternative as it locates the trail further
away from residences, allows for a wider trail
and requires far fewer tree removals. See
Figure 4-9 for an enlargement of the West
Option.
Segment 1 runs from Mary Avenue to the west
side of De Anza Boulevard. Starting at the
westernmost trail extent, Segment 1 begins
at the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge
plaza. The bridge approach presents a choice
for how to access the trail within the SCVWD
corridor. The approach slopes upward to
meet the bridge deck elevation over Interstate
280, while access to the proposed Junipero
Serra Trail requires an access path, on either
side of the bridge approach, to slope down
to conform with grades at the SCVWD
maintenance road. Both access path options
are feasible and a more detailed description
of each option is presented below. See Figure
4-10 for a section of the East Option and West
Option for Mary Avenue.
East Option Near Mary Avenue
The East Option runs along the east side
of the bridge approach, directly behind the
residential properties on Nathanson Avenue.
The trail would tie into the existing plaza at
Mary Avenue and run parallel to the residential
wood fences northward to the SCVWD right-
of-way. The trail would be offset from the
fence a minimum of 3’ to provide a privacy
buffer. Due to considerable cross slopes and
limited space available, the trail may need to
be narrower than a full Class I multi-use trail at
this section. For these reasons, the paved trail
width through this section would be reduced
to 10’ wide. Additionally, a retaining wall up
to 8’ in height would be required to obtain
suitable flat area for a 10’ wide trail. The east
side of the bridge approach also contains
numerous mature trees, including large
redwoods requiring removal to accommodate
a trail. Lastly, the trail parallels overhead
utilities and poles that would need to be
avoided in this area.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study50Trail Alignments
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Centerline
Culvert
Tree To Be Removed
Class I Bike Path
Existing Trail to Mary Avenue BridgeInterstate 280Open Channel
Low Split Rail Fence, Typ.
Begin Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’
Wide Over Covered Channel
Guardrail Private
Residence
Fence
10’ wide
Pedestrian Trail
Proposed Tree, Typ.
Storm Water
Management
Proposed Vegetation, Typ.
Minimum 3’
Wide Buffer from
Residential Fence
Existing Loc-N- Stor
Property Fence To Remain
Existing City Property
Fence To Remain, Typ.
Existing Maintenance
Gate To Remain
Retaining Wall, 6’ to 8’ Tall
0 15’30’60’
Figure 4-8
Mary Avenue Enlargement East Option
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 51Trail Alignments
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Centerline
Culvert
Tree To Be Removed
Class I Bike Path
Wood Fence To Remain
Re-aligned
Maintenance Gate
Private
Residence
Fence
Existing Maintenance
Access To Remain
Existing Loc-N- Stor Property
Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’
Wide Over Covered Channel
Guardrail
Retaining Wall,
1’ to 3’ Tall
Proposed Tree, Typ.Existing Trail to Mary Avenue BridgeProposed trail
within existing
slope easement Interstate 2800 15’30’60’
Figure 4-9
Mary Avenue Enlargement West Option
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study52Trail Alignments
Existing
Tree
Existing
Tree To Be
Removed
Existing Public
Service EasementCity of Cupertino
Width Varies
Existing Trail
Residential
Existing
Tree
Existing Tree To
Be Removed
Existing
Chain-link
Fence with
Barbed Wire
Existing
Fence
Mary Avenue Bridge
Existing Pedestrian
Lighting
Cupertino Loc-N-Stor
Existing Slope Easement
Cupertino Loc-N-Stor
Existing Public
Service EasementCity of Cupertino
Width Varies
Looking North
Looking North
Existing Slope Easement
Existing Trail
Residential
Existing
Chainlink
Fence With
Barbed Wire
To Remain
Existing Fence
To Remain
Existing Fence
To Remain
Mary Avenue Bridge
Existing Pedestrian
Lighting To Remain
Retaining Wall
Retaining
Wall
12’-0”2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt
Trail Shoulder, Typ.2’-0”2’-0”
Pedestrian Trail
Asphalt
Trail
Shoulder, Typ.
10’-0”
Narrowed Trail to
Gain Buffer From
Residential
West Option:
Multi-Use Trail Along
Loc-N-Stor Property With Minimal
Grading To Adjacent Hillside
East Option:
Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail
Width To Pull Trail Away From Adjacent
Residential Property. Significant Tree
Removal and Grading Will Be Required.
Existing
Proposed
75’- 0”+-
75’- 0”+-
Figure 4-10Mary Ave Sections
High Visibility Crosswalk Example Figure 4-11
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 53Trail Alignments
Mary Avenue to Stelling Road
After Mary Avenue, the trail turns east within
SCVWD right-of-way towards Stelling Road for
approximately 0.5 miles. This section of trail
is located behind single family residences and
runs parallel with PG&E’s overhead electrical
transmission lines supported by lattice
towers. Many of the homes in this section
are physically separated from SCVWD right-
of-way by a greater distance than elsewhere
on the trail due to the presence of the PG&E
easement next to the SCVWD right-of-way.
Stelling Road
Stelling Road is the first major street crossing
in the trail. The community expressed a
desire for grade-separated street crossings
for trail user convenience and safety reasons.
With that input, a number of options were
evaluated for crossing Stelling Road.
A bike-pedestrian bridge over Stelling Road
was evaluated but quickly proved problematic
due to the large number of overhead electrical
lines impeding any proposed alignment over
the street. The overhead lines on the west
side of Stelling Road are particularly low and
would require relocation or undergrounding
to accommodate a bike-pedestrian bridge.
Additionally, this section of SCVWD’s right-of-
way is very constrained with respect to width.
Accommodating a bike-pedestrian bridge and
a spur trail side by side within a 25’ to 30’ wide
space is challenging. The bike-pedestrian
bridge also introduces privacy concerns
as the bridge approach on the west side of
Stelling Road would give trail users views
into backyards. The east bridge approach
would be adjacent to a parking lot, so privacy
concerns there are not as significant.
A tunnel was also evaluated at this location.
CalWater and PG&E have significant
underground utilities at this location that
would require relocation to accommodate a
tunnel. The width constraint is also a factor as
running a tunnel side by side with a spur trail
would be difficult within the space available.
The drainage culvert under Stelling Road
would also need to fit alongside the tunnel.
The space doesn’t accommodate a tunnel,
spur trail and culvert, side by side. For these
reasons, the tunnel is not a feasible option.
Another option evaluated was an
undercrossing at Stelling Road. The trail
would meander north onto Caltrans right-of-
way, ramp down underneath Stelling Road
at the west approach and ramp up at the
east approach. A nearby example is along
the Stevens Creek Trail at Middlefield Road
and Highway 85. This option minimizes the
utility conflict concerns present with both a
bike-pedestrian bridge and tunnel option. It
also eliminates the space constraint concerns
since the main trail and spur trail utilize both
SCVWD and Caltrans right-of-way. There
would also be reduced privacy concerns as
the trail undercrossing would be below street
level on Caltrans right-of-way and away from
residences. See Figure 4-12 and 4-13.
At street level, a high visibility crosswalk
with flashing beacon signal is recommended
to increase visibility of pedestrians and
cyclists crossing Stelling Road at-grade. Trail
head plazas are proposed for both sides of
Stelling Road as a trail amenity and branding
opportunity for the trail. The community
preferred the undercrossing option to an at-
grade only crossing of Stelling Road. See
Figure 4-14 for an enlargement of the Stelling
Road Intersection Enlargement.
Stelling Road to De Anza Boulevard
The trail continues east after Stelling Road.
This section of Segment 1 is located behind the
Villages at Cupertino residential community,
Public Storage and the multi-family residential
development at 10745 De Anza Boulevard.
See Figure 4-4 for a typical section through
this area. Segment 2 starts just west of De
Anza Boulevard.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study54Trail Alignments
Figure 4-12Grade-Separated Under-Crossing at Stelling Road
Existing Conditions under Stelling Road Figure 4-13
Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 55
0 15’30’60’Stelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide
Over Covered Channel
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’
Wide Over Covered Channel
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk,
with pedestrian
beacon
Open Channel
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 14’ Wide
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Channel (When Covered)
HWY
85
Stevens Cre
e
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
Figure 4-15Under-Crossing Example
Figure 4-14Stelling Road Intersection Enlargement
Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study56
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 57Trail Alignments
Segment 2 – De Anza
Boulevard to Vallco
De Anza Boulevard
Overall, Segment 2 runs from the west side
of De Anza Boulevard to the west side of
Vallco Shopping Mall. The intersection at De
Anza Boulevard is adjacent to multi-family
residential, Apple’s Infinite Loop campus,
and I-280 on and off ramps. Additionally,
the PG&E overhead transmission lines cross
over De Anza Boulevard and the Junipero
Serra Channel is conveyed via culvert under
De Anza Boulevard. There are CalWater and
PG&E facilities (among others) beneath De
Anza Boulevard running north and south. The
community expressed a strong desire for a
grade separated crossing to mitigate conflicts
between trail users and vehicular traffic at
this busy intersection. Three alternatives for
crossing De Anza Boulevard were evaluated
and are discussed further below.
Tunnel Alternative
There are a number of obstacles to avoid with
a tunnel option beneath De Anza Boulevard.
The existing culvert beneath the street will
need to remain in its current alignment, so
any tunnel option will need to remain entirely
on one side of the culvert. Additionally, there
needs to be space for a spur trail and a set of
stairs to access the tunnel from the street.
With constraints on available width, the
proposed tunnel option would require
property acquisition on both sides of De
Anza Boulevard to accommodate stairs. The
tunnel will directly conflict with underground
utilities in De Anza Boulevard. Further utility
coordination would be required if the tunnel
option is pursued. Additionally, the existing
PG&E poles present a challenge for the
footprint of the tunnel. The pole on the west
side of De Anza Boulevard is located on the
south side of the Junipero Serra Channel
and the pole on the east side of De Anza
Boulevard is located on the north side of the
channel. Keeping the tunnel within SCVWD
right-of-way would require the relocation of
one of the poles. The proposed plan shows
the relocation of the west-side pole into
Caltrans right-of-way. This clears enough
room to accommodate the spur trail, the
tunnel approach ramp and the stairs.
The tunnel itself would be at least 10’-0” wide
and 10’-0” tall and equipped with security
lighting and a skylight at the median to allow
natural light. Stairs into the tunnel should
consider bike runnels to allow more direct
trail access for bikes. The wall opposite the
stair entrance may be angled to allow more
visibility and natural light into the tunnel
approach. The stairs and spur trail would all
be accessed at grade from a trail head plaza
on both sides of De Anza Boulevard. See
Figures 4-19 through 4-21 for an enlargement
plan and a visual simulation of this alternative.
Stevens Creek Trail
Figure 4-17Stevens Creek Trail Tunnel Example 2
Figure 4-18Tunnel Finishes
Figure 4-16Stevens Creek Trail Tunnel Example 1
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study58Trail Alignments
Figure 4-19
Figure 4-20
Tunnel Visual
Simulation 1
Tunnel Visual
Simulation 2
Tunnel under
De Anza Boulevard,
looking west
Tunnel approach
under De Anza
Boulevard, looking
West
Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 59
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Channel Centerline
CulvertDe Anza Boulevard0 15’30’60’
Interstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
PG&E Tower To Be
Removed
Tunnel Under-Crossing
With Skylight For Natural
Lighting
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide
Over Covered Channel
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
Tunnel Approach
Ramp
Tunnel Approach
Ramp
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 14’ Wide
East Trail Spur, 10’
Wide
40
MPH
Reocated PG&E Tower
on Caltrans R.O.W.
Existing Property
Fence, Apple
Stairs to Tunnel
Under-Crossing, Typ.
Figure 4-21De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Tunnel Under-Crossing
Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study60
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 61Trail Alignments
Bike-Pedestrian Bridge
Like the tunnel option, there are obstacles
associated with the bike-pedestrian bridge.
Because the bridge is an aerial structure, the
conflicts associated with underground utilities
and the culvert under De Anza Boulevard are
reduced. However, the overhead electrical
lines become problematic. An initial
alternative of the bike-pedestrian bridge
illustrated relocation of the PG&E pole on
the east side of De Anza Boulevard would
be required to keep the bridge away from
overhead wires and remain entirely within
SCVWD right-of-way.
Concern for significant construction costs and
coordination effort related to relocation of a
PG&E pole led to the development of a second
alternative where the PG&E pole would not
have to be relocated. At the same time, a
supplemental survey was commissioned to
determine exact pole locations and vertical
clearance between the roadway and the
lowest wires. The survey indicated that the
lowest wires were approximately 37’ above
the roadway surface on De Anza Boulevard.
37’ does not provide enough clearance for a
bike-pedestrian bridge. The required vertical
clearance over De Anza Boulevard is 17’.
Assuming a concrete structure, the depth
of the bridge deck would be approximately
4’-6”, resulting in a bridge deck elevation
of 21’-6” above De Anza Boulevard. The
barrier fencing on the bridge adds another 8’
minimum, bringing the total structure height
to 29’-6” above De Anza Boulevard. With
the wires being 37’ above the roadway, that
leaves approximately 7’-6” between the top of
bridge structure and the lowest hanging wires.
PG&E requires 12’ vertical clearance from
any of their overhead supply conductors and
supply cables running between 750 to 22,500
Volts. This information further solidified the
requirement to minimize the bridge footprint
from being under the wires.
In the second bridge alternative, the alignment
was shifted north to avoid the PG&E poles
with a minimum of 6’ horizontal clearance
per PG&E requirements. The bridge would
be located within Caltrans right-of-way and
would require modifications to a traffic signal
pole, a street light, a utility box, and a pull-
out along the on-ramp. There would be stairs
leading up to the bridge deck on both sides
of De Anza Boulevard. On the west side, the
stairs would come from an at-grade plaza at
the intersection. On the east side, the stairs
need to be shifted far enough east to keep the
stairs below PG&E’s vertical cable clearance
and 15’ maximum height for structures within
their easement. See Figure 4-24.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study62Trail Alignments
Figure 4-22
Figure 4-23
Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Visual Simulation 1
Bike-Pedestrian Bridge Visual Simulation 2
De Anza Blvd bike-pedestrian bridge overhead view looking south at De Anza Blvd
De Anza Blvd bike-pedestrian bridge on the west plaza looking west at the stairs up to the brige
Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 63
this page intentionally left blank
0 15’30’60’
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Santa Clara Valley
Water District Property
PG&E Easement
De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing Figure 4-24
De Anza BoulevardInterstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Bridge Access
Ramp, 4%
PG&E Tower To
Remain
Stairs to Bridge
Over-Crossing
Bridge Approach
Ramp, 4%
Trailhead Plaza, Typ.
Bridge
Over-Crossing
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Bridge Approach
Ramp, 4%
PG&E Tower
To Remain
40
MPH
Traffic Light to
be Relocated
Utility Box to
be Relocated
Pull Out to
be Removed
Cobra Light
to be
Relocated
Drainage Channel Centerline
Culvert
Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study64
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 65Trail Alignments
At-Grade Crossing
At-grade trail crossing alternatives were also
evaluated for the De Anza Boulevard crossing.
The current signal timing has high potential
for conflicts with two south-bound off-ramp
right hand turn lanes turning at the same time
as the pedestrian “walk” signal phase.
Two different at-grade alternatives were
explored:
Alternative 1 would not include the construction
of any physical improvements, but signal
timing would be modified such that the off-
ramp right-turn and pedestrian crossings
would not be in conflict. It is anticipated
this would result in a degradation of traffic
operations at the intersection.
Alternative 2 would include the construction of
an additional lane on the southbound I-280
off-ramp, resulting in a left-turn lane, shared
left-turn/through lane, and two dedicated
right-turn lanes. This change would allow
separation of the ramp signal phase, making
it possible for the crosswalk phase to operate
concurrently with the eastbound off-ramp left
turn/through movement. Overall delay would
remain relatively consistent with existing
conditions in this scenario. See Figure 4-26.
Alternative 2 is the recommended at-grade
alternative as there would be minimal traffic
impacts, while also increasing trail user
and vehicular safety. The complete design
memorandum for the at-grade crossing can
be found in the Appendix.
De Anza Boulevard to Blaney Avenue
Between De Anza Boulevard and Blaney
Avenue, the trail runs adjacent to Apple’s
Infinite Loop campus and along Lucille
Avenue in a residential neighborhood. Apple
may desire to have an employee access
point in the section of trail adjacent to their
campus. The overhead electrical transmission
lines continue to run through this section with
PG&E’s tubular steel poles (TSPs) located
very close to the proposed trail alignment,
particularly if trail alternative #1 is selected.
Due to width constraints, the locations of these
poles and trail alignment will require further
study during a detailed design phase due to
the narrow width available between the PG&E
pole and the top of channel. See Figure 4-28
for typical sections of this trail section.
Figure 4-25High Visibility Crosswalk Example
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study66Trail Alignments
Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 67
this page intentionally left blankDe Anza BoulevardInterstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
0 15’30’60’
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Existing Caltrans
Fence To Remain
Add 4th Traffic Lane, Redesignate
Lanes - 2 Left Turn and 2 Right Turn
Trail
PG&E Tower To Remain,
Trail Pinch Point
PG&E Tower To
Remain
Trailhead Plaza, Typ.
Existing Utilities and Infrastructure to be Relocated -
Backflow, TS Cabinet, Irrig. Controller, 2-(E) Service Me-
ter, Transformer, TS Pole, Curb Ramp, Signs, Pull Boxes,
Crosswalk
Widen Median Opening to
accomodate crosswalk width 14’ Wide High Visibility Crosswalk
with two 4’ wide Ped Lanes, and
one 6’ wide Bike Lane
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
Trail
Existing Property
Fence, Apple
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Channel
(When Covered)
40
MPH
De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - At-Grade Crossing - Alternative #2 Figure 4-26
Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study68
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 69Trail Alignments
Blaney Avenue
The 0.22-mile section parallel to Lucille
Avenue is the only portion of the trail that’s
not behind homes or businesses. This section
of the trail provides an access opportunity not
often available between major intersections
elsewhere along the trail. Should trail
alternative #2 be pursued, there’s potential for
the trail to be separated from Lucille Avenue
with planting enhancements, a lower fence
to allow improved visibility and aesthetics.
Intermittent decomposed granite paths
connect to the trail from Lucille Avenue.
If trail alternative #1 is selected, the trail will
be narrower in places and located closer to
the street. A trail head with amenities such
as seating, signage and decorative paving
is depicted. Also, improved connections
to the trail are shown such as a crosswalk,
traffic calming bulb-outs and sidewalk
improvements.
Some neighbors expressed concern at the
community meetings about parking and
speeding along Lucille Avenue with the
implementation of a trail. The City may want
to explore a policy, implementing permit
parking for portions of Lucille Avenue, while
allowing for some expected trail use parking.
Bulb-outs may also help alleviate any speeding
along Lucille Avenue. See Figures 4-28 and
4-29.
Pinch Point Below Blaney Avenue
Further east, the trail encounters a challenging
100’ long section starting below the Blaney
Avenue overcrossing to the open Junipero
Serra Channel adjacent to Lock It Up storage.
At the bend of North Blaney Avenue, there
is a 10’ wide pinch point between the sound
wall and metal beam guard rail. A potential
solution for widening the trail here is to shift
the street curb line 2’ inward and relocate
the guard rail accordingly. A guy anchor
would need to be modified to allow vertical
clearance for trail users. See Figure 4-29 for
the location of the 10’ wide pinch point on the
Blaney Avenue Enlargement and Figure 4-27
for an image of the pinch point.
The sound wall, near the pinch point, stops
just east of the Blaney Avenue overcrossing
and becomes chain link fence. Further
consultation with Caltrans may be required
to install additional sound wall to protect trail
users from a vehicle potentially leaving the
freeway and ending up on the trail.
North Portal Avenue Trail Access
Heading east from Blaney Avenue, the trail
goes behind Lock It Up storage and residential
neighborhoods. At the CalWater facility
at North Portal Avenue, there is another
trail access opportunity. In early meetings
with CalWater, they have been amenable
to the idea of providing trail access through
their facility, provided appropriate security
protections are designed.
The CalWater property is currently used to
maintain vital water supply for the City. For
the trail entrance, an access easement should
be obtained to allow trail users to travel
through the property to access the trail at the
east end of the property. To give access to
trail users, the existing fence and gate should
be removed and a new fence and gate should
be installed to still allow CalWater access and
security of their facility. Bollards should be
placed after the new gate, trail signage at the
entrance to the CalWater property, and “NO
PARKING” signs on the asphalt along the
trail entrance should be placed to deter trail
users from parking within the trail entrance
and to prevent CalWater vehicles from being
blocked from accessing their equipment on
their property. See Figure 4-30 for the North
Portal Avenue Trail Access Enlargement.
Figure 4-27Pinch Point between Sound Wall
and Guard Rail
City R.O.W.Caltrans
R.O.W.
I-280
18’- 6”+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
40’- 0”
Existing Tree
Existing Tree
Existing Sound Wall
PG&E Transmission Pole
Lucille Avenue
Existing Chain-link Fence
Existing Concrete Lined
Drainage Channel
PG&E Transmission
Lines
Existing
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study70Trail Alignments
Figure 4-28
Alternative #1
Caltrans
R.O.W.
I-280
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
40’- 0”
Varies,
10’-0” Max.2’-0”2’-0”
Pedestrian or
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt
Trail
Shoulder, Typ.
City
R.O.W.
Existing Tree
To Remain
Sound Wall To Remain
Guardrail, 4’-6” Tall, Only
Where Drop-Off Slope
Exceeds 3:1
Concrete Lined Drainage
Channel To RemainLucille Avenue
Existing Tree To Remain
3:1
Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0” Tall,
With Openings Along Lucille
Avenue For Trail Access
PG&E Transmission
Lines To Remain
PG&E Transmission
Pole To Remain
Alternative #2
Caltrans
R.O.W.
I-280
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
40’- 0”
10’-0”2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt
Trail
Shoulder, Typ.
City R.O.W.
Existing Tree
To Remain
Sound Wall
To Remain
Lucille Avenue
Existing Tree
To Remain
Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0” Tall,
With Openings Along Lucille
Avenue For Trail Access
Concrete
Box Culvert
PG&E Transmission
Lines To Remain
PG&E Transmission
Pole To Remain
Planted Stormwater
Treatment Area
Access manhole
at 400’- 0”, typ.
Lucille Avenue Sections
Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 71
0 15’30’60’
Interstate 280
Blaney AvenueRandy LaneVilla De Anza AvenueProposed Sidewalk To Meet Existing Sidewalk
at Olivewood Street
Metal Beam Guardrail
At Curve
Existing Edge Of Street
Proposed Curb Shift, 2’-0” approximately
10’ Width At
Pinch Point
Paved Trail Access Point
Guy Anchor To Be Modified, Maintain
Min. 10’ Vertical Clearance Over Trail
Trail utilizesexisting
undercrossing
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 14’ Wide Over
Covered Channel
Trailhead
Existing Tree To
Remain, Typ.Landscaping, Typ.
Existing On-street
Parking
Seatwall, Typ.
Low Split Rail Fence,
Typ.
Wires Overhead,
Typ.
D.G. Path
Connection, Typ.
PG&E Tower,
Typ.
Proposed Crosswalk
and Sidewalk With
Ramps
25
MPH
Lucille Avenue
Enlargement Legend
Trail Parking, explore
extension of permit
parking on Lucille
Curb Bulbout,
Typ.
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Channel Centerline
Culvert
Blaney Avenue Trail Access Enlargement Figure 4-29
Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study72
this page intentionally left blank
Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 73
0 15’30’60’
Int
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
2
8
0
Proposed
Double Gate
New Asphalt
Pavement
Existing Gate
to be Removed
Existing Driveway
to Remain
Existing On
Street Parking
Existing Asphalt Path
to Remain
Proposed Removable BollardsProposed Trail Access Spur,
Utilize Ex. Cal Water Driveway
Proposed Trail
Wayfinding SignagePortal AveDrake DrivePARKINGNO 15’Proposed Access
Control Fence
Proposed Trail
CA
L
T
R
A
N
S
R
.
O
.
W
.
S.
C
.
V
.
W
.
D
.
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
Drainage Channel Centerline
Enlargement Legend
North Portal Avenue Trail Access Enlargement Figure 4-30
Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study74
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 75Trail Alignments
Segment 3 – Vallco to Vallco
Parkway
Segment 3 of the trail runs from the west
edge of Vallco Mall to Vallco Parkway
alongside Calabazas Creek. Starting at the
western extent, the Vallco Mall site is currently
being proposed for re-development and is
in a state of flux. The developer is working
with City staff on a proposal for the site. It
is anticipated that the trail will follow the
northern edge of the Vallco site and connect
to the Perimeter Road undercrossing below
Wolfe Road. Additionally, VTA is leading a
design effort to reconstruct the Wolfe Road
interchange at I-280. Caltrans’ Project Study
Report for the project has been completed,
and an environmental assessment of the
alternatives is being performed. Preliminary
alternatives depict connections from the
Wolfe Road sidewalks to the Junipero Serra
Trail. The trail project will need to conform to
the interchange project as designs advance.
The trail would utilize the Perimeter Road
undercrossing and connect to the Hyatt
House development project, currently under
construction. The Hyatt House is constructing
a 10’ wide trail as part of their project, which
will serve as a small section of the overall trail.
See Figure 4-7 for the enlargement plan of
this area and Figure 4-31 for the Hyatt House
Enlargement, which is a part of this area.
Commencing at the Junipero Serra Channel
side of the Hyatt House project, a full Class
I multi-use trail can be constructed adjacent
to the channel. This section of the channel is
unlined and will remain unlined.
The trail continues east behind an Apple
campus until the unlined channel’s confluence
with Calabazas Creek. The trail at this point,
turns southward along the west bank of
Calabazas Creek. This section continues to
accommodate a class 1 multi-use trail adjacent
to the creek. SCVWD studies indicate that the
maintenance road along Calabazas Creek is
below top of bank and subject to inundation
during 10-year storm events and greater.
During large storm events, temporary trail
closures will be needed to ensure trail user
safety. Locking swing gates accompanied
by signage are recommended as means
for securing the area. City staff would be
responsible for monitoring flow conditions
and closing this section of the trail as needed.
Improvements to the Calabazas Creek
maintenance road may require approvals from
regulatory agencies, including the California
State Department of Fish and Wildlife and
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board. There is a potential trail head
and connection to a signalized intersection on
Vallco Parkway, which would connect the trail
to existing bike street infrastructure and Main
Street, a popular mixed-use neighborhood.
Additional coordination with Apple and the
City is required for this trail head location.
See Figures 4-32 and 4-33 for sections through
segment 3.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study76Trail Alignments
Trail AlignmentsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 77
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014AADROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
OUTDOOR DINING
POOL
EXISTING TREE
SHADE TREE
FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE
UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE
STREET TREE IN GRATE
PUBLIC ART
DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE)
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
TRASH/RECYCLING BIN
STORMWATER PLANTING
ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP
SCREENED TRANSFORMER
LEGEND
NORTH
SCALE:1” = 20’-0”
L-1
12
12
13 13
8
1
3
4
6
7
2
2
2
7
7 10
11
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
16
15
14
13
8
0’5’20’10’10’
To Existing
Under-crossing
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014AADROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
OUTDOOR DINING
POOL
EXISTING TREE
SHADE TREE
FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE
UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE
STREET TREE IN GRATE
PUBLIC ART
DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE)
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
TRASH/RECYCLING BIN
STORMWATER PLANTING
ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP
SCREENED TRANSFORMER
LEGEND
NORTH
SCALE:1” = 20’-0”
L-1
12
12
13 13
8
1
3
4
6
7
2
2
2
7
7 10
11
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
16
15
14
13
8
0’5’20’10’10’
Connection to Proposed Trail
Hotel Bicycle / Pedestrian Path, 10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail,
16’ Wide
Wol
fe
Road
Concept Plan prepared by Bruce Jett Associates, 8/13/14
Trail Types
Alternative #2, covered
On-grade
Alternative #1, next to
Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide
Pedestrian Trail, less than 14’ wide
Class I Multi-Use Trail, min. 14’ wide
Hyatt House Hotel Enlargement Figure 4-31
Trail Alignments Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study78
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 79Trail Alignments
Existing
Apple Caltrans
R.O.W.
I-280
21’- 0”+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
Existing Tree
65- 0”
Existing
Tree
Chainlink Fence
Existing Vegetated
Drainage Channel
Existing
Chainlink
Fence
Proposed
Existing Tree
To Remain
Existing Tree
To Remain
10’-0”2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1
Multi-Use
Trail
Asphalt
Trail
Shoulder, Typ.
Apple Caltrans
R.O.W.
I-280
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
65- 0”
Chainlink Fence
To Remain
Vegetated Drainage To Remain
Chainlink Fence To Remain
3:1
Figure 4-32Apple Campus Sections
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study80Trail Alignments
Apple SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
70’- 0” +
Existing Tree
To Remain
10’-0”
Min.
2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1
Multi-Use
Trail
Asphalt
Trail
Shoulder, Typ.
Chainlink Fence
To Remain
Calabazas Creek
Riparian Vegetation To Remain
3:1
Proposed
Apple
24’- 6”+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
70- 0” +
Existing Tree
Calabazas Creek
Riparian Vegetation
Existing
Existing
Chainlink
Fence
Figure 4-33Calabazas Creek Sections
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 81Trail Alignments
Safety, Privacy, and Security
The previous sections of this chapter discussed
the trail alignment in detail. This section
discusses trail safety, privacy and security.
Suggestions are provided for fence types to
suit various conditions along the trail.
Privacy/Security Fence Adjacent to Residential
The existing fencing behind homes varies with
regard to materials, height, visual openness
and condition. Many neighbors expressed
two concerns in particular. One is privacy and
how trail users may be able to see into their
properties. The other is security and whether
fencing will discourage intrusion into their
property. One potential solution regarding
the privacy concern is to install opaque fencing
for those properties with open chain link or
similar fence type. A solution for discouraging
intrusion is installing a fence of such height
and design that climbing over it is a deterrent.
To meet these two criteria, it is recommended
that a 7’ tall wood fence be installed at those
properties currently deficient in either privacy
and/or security. It is anticipated there may
be some existing fences or walls that meet
this standard, and no work will be required to
upgrade the fencing. See Figure 4-34.
Split Rail at Lucille Frontage
A split rail fence is recommended at the
Lucille Avenue frontage. Aesthetically, this
would be more inviting than the existing
chain link fence. This fence type also allows
more visibility since it’s lower than the existing
chain link and more visually open. And it still
provides a delineation between trail use and
street use. There would be openings in the
fence to allow trail access from the street. See
Figure 4-35.
Undercrossing Barrier at Stelling Road
Where the trail goes beneath Stelling Road,
a Caltrans approved barrier fence will be
required to keep trail users from entering the
freeway. Additionally, the fence may need
to be designed to resist vehicular impact.
The design of this fence will require further
coordination with Caltrans as the design
advances. See Figure 4-36.
Figure 4-35
Figure 4-34 Privacy/Security Fence Example
Figure 4-32
Split Rail Fence Example
Figure 4-36 Under-Crossing Barrier Example
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study82Trail Alignments
Figure 4-38Fencing Example Rendering - Before
Figure 4-39Fencing Example Rendering - After
Figure 4-37Guard Rail Example
Guard Rail Adjacent to Open Channel
Where trail alternative #1 is pursued, a 4’-
6” tall guard rail is recommended along the
open Junipero Serra Channel to prevent trail
users from accidently falling into the channel.
However, the SCVWD will not approve any
trail with a guard rail, as currently shown in this
study, along the Junipero Serra Corridor due
to maintenance access constraints. Further
discussion with SCVWD will need to occur if
a guard rail is pursued for the trail. See Figure
4-37.
Middle and Bottom
Images: Show the
impacts of the Privacy/
Security Fence adjacent
to residential and
the Guard Rail Fence
adjacent to the open- for
alternative #1.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 83Trail Alignments
Trail Security
One of the main concerns amongst community
members was security along the trail. To
address some of their concerns, the following
options may be considered for the trail.
Patrols
Increased sheriff presence on the trail and
near trailheads would help deter undesirable
activity along the trail. The trailheads could
be designed to allow vehicular access for
policing activities, whether by patrol car or
ATV. Bicycle patrol could also be included in
the policing plan for the trail. See Figure 4-40.
Security Cameras
Security cameras could be installed at key
locations, such as trailheads and intermediate
points along the trail with limited visibility.
The cameras can record suspicious activity on
the trail and aid law enforcement in the event
of criminal activity. The visual presence of
security cameras also acts as a deterrent. See
Figure 4-41.
Milestone Markers
Milestone markers provide emergency
personnel and first responders specific location
information in the event of an emergency
along the trail. They can also provide trail
users with distances to measure their exercise
regimen. See Figure 4-42.
Lighting
Lighting along trails is generally discouraged
when adjacent to a riparian zone. The Junipero
Serra Trail is planned to operate dawn to dusk.
However, the following exceptions may apply:
• Lighting along commuter corridors
during the winter months from 5am to
7am and 4pm to 8pm
• At trail under-crossings
• Where the trail is parallel to lighted
streets and roads
• At street intersections and street
crossings
Figure 4-40
Figure 4-41
Figure 4-42
Trail Patrol
Security Camera
Milestone Marker
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study84Summary Recommendations
Summary Recommendations
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 85Summary Recommendations
5
The study recommends alternative #2. This
alternative provides an off-street, paved
class I multi-use trail and is consistent with
current bicycle and pedestrian plans adopted
by the City. The trail links to existing on-
street facilities, residential neighborhoods,
employment centers, schools, retail and
commercial uses. The estimated cost to build
out the recommended alternative is $45.2
million.
The SCVWD and the City of Cupertino will
have to enter into a joint use agreement for the
corridor if any of the alternatives are pursued.
The City would also be responsible for all trail
maintenance. Utility agencies would continue
to operate and maintain their facilities.
Safety, security, and privacy were the biggest
concerns raised by the community. To
address these concerns, fencing upgrades will
be recommended where existing fences are
deficient in terms of privacy and security. The
study recommends implementing a sheriff
patrol program and that the City consider
the use of security cameras and milestone
markers.
Throughout the alignment, there are a number
of sub-alternatives at specific locations to
consider. The table below summarizes the
alternatives and provides recommendations
for each.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study86Summary Recommendations
Trail Alignment Recommendations Summary
Location
Location
Options
Options
Overall Trail Alignment
Mary Ave
Connection to Trail
Stelling Rd
Crossing
Alt #1
East
Under-Crossing
Only
Alt #2
West
At-Grade
Crossing Only
Alternatives
Sub-Alternatives
Both Under-Crossing
and At-Grade Crossing
De Anza Blvd
Crossing
Tunnel Bike-Pedestrian
Bridge within
SCVWD
Right-of-Way
At-Grade
Crossing,
Alt #1
Bike-Pedestrian
Bridge within
both SCVWD
and Caltrans
Right-of-Way
At-Grade
Crossing,
Alt #2
= Recommended Option
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 87Summary Recommendations
Options Alternative #1
(in millions of dollars)
Alternative #2
(in millions of dollars)
Basic Project $7.1 $29.4
Basic Project,
Stelling Rd Under-
Crossing and At-Grade
Crossing, and De Anza
Blvd Bike-Pedestrian
Bridge within both
SCVWD and Caltrans
Right-of-Way
$22.9 $45.2
Basic Project,
Stelling Rd Under-
Crossing and At-Grade
Crossing, and De Anza
Blvd Tunnel
$30.1 $52.4
Trail Alignment Cost Matrix
Cost Estimate
Costs for the Junipero Serra Trail were
estimated for each trail alternative, broken
out by segment, and in 2018 dollars. A line
item was developed for “basic project” costs.
Those costs include all the work required to
build a basic trail project plus contingencies,
escalation, and professional services related
to the basic project. The basic project
includes costs for construction of the trail
with trailheads (including the Mary Avenue
West Option) and at-grade crossings. Costs
for the Stelling Road undercrossing, De Anza
Boulevard tunnel, De Anza Boulevard bike-
pedestrian bridge, and De Anza Boulevard at-
grade crossing were broken out as separate
‘all-in’ costs. This estimating strategy allows
decision-makers to see price points at various
levels of trail implementation and starts to
suggest where project phasing might occur.
Detailed cost estimates for alternative #1
and alternative #2 can be reviewed in the
Appendix.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study88Summary Recommendations
Grant Funding Sources
There are several grant funding programs the
Junipero Serra Trail will be eligible for, including
the Transportation Fund for Clean Air: Bicycle
Facilities Grant Program (TFCA), administered
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District; The Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF), administered by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation; and the
Active Transportation Program (ATP), funded
by the California Transportation Commission.
Funding for these programs has concluded for
Fiscal Years 2018-2019, but additional cycles
are anticipated.
The 2018 TFCA program allocated over $5
million to fund construction of new bicycle
facilities that will reduce vehicle trips for
commutes to work and/or school. With
its proximity to multiple schools and direct
connection to multiple large employers,
the Junipero Serra Trail would be a strong
candidate for the award. Minimum awards
in this past cycle were $100,000 with a 10%
required match.
The LWCF aims to fund park projects that meet
the goals of the Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan. This project meets
those goals by providing community space
for healthy lifestyles, and through its process
of community engagement. The maximum
award for this program’s 2018 cycle was
$3,000,000 with a required minimum 50%
match.
The ATP Cycle 4 is expected to announce the
award of approximately $440 million in May,
2019. The program extends through 2023, and
is awarded annually to California infrastructure
projects that enhance safety and mobility
for non-motorized transportation. It also
gives consideration to Safe Routes to School
projects, with the stated goal of enhancing
public health and reducing childhood obesity.
Because the project is within two miles of
more than one public school, it qualifies for
the Safe Routes to School designation, and
enhanced consideration under this program.
Another potential source is the Pedestrian
and Bicycle Project Funds available under the
Transportation Development Act, Article 3.
For a project to be included in annual allocation
of these funds, a city must request that the
county recommend the project for inclusion
in its allocation. These funds are available for
projects that exclusively benefit pedestrians
and/or bicyclists, and that are consistent
with the City’s bicycle and pedestrian plan.
Continuous interconnected routes, continuity
with longer routes, and access to activity
centers are all preferred qualities.
Santa Clara County voters approved Measure
B in 2016, which would have funded a variety
of transportation projects, including bicycle
and pedestrian improvements. However, a
legal challenge and subsequent appeal has
delayed initiation of any projects related
to the measure until the suit is resolved.
The Junipero Serra Trail would be a strong
candidate for award of funds pending
resolution of the lawsuit.
Summary RecommendationsJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 89
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study90Summary Recommendations
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 91Summary Recommendations
Figures
City Council
Steven Scharf, Mayor
Liang Chao,Vice-Mayor
Rod Sinks, Council Member
Darcy Paul, Council Member
Jon Willey, Council Member
Barry Chang, Former Council Member
Savita Vaidhyanathan, Former Council Member
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Jennifer Shearin, Chair
Gerhard Eschelbeck, Vice Chair
Pete Heller, Commissioner
Eric Lindskog, Commissioner
Sean Lyn, Commissioner
City Staff
Public Works Department
Community Development Department
Acknowledgments
Technical Advisory Committee
Chris Wilson, CalWater
Sergio Ruiz, CalTrans
Lillian Tsang, City of Sunnyvale
Ted Quach, PG&E
Albert Le, PG&E
Usha Chatwani, Santa Clara Valley Water District
Lauren Ledbetter, VTA
Taghi Sadaati, Cupertino Sanitary District
Richard Tanaka, Cuperinto Sanitary District
Consultant Team
Callander Associates, Landscape Architecture
Brian Fletcher, Principal-in-charge
David Rubin, Project Manager
Jana Schwartz, Graphics
Kelly Kong, Graphics
Fehr and Peers, Transportation Consulting
Steve Davis
Sandis, Surveying/Civil Engineering
Ron Sanzo
Jenner Phillips
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study92Appendix
Meeting Summaries
Start Up Meeting Summary
SCVWD Meeting Summary
TAC Meeting #1 Summary
Staff Meeting Summary
Community Meeting #1 Summary
CalWater Meeting Summary
PG&E Meeting Summary
CalTrans Meeting Summary
TAC Meeting #2 Summary
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Community Meeting #3 Summary
12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes
Outreach Materials
City Flier
City Postcard
City Door Hanger
City Door Hanger for Portal Ave Residents
CALA Hand Out
Apple R.O.W. Acquisition Exhibit
Sandis - Surveyor
Box Culvert E-mail
CalTrans Box Culvert Notes
De Anza Blvd Overhead Wires Survey
Input Materials
Community Meeting #1 Input Packet
Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
Community Meeting #3 Questionnaire
Input Board for Diwali Festival
94
94
96
98
102
104
112
114
116
118
122
136
148
152
152
153
154
155
156
157
159
159
163
165
167
167
171
179
181
Appendix
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 93Appendix
6
183
183
189
189
193
194
196
213
213
223
233
235
235
237
239
239
240
244
248
248
250
252
Community Meeting #3 Materials
What We Heard Boards
Memos
Document Review
Public Outreach Outline
Public Outreach Plan
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Cost Estimate
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Engineering Option of Probable Construction Costs
for Box Culvert for Alternative #2
Draft De Anza Boulevard Crossings
Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement
- Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to Remain
Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement
- Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to be Removed
TAC Comments on Draft Study
City of Sunnyvale Comments
Caltrans Comments
SCVWD Comments
City of Cupertino Responses to TAC Comments
Response to City of Sunnyvale Comments
Response to Caltrans Comments
Response to SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study94Appendix
Start Up Meeting Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via E-mail Only
August 23, 2017
Meeting Summary
I-280 Channel Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Project Start-Up Meeting
Date: Tuesday, 8/22/17
Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
(Site Walk: 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.)
Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
A meeting was held to kick-off the project, review background information and materials needed, discuss
project goals and objectives, and review the City’s preliminary thoughts on public outreach, branding, and
TAC coordination. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in
bold identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Discussed
1)City to send back executed agreement by 8/29 or soon after, CA submitted signed agreement to JC
at meeting on 8/22.
2)Roles and Responsibilities
a)CA to correspond through JC and copy DS
b)City to correspond through DR and copy JS
3)Project Materials
a)JC to request 2016 contours and aerial by 8/25 (received by CA on 8/23)
b)CA to send link for contours and aerial to Sandis by 8/29 and ensure files are AutoCAD
compatible
c)JC to send link to assessors maps by 8/25 (received by CA on 8/23)
d)CA to ask Sandis about materials needed by 8/25 and correspond with City
e)Other planning efforts underway include:
•Pedestrian Trail Guidelines (expected adoption later this year)
•Countywide Bicycle Plan by VTA (late 2017)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 95Appendix
Start Up Meeting Summary
I-280 Channel Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Project Start-Up Meeting
August 22, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_StartUpMtg
© copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Discussed
•City to provide input from Parks and Recreation Master Plan (in-progress)
f)CA to review City standard details, suggested by City
4)TAC Formation
a)CA to separate invite for TAC and businesses/private owners, TAC will be agencies only
b)DS to correspond with businesses/private owners
•Likely businesses/private owners:
−Apple
−Loc-N-Stor
−Vallco
−HOAs
c)CA to create directory by 9/30 for TAC and businesses/private owners
5)Public Outreach Plan
a)City/CA to staff 2 community events (Diwali Festival-Sep., Earth Day-Apr.)
b)Consider small community events (i.e. Farmers’ markets, Bike to Work Day) throughout study
period to promote project. These would be attended by City staff
c)City to select outreach dates/locations by 9/15 and reserve space for events
d)CA to get notices out by 9/20, before Diwali Festival
e)CA to send examples of prior notices/flyers by 8/23 for City to review
6)Branding
a)City to review and provide feedback on branding by 8/30
•City to meet on 8/28 to review/discuss branding for the trail
•City to discuss use of “The Loop”
•City to suggest use of branding colors, font, graphic style from other City-signage programs
b)City to send wayfinding signage example to CA from bike boulevard project (received by CA on
8/23)
c)CA to provide branding alternatives by 9/13 for City to review and to incorporate in outreach
materials
- END -
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached
at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study96Appendix
SCVWD Meeting Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 1, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: SCVWD Review Meeting
Date: November 28, 2017
Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Attendees:
SCVWD : Sue Tippets (ST), SCVWD, stippets@valleywater.org
Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org
Cody Houston (CH), SCVWD, chouston@valleywater.org
Devin Mody (DM), SCVWD, dmody@valleywater.org
Consultants: Jon Cacciotti (JCa), HMHca, jcacciotti@hmhca.com
Jodi Starbird (JS), DJP, jstarbird@davidjpowers.com
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with SCVWD, gather technical input, and discuss design
alternative options for the drainage ditch that runs parallel to the trail alignment study area. The following
information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify
specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
1.SCVWD generally prefers no barrier between
trails/maintenance roads and creeks. However, if there is a
severe drop they would consider a low open barrier.
CA to study edge conditions
2.SCVWD discussed the desire for "permeable pavement" use
however during further discussion the intent is for more natural
looking pavements. They talked about a recent project that
Google did near Crittenden Bridge.
CA to review example project
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 97Appendix
SCVWD Meeting Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: SCVWD Review Meeting
December 1, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_SCVWDMtg.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
3.The Junipero Serra Creek was never a creek. The drainage ditch
was constructed when I-280 was built. It was constructed by
Caltrans then transferred over to the Water District.
CA to remove “creek” from all
materials
4.Would be open to considering an option that would replace the
ditch with a closed pipe and buried. This should not be the only
option studied. SCVWD expressed some hesitance with the
maintenance of a closed pipe as they are more comfortable
with maintaining open channels.
CA to include covered and open
alternative options
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study98Appendix
TAC Meeting #1 Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 1, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #1
Date: November 29, 2017
Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Attendees: TAC Member: Richard Tanaka (RT), CSD/Mark Thomas, rtanaka@markthomas.com
Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org
Lauren Ledbetter (LL), VTA, lauren.ledbetter@vta.org
Lillian Tsang (LT), City of Sunnyvale, ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org
Ben Fu (BF), Planning, benjaminf@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review the project background and existing conditions of the site, discuss
the trail alignment locations, and gather technical input and documents from the TAC members. The
following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take”
column identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
1.The Junipero Serra Trail (trail) has been identified as a high
priority by City Council. The trail would be a
recreational/transportation corridor. Apple has a large bicycle
population that would likely use it. The trail supports
Cupertino’s interconnectivity.
Noted
2.SCVWD refers to the waterway in the corridor as a “drainage
ditch”, it is not a natural channel. It was constructed in
conjunction with the construction of I-280.
Noted
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 99Appendix
TAC Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #1
December 1, 2017
Page 2 of 3
17056_SUM_TACMtg#1.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
3. LL noted personal security concerns, lack of access points.
Access points are identified on the site assessment plans; an
access point at the CalWater facility is to be evaluated. Stevens
Creek is a trail that also has limited access points, high volumes
of users makes it feel safe.
CA to review project with
CalWater by 12/15
4. Treatment of trail crossings over major streets: Stelling is an on-
street crossing with possible beacons; City is encouraging grade-
separated crossing at De Anza; Blaney has a curve that creates
pinch point; Vallco will be coordinated with concurrent planning
projects.
Noted
5. SCVWD has maintenance requirements in the corridor; need
access for maintenance and vegetation management;
installation of a concrete guard rail closed off access near Wolfe
Rd. recently.
Noted
6. Caltrans should have a hydraulic report available for I-280 that
would elaborate on the drainage ditch. It is believed that the
ditch was constructed to accommodate 100 year storm from
overland flows, from the neighborhoods, intercepted before
flowing onto the freeway. Waters from I-280 are not believed
to be flowing into the drainage ditch. Caltrans turned
responsibility over to SCVWD.
CA to request hydraulic report
and drawings for the ditch from
Caltrans by 12/8
7. RT discussed CalWater 14” ACP water line at the confluence of
the drainage ditch and the Calabazas Creek. Location of facilities
is unknown. CalWater crosses the creek at image #30. Check
14’-0” trail width availability.
CA to discuss with CalWater by
12/15
8. There is a sanitary easement adjacent to the SCVWD property in
the vicinity of the Apple campus (photo images #13 - #20).
There is an undersized 8” sewer line within the easement that
the Sanitary District to upgrade to at least 12”. They are
studying options.
CA to review by 12/15
9. Sanitary District needs width of 8’-0” (HydroFlush truck
capabilities); SCVWD will inform CA of width
requirements/preference.
UC to provide width
requirements by 12/15
10. VTA is updating the Countywide Bike Plan now (available
February 2018); trail eligible for 2016 Measure B, Safe Routes to
School, and ATP funding.
CA to review funding options
with VTA and include in report
estimate
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study100Appendix
TAC Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #1
December 1, 2017
Page 3 of 3
17056_SUM_TACMtg#1.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
11.SCVWD is seeing a lot of challenges in dealing with trails –
people want them available 24/7, but SCVWD has to
occasionally close trail for maintenance. SCVWD has noticed
impacts to riparian areas and trails are getting more
constrained. There is a trend towards evaluating trails policy
(CSJ developing Toolkit). SCVWD wants to review VTA
Countywide Bike Plan when available to include SCVWD
policies. SCVWD wants to stay away from lighting and bridge
crossings.
Noted
12.RT asked if the City would consider ownership of R.O.W. where
trail is being proposed; it would be a multi-use trail over a
drainage facility, not a flood control facility.
City to review
13.VTA is managing Wolfe interchange project with HMH. No plans
available yet; in environmental review phase (15-18 month
timeline); not fully funded.
Noted
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 101Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study102Appendix
Staff Meeting Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 1, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Staff Meeting, Phone Call
Date: November 30, 2017
Time: 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Attendees:
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review TAC Meeting #1 and prepare for Community Meeting #1. The
following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take”
column identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
TAC Meeting #1
1.VTA funding sources for the Junipero Serra Trail is a part of the
County-wide bicycle plan. Funding sources will be incorporated
into the estimates for the feasibility study.
CA to email VTA (Lauren
Ledbetter) by 12/8
2.Need to better understand the structure of the drainage ditch
and how stormwater intercepted. In a covered alternative,
consider appropriate pipe sizing/capacity. Access and
maintenance requirements will also need to be accounted for.
CA to review with Caltrans by
12/15
3.Need to show a non-covered alternative for the trail alignment.
Alternatives show cost difference and ability to accommodate
class 1 facilities.
CA to include in alternatives
4.Send email with TAC meeting materials to non-attendees
(Caltrans, Cal Water, PG&E) and schedule follow-up
call/meeting to discuss project purpose/objective and agency
concerns.
JS to send draft email text and
materials to City. City to send
email by 11/30
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 103Appendix
Staff Meeting Summary
Meeting Summary
Juniper0 Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Staff Meeting, Phone Call
December 1, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_StaffMtg_171130.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
5.Send Doodle poll to TAC members to coordinate time for next
TAC meeting (February).
JC to send Doodle by 12/8
Community Meeting #1
6.Room layout for event has attendees visiting 7 stations and
recording input in a handout. CA created diagrammatic layout
of the Cupertino Room with table/chair layout and the purpose
for each station.
JC to send layout to City staff by
12/1 for room preparation
7.City staff includes Jenn, David, and Erick. CA will be positioned
at segment stations; City staff will be positioned at sign-in, goals
+ objectives, background, and floating around the room.
Noted
8.Finalize all materials for the meeting and bring to event.
Remove “creek” on all materials.
CA to bring materials to event
9.Refreshments to be provided at community meeting CA to provide
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Community Meeting #1 Summary
SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate
311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 12, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
Location: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room
Date: December 6, 2017
Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Number of people who signed-in: 29
Number of people who turned-in an input packet: 13
Attendees:
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
Community Meeting #1 was open house style where participants were invited to arrive at any time
during the event window (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and provide individual feedback on the trail project.
Community members were notified about the event through the following methods:
•City’s website
•City Channel
•Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter)
•Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest
•Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall
•Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents
•Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter
The meeting included six stations for community participants to provide their input at their own pace.
Station #1 was the welcome table, where participants were greeted by City staff and provided an input
packet to record comments as they traveled between stations. The five additional stations included
project background and goals and objectives (Station #2), Stations #3, 4, 5 were for the three segments
of the proposed trail, and refreshments (Station #6). Participants were asked to return their input
packets to Station #1 before leaving so that their comments could be recorded. The next sections
review the input methodology and summarize the input received at the meeting.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study104Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 2 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Commenting Material
Community Meeting #1 included several opportunities to provide written input and have that input
recorded. Input methods included the input packet, the trail segment plans, and large flip charts.
Participants were not limited to one commenting method and everyone was encouraged to document
their input. Below is a description of each input method available:
Input Packet
The input packet included the same two open-ended questions for each trail segment. Community
members were asked to respond to these questions as they traveled to each of the trail segments.
•Questions 1: What do you like about this segment of the trail?
•Question 2: What can be improved in this segment of the trail?
Trail Segment Comments
The trail was divided into three segments and set up at three separate stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Each
trail segment plan was printed at a large scale to help community members identify neighborhood
features and the proximity of the trail to community resources (i.e., schools and businesses). Participants
were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback on each trail segment. Commenting
directly onto the large plans is a useful tool for input because context can be applied to a specific
comment and ideas can be drawn and documented. Each of the trail segments provided this input
method, but the geographic differences between each segment generated unique comments from the
community.
•Trail Segment #1 – Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard
This segment includes the connection to Mary Avenue Bridge and the on-street bicycle network
that connects to Garden Gate Elementary School. This segment includes a street crossing at
Stelling Road.
•Trail Segment #2 – De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center
This segment is in close proximity to Lawson Middle School and runs along the northern edge of
the Infinite Loop. This segment includes a street crossing at De Anza Boulevard and would have
the trail running under Blaney Avenue.
•Trail Segment #3 – Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway
This segment is near the Vallco Center and runs along the northern edge of to the new Hyatt
Hotel and Apple. The trail runs under Wolfe Road and terminates at Vallco Parkway and
Calabazas Creek.
Flip Charts
Flip Charts were placed at Station #2 and each of the three trail segment stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Flip charts
did not include a prompted question, all feedback provided was open-ended. Not all Stations with flip charts
received comments.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 105Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 3 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Input Received
Station #2 - Project Background and Goals and Objectives
Flip Chart
•Please keep redwood trees along I-280 frontage. Do not cut down. They run the length of I-280
from Los Altos to San Jose so the provide a greenbelt along the freeway and buffer residential
from the freeway. Redwoods also clean impurities from the air.
Station #3 – Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard)
Input Packet – Question #1
•I would like to have lights on the way, some benches to sit, a water station, restroom facility
•Connecting the trail to the bridge is great!
•No stoplights (well almost)
•Minimal cross streets
•The bike bridge
•Everything
•Good access to western areas in the city
•It's a trail
•Less car traffic for students going to De Anza College
•Easy connection to Mary Ave. bridge and avoids Stevens Creek Blvd.
•Connectivity to Mary Avenue Bridge
•Takes you to Mountain View
•Connection to Mary Avenue Bridge
Input Packet – Question #2
•Protect bikes from falling into ditches
•Have a camera at the main junctions
•Put up signs (dog on-leash, no loitering, speed limit)
•Stelling Rd. crossing needs bridge over
•Need mile markers
•Access to the trail via Stelling Rd. is too dangerous for kids
•Take it along the wall all the way to De Anza College; use the City maintenance land to go from
Mary Ave back to the sound wall here
•Put underground crossing under Stevens Creek Blvd to De Anza College
•Have the City buy a house along [Flora Vista Ave.] to allow Lawson students to access the trail
(Garden Gate Elem. feeds into Lawson Middle)
•Need access near [photo] #4; buy a house, tear it down, provide access
•A glass sound wall so Teslas stuck in traffic can see how fast bikes go
•East end of bike bridge (Homestead Rd and Mary Ave) needs to be reconfigured
•Need grade separation (prefer underpass) for trail at Stelling Rd.
•Improve Stelling Rd. crossing if possible
•Safety and security of residence and businesses - how are we going to protect our business and
homes along the path? Need regular monitoring for security concerns!
•Parents will still drive kids to neighborhood regardless
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study106Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 4 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Crossing at Stelling Rd. should be above or below street, no crosswalk is near the access point
right now
•Widen 14' for multi-use
•All segments use over or under grade crossings to major streets
•Extend via bridge or tunnel to De Anza College and across 85 with dedicated bridge protected
from cars/ramps
•Traffic light or bridge tunnel between [picture] #6 and #7
•Prefer the route be closer to storage, as it would have less impact on the
residents and it is wider
•Safety and security of the trail while maintaining safety, security and privacy for
the residents impacted by the trail
Trail Segment Plan Comments
•This speed table [on Meteor Dr.] will drive cars to Amulet then Nathanson Ave.
•Median on Meteor Dr. slows traffic and is a good thing
•Nobody stops at Nathanson Ave. turning onto Meteor Dr.
•Some late night noise at trail head [Mary Avenue Bridge]
•Hit by car at Glenbrook
•Mini-store employee concern about vandalism and homeless
•Purchase property at curve of Castine Ave. to Gardena Dr.
•Pedestrian bridge would be great between image #7 and #8 (Stelling Rd.) [other
response] - or tunnel
•Suggest 20' minimum width to accommodate bikes, strollers, etc.
Flip Chart Comments
•Deter vehicular speed
•Drivers don't respect hawk signals
•Steven's Creek Blvd and Homestead Rd are existing east-west on-street connections
•Fencing for neighbors
•Trail is very isolated
Station #4 – Trail Segment #2 (De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center)
Input Packet – Question #1
•Keep the existing trees and plant some new trees
•IDEA: Give property owners a cut in their property taxes to allow a portion of their land for the
trail is selected cases. Bar Harbor along their harbor does this
•Spur to Lawson Middle along the east edge of Apple's property
•Will help Apple and it’s near my house :)
•Everything
•This is a great connector across the city without riding/walking on busy streets
•It's a trail
•Less vehicle traffic
•Avoids Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza Blvd
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 107Appendix
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study108Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 5 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Good east-west trail through Cupertino
Input Packet – Question #2
•Under/over bridge at the De Anza Blvd. crossing
•Add underground crossing under De Anza Blvd.
•Do not remove car access under Blaney Ave. bridge, it is used heavily
•Do not remove parking on Lucille Ave because it is used by PBC Church, apartment tenants, and
Apple
•Take trail UNDER De Anza Blvd., look at Loveland, CO for examples!
•Removing vegetation to put trail in will increase sound from freeway, please put sound
considerations high on design list
•Use negotiations with Apple to get Lawson students off the street [arrow pointed to east edge of
Apple property]
•A wide, bright tunnel at [image] #17
•Suggest oaks with hairy leaves that will filter the freeway soot (East PA has done this)
•Pedestrian/bike undercrossing at De Anza Blvd.
•Add connection along Apple sound wall (parallel to Larry Way) to permit direct route to Lawson
Middle and Merrit Way bike boulevard
•De Anza Blvd. crossing
•Safety of bikes
•Widen 14' for multi-use
•De Anza Blvd crossing should be above or below street level
•Make access for Garden Gate Elementary
•Reduce conflict between north-bound De Anza Blvd. to south-bound I-280 vs. crossing
Trail Segment Plan Comments
•Suggest a tunnel or bridge (built by Apple of glass and chrome…)
•Evening backup on I-280 south-bound on-ramp at De Anza Blvd.
•Will this trail connect to De Anza Blvd. bike lanes? Optimize the crossing
•Loveland, CO has lots of underpass connections
•Bar Harbor - gave a cut in property taxes to allow for trail
•Could there be a spur [east side of infinite loop Apple property], provide
connection to school and bike boulevard [other response] - yes!
•[Between image #15 and #16] Church parking, don't take parking away
•Add label for all BQ zoned properties
•When apartments are full [between Blaney Ave. and Randy Ln.] they park on
street
•Don't close the loop under Blaney Ave.
•[Behind Mini-Stor] - Lots of graffiti when fence comes down;
•Wolfe improvements get tagged, may have taken another chain-link fence
•If trail is narrower than full width, is it harder to obtain funding?
•I would use [the trail] on commute and evening walks
•Look at Santa Clara Agilent property - proposed trail
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 109Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 6 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Flip Chart Comments
•No comments provided at this station
Station #5 – Trail Segment #3 (Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway)
Input Packet – Question #1
•Overall love this idea of Cupertino Loop; can't wait to start running on the trail
•Will help Vallco and retail, when it's built
•Everything
•Utilization of existing Wolfe underpass at Vallco
•Access to Main Street and future Vallco activities and shopping
•It's a trail
•Less Apple traffic
•Wolfe crossing is not at street level
•Allows access to Vallco and Main Street
•Scenic
•Connection to Main Street, hotels, Apple
Input Packet – Question #2
•Add emergency blue poles throughout the trail
•Vegetation all along wall helps with freeway pollution and sound reduction, please consider this
when designing the entire trail
•Bridge trail over Wolfe Rd.
•Overall, I suggest a 20' minimum width to accommodate a wide range of transportation
preferences; trees, trees, trees (large species)
•Why not a full width new trail around "Section A"? [Hyatt Hotel Trail segment]
•Make sure bicycles abide by same rules as road users
•Make SHP developer incorporate bike access to trails
•Nothing
•Turning left onto Vallco Pkwy. on a bicycle is impossible/dangerous/requires using sidewalk?
Trail Segment Plan Comments
•Why not go across? [keep trail parallel to I-280, cut through Wolfe Rd. interchange and hook
into trail at the Hyatt Hotel]
•Make the new trail at the hotel property wider, it's new
•Bridge over Wolfe Rd.? [Where underpass is currently]
•Is Perimeter Rd. public or private; is there an easement?
•Be aware of how a dotted melted strip bike lane feels on 110 psi bike tires
•Radius of speed hump should exceed that of 27" bike wheel!
•Traffic volume will increase at Vallco Pkwy. and Tantau Ave. intersection
•Continue trail across I-280 [follow Calabazas Creek] and connect at Tantau Ave.
•Add button for cyclists well ahead of intersection with priority timing [Idea is to be able to hit
the button while on your bike and the light will be green by the time cyclist gets to the
intersection]
•[At the Vallco Pkwy. trailhead] - What happens when you want to turn left onto Vallco Pkwy.?
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study110Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 7 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Add roundabout at Tantau Ave./Vallco Pkwy. intersection [other response] - I would be scared
to use that
Flip Chart Comments
•No comments provided at this station
Community Meeting #1 Images
This section illustrates images captured from the meeting.
Sign-in and Input Packet Pick-Up Trail Section
Background and Goals and Objectives Background and Goals and Objectives
Trail Section Input Packet
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 111Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 8 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the
meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any
questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Attachments:
1.Input Packet Response Data Presentation
2.Notification Flyers
CalWater Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study112Appendix
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 7, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: CalWater Review Meeting, Phone Call
Date: December 6, 2017
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Attendees:
California Water Service
(CalWater): Chris Wilson (CW), CalWater, cwilson@calwater.com
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with CalWater and gather technical input. The
following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take”
column identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
1.CalWater is supportive of the project. There are certain security
measures to consider in implementing a trail next to their
facilities, mostly concerning access control.
Noted
2.CalWater is adding concertina wire to address intrusion issues.
CalWater has vandalism and trash dumping in the past.
Noted
3.CalWater has an underground tank at this site that serves a
large portion of Cupertino.
Noted
4.CalWater supports a wider trail for maintenance purposes.
Currentl they access corridor from N. Portal Avenue.
Noted
5.CalWater is open to the idea of providing access through their
site to access the trail.
CA to consider CalWater site as
a potential trail access point.
-END-
CalWater Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 113Appendix
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: CalWater Review Meeting, Phone Call
December 7, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_CalWaterMtg.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study114Appendix
PG&E Meeting Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 14, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: PG&E Review Meeting (Conference Call)
Date: December 12, 2017
Time: 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Attendees:
PG&E: Jessy Borges (JB), PG&E, jy16@pge.com
Ramiro Coronel (RC), PG&E, RSC7@pge.com
Ted Quach (TQ), PG&E, tpq1@pge.com
Albert Le (AL), PG&E, ahla@pge.com
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with PG&E, gather technical input, and discuss initial
design alternative options for the study area. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon
in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
1.PG&E noted the presence of gas lines near the drainage ditch.
There are gas lines at Stelling Rd.
City to request gas facilities
throughout project limits.
2.115kv overhead electrical transmission lines run along the
project limits.
City to request electrical
facilities throughout project
limits.
3.PG&E needs a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to provide
mapping information.
City to coordinate with PG&E.
4.Maintenance road would need to support line trucks, trucks
weigh approximately 80 tons.
Noted.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 115Appendix
PG&E Meeting Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: PG&E Review Meeting (Conference Call)
December 14, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_PGEMtg.docx
© copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
5.Wire height will need to be verified. The voltage goes up as the
height increases.
PG&E to verify wire clearances.
6.Identify locations where poles potentially conflict with trail
alignments.
CA to mark up and send exhibit
to City.
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
CalTrans Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study116Appendix
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 22, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Caltrans Review Meeting (Conference Call)
Date: December 20, 2017
Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Attendees:
Caltrans: Sergio Ruiz (SR), Caltrans, sergio.ruiz@dot.ca.gov
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with Caltrans, gather technical input, and discuss initial
design alternative options for the study area. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon
in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
1.SR has requested drainage ditch As-Builts from the hydraulic
team and has not heard back. SR will follow-up with the design
team to get turn-around time for drawings.
SR to request drainage ditch As-
Builts within the project limits.
2.The road segment under the Blaney Rd. overpass (on Lucille) is
Caltrans R.O.W., but Caltrans believes that segment has a
maintenance agreement with the City.
SR to locate the maintenance
agreement and send to JC.
3.An encroachment permit would be needed for any trail
development on Caltrans R.O.W. Access control review may be
needed if the trail alignment moves onto the north side of the
sound wall. The review process is dependent on the size of the
project. Caltrans can review the drawings once a trail alignment
is decided.
Noted.
CalTrans Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 117Appendix
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Caltrans Review Meeting (Conference Call)
December 22, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_CalTransMtg.docx
© copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
4.Caltrans will make their draft Bicycle Plan available. SR to provide draft plan.
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study118Appendix
TAC Meeting #2 Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
February 6, 2018
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #2
Date: January 31, 2018
Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Attendees: TAC Member: Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org
Lauren Ledbetter (LL), VTA, lauren.ledbetter@vta.org
Lillian Tsang (LT), City of Sunnyvale, ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Ted Quach (TQ), PG&E, tpq1@pge.com
Albert Le (AL), PG&E, ahla@pge.com
Chris Wilson (CW), CalWater, cwilson@calwater.com
Steve Davis (SD), Fehr&Peers, s.davis@fehrandpeers.com
T. Saadati (TS), Walk Bike Cupertino, tsaadati@sbcglobal.net
Dianne Yee (DY), Caltrans, dianne.yee@dot.ca.gov
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review input received from Community Meeting #1, discuss the trail
alignment plan alternatives, and gather technical input and documents from the TAC members. The following
information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify
specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
Segment 1 – Mary Avenue Bridge to De Anza Boulevard
1.The public storage facility near De Anza Boulevard may include
a public access easement as a part of a redevelopment project.
Plans should identify easement and review impacts.
CA and City to review by 2/14
2.JC asked what “covering the ditch” means. Is the action to cover
or to rebuild? The design assumes a box culvert.
Noted
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 119Appendix
TAC Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #2
February 6, 2018
Page 2 of 3
17056_SUM_TACMtg#2.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
3.LL asked how the alternative route for maintenance closures
was selected. It is based on existing bike/ped facilities and
directness.
Noted
4.All development projects are subject to PG&E review. Noted
5.How much is the undercrossing encroaching on Caltrans R.O.W? CA to review and provide to
Caltrans by 2/14
6.There is a water main along Stelling Road (unknown if the line
runs through the bridge or under I-280).
CW sent drawings on 2/6
Segment 2 – De Anza Boulevard to the Vallco Shopping Center
7.The guy anchor near trail entrance at the curve of Lucille Road
can be repositioned for vertical clearance.
Noted
8.If the ditch stays open (along Lucille) versus a closed ditch,
amenities shown in the enlargement (i.e. bioswale retention, a
continuous class 1 facility, etc.) will not be included.
Noted (this is true for all
alternative #1 scenarios)
9.Relocating a steel transmission pole is expensive (~$1 million). Noted
10.If the crosswalk is removed across De Anza Boulevard, people
will still cross and additional treatments may be required.
CA to review with the City by
2/14
11.LL asked about bicycle behavior in response to the circuitous
route at De Anza Boulevard with the stair and ramp
approaches.
Noted
12.SCVWD asked how the bridge will be supported and still
preserve maintenance access?
CA to review by 2/14
13.TS asked if there is an option to move the spur trail onto
Caltrans R.O.W. for the tunnel crossing scenario.
CA to review by 2/14
14.There is a CalWater water main along De Anza Boulevard
(through tunnel option) and one behind Apple’s Infinite Loop.
CW sent drawings on 2/6
15.What are the lighting requirements for the trail? Are there
CMAQ requirements? The lighting may be dawn/dusk or 24
hours.
CA to review by 2/14
16.Clearance from PG&E wires is still unknown. SCVWD requires
15’-0” vertical clearance for maintenance vehicles.
Noted
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study120Appendix
TAC Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #2
February 6, 2018
Page 3 of 3
17056_SUM_TACMtg#2.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
17.5% grade might be too steep for bridge and tunnel approaches;
consider switchbacks or reducing the grade.
Noted
Segment 3 – Vallco Shopping Center to Vallco Parkway
18.Identify and preserve access gate for SCVWD near the Hyatt
Hotel (at I-280 on-ramp); hotel plans do not show access for
SCVWD.
Noted
19.CalWater has a water main that crosses I-280 and moves
towards Vallco Parkway.
CW sent drawings on 2/6
20.Incorporate design recommendations from this feasibility study
into the Wolfe Road / I-280 / Vallco Plans
Noted
21.Design a better transition at the Vallco Parkway trailhead. Noted
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 121Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study122Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate
311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
March 5, 2018
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #2a and 2b
Meeting #2a
Location: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room
Date: February 20, 2018
Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Meeting #2b
Location: Community Hall, Cupertino Civic Center
Date: February 26, 2018
Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Total number of people who signed-in: 37
Total number of people who turned-in an input packet: 37*
*5 packets were provided by a neighbor for others who could not attend either meeting
Attendees:
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org
Julie Chiu (JCh), Public Works, juliec@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
Community Meeting #2 was held on two separate dates at two separate locations to provide an
opportunity for the community to attend one of the meetings and provide input. Community Meeting
#2a was held in the Cupertino Room at the Quinlan Community Center on February 20th and Community
Meeting #2b was held in the Community Hall at the Cupertino Civic Center on February 26th. Community
members were notified about the event through the following methods:
•City’s website
•City Channel
•Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter)
•Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest
•Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall
•Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 123Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 2 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter
•Postcard mailings to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents
including residents/businesses within 300 feet of a proposed trailhead
•Email notifications to subscribers of the “Bicycle Transportation Plan” email list
•Email notification to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the nearby surrounding neighborhoods
The format of the meetings, as well as the project displays and the questions asked of the community,
were the same at both meetings. Each meeting was open house style where participants were invited to
arrive at any time during the event window and provide individual feedback on the trail project. Six
stations were set up for participants to visit at their own pace. Station #1 was the welcome table, where
participants were greeted by City staff and provided an input packet to record comments as they
traveled between stations. The five remaining stations included:
•Project background and goals and objectives (Station #2)
•The three segments of the proposed trail (Stations #3, 4, 5)
•Refreshments (Station #6)
Participants were asked to return their input packets at Station #1 before leaving so that their
comments could be recorded. The following summarizes input received for both meetings, including
from input packets, flip charts, and comments applied onto the trail segment plans, enlargements, and
sections.
Input Packet
The input packet included seven sections of questions, and was comprised of general questions, trail
design alternative questions, and segment-specific questions. The following organizes the comments
received from the public in the order they appear in the input packet. Multiple choice questions are
summarized to show the percentage breakdown of the answers received. Questions that had an open
ended answer include the individual comments received.
I. General Background
Question 1: Did you attend Community Meeting #1?
Yes No
37% 63%
Question 2: Do you support a trail at this location?
Yes No
62% 38%
Question 3: How would you use the trail? (circle all that apply)
Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other
40% 10% 33% 4% 13%
Answers under “Other” include:
•Would not use it
•Not at all
•Not at all!
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study124Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 3 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Wouldn’t use it!
•Not
•To walk to restaurants and stores
•To shops and restaurants
Question 4: Do you live or work in Cupertino?
Live Work Live and Work Do not Live or Work
77% 0% 14% 9%
II. Trail Design
Question 1: Which alternative do you prefer?
Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither
16% 55% 29%
Question 2: What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative?
•Cost: significantly more for alternative #2. Use: Alternative #1 will be used multi-use anyway.
•Wider, multi-purpose, dream big - one time cost
•Wider trail, safety that someone not going to fall in ditch.
•Safety
•Multi Use - Bike and Pedestrian
•Safety, traffic, parking, noise, lack of privacy, Increase of strangers in the area
•No bikes, lighting, noise, less privacy, security
•Open Space. It would provide a better experience.
•Impact of people and traffic
•Aesthetics, Width-allows easier bike + pedestrian traffic
•Separation from traffic
•Allowing bicycles on the trail is vital in order for the trail to provide a good commuting
alternative
•Potential users; impact on privacy, security of residents along trail; reversibility; potential impact
to water authority activities
•More room for ped and bike
•Trail width
•I like the extra width provided by Alt #2, but I think Alt #1 would be much simpler and less
expensive which will help it happen! Would particularly be concerned about limiting water flow
or complicating maintenance when covering the ditch. Alt#2 also adds some additional green
buffer to neighbors, but I don't think this will be a problem after it is constructed
•Safety, security, noise impact, privacy for those houses impacted
•This is the "aging of America" (I don't think this is being considered). The aged are not going to
be riding bicycles (nor walking over bridges/trails) to get to their medical appointments or bring
home groceries, etc. We have enough bicycle/access infiltrating our area, bringing in outsiders.
These "designs" will impact the quiet enjoyment of our homes even more!!
•Walking along a trail built right next to a major highway is not something of great appeal;
physical and environmental safety concerns (i.e. fumes from many motor vehicles, noise) will
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 125Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 4 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
not be great appeal; Building and maintaining such a trail, built next to a major highway will be
much more expensive? What is the projected cost?
•The proposed trail would run directly behind my house, it would impact my privacy as well as
increase the noise level
•Safety of existing redwood trees along 280; presence of bikes and pedestrians on same trail -
how safe?
•For the second alternative, there is more space for people to commute to work, or go on a
family walk. For people going to work, it is a longer commute by bike without the trail
•It would be cosmetically nicer and it might keep out any random undesirable smells
•I am concerned about security for property owners next to the trail. As is, there is graffiti on I-
280 sound wall
•Multi-use trail more useful than narrow pedestrian only trail
•It is wider, it looks nicer, there is more greenery
•This is for Apple-only and don't care about us who live next to the trail
•Consistent width, avoids falling in ditches, more visually appealing, avoids conflict with location
on PG&E poles, especially in Station #4 area
•Width! The wider trail is safer to allow pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, etc.
Question 3: Do you live next to the trail?
Yes No
58% 42%
Question 4: Do you have children that would use the trail?
Yes No Possibly in the Future
19% 72% 9%
Station #3 (Trail Segment 1 – Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard)
III. Mary Avenue
Question 1: Which alternative do you prefer?
Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither
6% 65% 29%
Question 2: What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative?
•Wider, bike friendly
•Do the right thing. If trail is not proper and wide it won't be usable and people won't use it.
Having wider trail is right idea.
•Safety
•Multi Use, wider trail
•Security, noise, lighting, privacy
•Terrible proposal
•Width of the trail being better for multiple uses - pedestrian and bicycles; plant a new tree or
bush to replace tree removed.
•Maintain trees along residences
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study126Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 5 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Slope is more natural and pleasing. In an emergency, trail users can leave the trail by climbing
the slope; sharp easement feels walled in.
•Security underpass area
•Pleasant landscaping
•Easier, cheaper, better
•Again, making a choice for a simpler solution has a better chance of getting approved and built; I
would encourage you to maintain as much natural screening as possible and NOT excavate more
to create neighbor isolation; the perception of the negative is greater than the reality
•Why can't the existing Mary Ave. bridge on-ramp be used to access trail? That will reduce the
project costs. Alternative 2 is my second choice, do not support Alternative 1
•See former page [Trail Design]
•Concerns over expense of such a project versus the benefit to public. Do not believe this project
will have a great deal of appeal to most people
•I am not in favor of either alternative especially because it will be right behind our
house/property. This trail would be an invasion of my privacy. The foot and bike traffic would
result in noise and debris left on the trail
•Amount of water flowing in ditch
•Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have
parkour skills, which most people don't). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and
next to a hillside, it would be nicer
•It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :)
•Multi-use of bicycles
•Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail
•Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic
•Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area.
Question 3: Would you use Mary Avenue Bridge to connect to this trail system?
Yes No Maybe
35% 44% 21%
Question 4: Do you have any additional comments about the Mary Avenue Trail access point?
•Restroom, Water station, bench, camera, lighting, mile marker, safety patrol, website to
promote
•Putting water, parking spaces, lighting, maybe restrooms near parks is a good idea.
•You should plan trail on 'storage' side at pedestrian bridge
•Consider collaborating with residences to improve robustness of fences along trail
•Amenities for bikers and walkers here please! Benches and congregating spaces here would be
great (mini-park). Keep those away from the neighbors though
•Concerns over effects and disruption to the local residents, especially over Alternative #1
•Have police on bike patrol at the Stelling undercrossing to deter loitering and theft and graffiti
•Concerned w/ safety for trail users, particularly with potentially being in a secluded area out of
plain sight, by the Loc-N-Stor
•Safety - it seems secluded. Add mirrors for blind spots.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 127Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 6 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
IV. Stelling Road Crossing
Question 1: What type of crossing do you prefer?
Grade-Separated Crossing
Under Stelling Road with
Spur Trail Access and No
Crosswalk Across Stelling
Road
Crosswalk Across Stelling
Road and No Grade-
Separated Crossing under
Stelling Road or Spur Trail
Access
Both a Grade-Separated
Crossing Under Stelling Road
with Spur Trail Access and a
crosswalk Across Stelling
Road
36% 8% 56%
General Station #3 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail segment?
•This is heavy traffic area, option C is better. Least preferred choice is A.
•Stelling is extremely busy at rush hour in morning and evening. A surface crosswalk would be a
disaster
•Not option B: will cause traffic backups on Stelling. Will cause safety issues. Also the bridge
railing when traveling south on Stelling blocks sight line to the trail toward the west making it
much less safe.
•For biking on busy streets, like Stelling, separation is very important to induce casual/weekend
bicyclists
•Crosswalk good for pedestrian access and in case of flooding (?)
•Traffic on Stelling is heavy and depends on events at De Anza College. A crosswalk is likely to be
overlooked (note crosswalk near Quinlan); A Stelling Road entrance to the bike path is likely to
influence and impact traffic on Stelling
•Very noisy
•Very clever solution, if possible and affordable
•Both please! Don't know if Stelling will be a big turning point, the underpass path would
obstruct people wanting to get on Stelling. The crosswalk support will be nominal in cost for the
benefit
•Apple employees have access to trail from campus and not on streets!!!
•Security of undercrossing
•A crosswalk across Stelling Road will make traffic on Stelling much worse than now. The traffic is
bad enough now with traffic from Gardena Dr., Greenleaf, and the apartment complex feeding
into Stelling. During peak hours, traffic can back into Hollenbeck in the north and all the way to
Stevens Creek Blvd to the south
•Both would be great, but any of the options seems workable
•For long distance bike riders, it is much faster to have a grade-separated crossing, it is also safer
•Very concerned about a crosswalk and the interaction with traffic - especially during school
drop-off/pick-up and during rush hour
•If you can't do #1C then do #1A. Do not do just 1B! Add mirrors for blind spots.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study128Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 7 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Station #4 (Trail Segment 2 –De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center)
V. De Anza Boulevard Crossing
Question 1: What type of crossing do you prefer?
Bridge Over-Crossing with
Crosswalk Across De Anza
Boulevard
Tunnel Under-Crossing with
Crosswalk Across De Anza
Boulevard
No Grade-Separated Crossing
and Maintain Existing
Crosswalk Across De Anza
Boulevard
43% 50% 7%
Two people who voted for the bridge option said either the tunnel or bridge option would be fine.
Question 2: Would you support removal of the existing crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard if the bridge
of tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided?
Yes No Maybe
48% 21% 31%
VI. Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue
Question 1: Regarding trail access and amenities, which of the following do you support?
Informal Trail Access and No
Trailhead or Trail Amenities
Single Trail Access Point and
Trailhead with Limited Trail
Amenities
Multiple Trail Access Points
and a Trailhead with Greater
Level of Amenities
29% 32% 39%
General Station #4 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #4 trail segment?
•Must have direct Apple access (infinite loop) to trail, to reduce bikes on Randy Ln/Larry Way.
Limit access points to two: One east of Randy, (just far enough away from Apple to discourage
parking) and one at Blaney. This grade-level proposal for crossing at Blaney is great.
•Right next to my house. Privacy concerns. Live on Larry/Lucille.
•Privacy, parking, traffic are concerns for residents of Lucille, Larry and Randy. 1: Consider wall to
help with privacy. 2: Big no to any access points on Lucille Ave.
•Not familiar with this section so no comment.
•No trail access on Blaney/Lucille
•Maintain fence - ideally make opaque for privacy. Make Lucille permitted parking M-F like Randy
and Larry. Need frequent garbage clean up. Limited access - far from apple side to prevent
parking problems. Maintain access under bridge for car traffic. Need police patrol for safety.
•I support none of these. I live here and would be impacted.
•Maintenance of trash can emptying would be very important
•Multiple access points make the trail more usable for people living in the neighborhood, and
would provide trail users route options
•Informal trail access could serve as a pilot and could be upgraded if the trail use supports
expansion
•Some convenience but less cost
•I prefer tunnel over bridge at De Anza mainly because of reduced elevation gain/loss; Use box
culvert only when needed for trail width
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 129Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 8 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Mostly just need trailhead here; benches would be the only amenities needed
•How is security mentioned? Security patrol? How about people using trail for "hanging out"?
•Don't care…
•As shown
•Get Apple off the streets; safer alternatives for walkers/bikers; be mindful of neighborhood
•Section east of Blaney - no soundwall; trail users protection form vehicles leaving the road
•Provide access to Portal Ave. through CalWater site
•I live next to the trail on Randy Lane; trail would cause such a problem for traffic and people, let
alone criminal activity
•Consider adding Trailhead/access point at the end of Lucille adjacent to the Apple campus. Work
with Apple to create a linkage to Lawson Middle School along the edge of the Apple property,
parallel to Larry Way, It would be nice to have some way to go directly from the trail up to the
Blaney overpass.
•Do not put the additional access points in the middle of Lucille. Trail amenities needed: a map of
trail, a beach, mile markers, lighting. Extra security around the main entrance & under the
bridge. There has been tagging & dumping (mattresses, etc) in this area. Keep the road (Lucille)
open under the bridge. Do not close it. The neighborhood relies on it to get to Homestead
without having to cross Blaney. Critical to AM/PM traffic flow & school traffic.
VII. Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway
General Station #5 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 trail segment?
•Keep Crossing at Wolfe not competing with cross traffic
•This trail is for apple only. What a shame.
•Be sure the contractor of Vallco includes space for bikeway
•Perhaps stipulate that a proper multi-use trail along the south and east edges of hotel
development be included in future development there.
•The proposed path behind the new hotel is bad! It's still under construction - is there a way to
create a path (or alternative path) that passes in front of hotel tracing Perimeter Road.
•Nice
•Have Vallco future pay for access to trail and out of neighborhood!!! Access to trail from Vallco
itself not in neighborhood at all!
•It is important to keep redwoods along 280 intact behind Hyatt House and property behind the
old Macys. Will there be public creek trail along Calabazas Creek from 280 and Calabazas
intersection to the Calabazas and Vallco Parkway intersection? One portion of the creek trail
mentioned above along the small portion of Calabazas Creek should be both pedestrian and
bike.
•Provide easy access to hotel for residents and guests. Use CalWater area for access to Portal
Ave.
•East-west connectivity for bikes between Blaney and Tantau is important, especially with
Pruneridge gone
•Underpass is good
•Make all sections of it as wide as possible to allow lots of multi-uses & improve safety. Add
mirrors for blind spots & destination signs.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study130Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 9 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
General Project Comments (end of input packet)
•Great handout! Do this again.
•Make it a world class trail. Heart of Silicon Valley must look good. Plant new trees.
•Should be trail that represents Cupertino. Home of Apple. Best of best shall be created.
•My property backs up to the trail between Mary and Stelling. I currently see the trail used by
PG&E. My concerns are: 1. liability - I have tall trees that have dropped branches on the trail. 2.
Safety - giving easier access to my back yard. 3. Privacy - I have no fence (just chain link). I am
not against the bike/ped path, just want my concerns addressed.
•This part of Cupertino has been impacted enough by the freeway, the schools, Apple and it's
employees.
•We are very worried about safety, security, privacy. Homestead high school kids jumping the
fence (which they do), homeless, smokers, drugs and nuisance.
•It's a shame that Apple can cause such a project to be contemplated that would impact the
residents of this area.
•I support alternate #2 for Mary to De Anza Blvd.
•Very supportive. Good luck!
•Please, please build it! This trail would remove a lot of local commuting traffic off the roads
(Apple employees between campuses, students to De Anza college…) and provide a great off-
street recreational alternative within the city (jogger, dog walkers...). Provide trash cans along
trail : dog walkers; drinking fountains at trail ends would be great bonus
•Consider if paving is necessary. No lights - encourage dawn to dusk use; Consider Alternative #1
as a pilot which could be expanded if use of trail becomes high.
•Seems like there needs to be more thought about intermediate access points. The major points
are too far apart. While I favor choices that reduce cost and complexity, I would encourage
setting standards for trail width - there are too many narrow pinch points identified already.
Please spend the money to widen where needed.
•I am extremely concerned about safety, privacy, and noise issues. Currently, we have a lot of
people hanging out at 2am during summer nights at the Mary Avenue Bridge trail head, located
directly behind my house. 1) I am extremely concerned this trail will add to the noise we
experience. 2) Make sure security is enforced after dusk (when officers are not busy with school
patrolling). We already clean up broken glass bottles in our yards. 3) We are concerned about
any trash, debris items that can be thrown over the fence into our backyards. 4) Can existing
bike bridge be used to access 280 per alternative #2 near Mary Avenue? This would perhaps
reduce capital costs.
•All-in-all, do not think this to be a very worthwhile project. Probably very expensive and lacking
in widespread appeal. Walkers, joggers, or cycling along trail next to major highway not very
appealing, especially at times of rush-hour traffic.
•I am totally opposed to the construction of the trail
•Super
•Very good graphics and presentation of trail options. Please keep the redwood trees along 280
•Really make sure Apple campus 1 and 2 have good connection to path
•Please think about possibly separating bikers and pedestrians if the trail becomes crowded, in
the future
•Why do I and my neighbors have to suffer because the city can't say no to Apple
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 131Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 10 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Mile Markers (1/4 mile markers), security cameras in key areas and convex mirrors for blind
corners, all for safety. Please make an effort to tie into the new signage style proposed for the
City's Bike Boulevards, including "destination" signs indicating what is near the access points.
Post a 25 mph speed limit (or less). Allow E-bikes with 25 mph max speed. Prohibit other
motorized vehicles (gas, diesel, etc.). I LIKE HAVING A CROSS-TOWN CONNECTION OFF OF THE
BUSY STREET LIKE STEVENS CREEK
•When it opens, safety & security has to be very good to "set the tone" of the project. If people
think it is not safe they won't use it or let their kids use it. Prevent Apple bikes from riding 2-3-4
across & taking over the path like we currently see them, do on our neighborhood streets like
Vista Drive.
(Comments provided via email after both community meetings)
•After briefly reviewing the online story boards, I believe that accompanying trail construction,
permit parking must be extended to the entirety of Lucille between Blaney and Apple. Lucille
already has the occasional Apple employee parking and is used daily for Employees to smoke at
the cul de sac at Apple. The neighborhood is permit parking because of the Apple overflow, and
active vehicle commuters on Lucille is inconsistent with the trail’s use for the three schools
nearby. Also, if smoking is not allowed on the trail, then it somehow should be restricted in the
neighborhood. Apple doesn’t allow smoking on their campus, and if they think the trail
bordering their property is also non-smoking, they will be driving smokers into the
neighborhood which is unacceptable. We already have employees parking on Lucille then
coming back to the area to smoke during breaks.
•I just learned about a potential bike path along the Junipero Serra Channel. This is exciting, as it
would give bicycles a protected way to get from Mary to Tantau. Currently, if you're near 280,
you need to go to Homestead or Stevens Creek to go between Blaney and Wolfe. This change
would encourage more bicycling, getting even more cars off the roadways. Hope you find some
common ground with the water district and Caltrans to get this done. Of course, it would be
great if the road crossings weren't at grade, but I'll leave that to the experts.
Flip Charts
Flip Charts were placed at Station #2 and each of the three trail segment stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Flip charts
did not include a prompted question, all feedback provided was open-ended. Not all Stations with flip charts
received comments.
Project Background And Goals and Objectives – Station 2:
•Goal 4 - Have the trail access along I-280 be strictly for bike traffic. That way bike riders can
travel at a faster speed. This would be good for people commuting on bikes between Apple
Campus (Sunnyvale) and Apple Campus 2 (Tantau).
•If pedestrian and bikes are on the same trial, the bikes need to go slower and pedestrians need
to understand how to go on a trail with bikes
Trail Segment 1 – Station 3:
•Safety, security #1 issue. Graffiti already there. Had a burglary.
•Connect to Stevens Creek Trail to the west?
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study132Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 11 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Trail on north side of 280
•No monitoring of ex. Plaza. Needs monitoring. Use cameras.
•Concern about beacon crossing stopping traffic on Stelling. Concern about safety. Low visibility
southbound.
•Do a soundwall for safety and privacy.
•Light for night use.
•Amenities, drinking fountains, seating, "dream big"
•Security cameras at problem/key areas.
•Traffic stacks at Stelling.
Trail Segment 2 – Station 4:
•Concerns at Lucille Trailhead:
•Safety
•Parking (unwanted!)
•Traffic
•Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime)
•Apple employees (this project is for Apple only)
Trail Segment 3 – Station 5:
•No e-bikes (more than 25 mph)
•No motorized
•Allow e-bikes, speed < 25 mph
Trail Segment Plans
Trail segment plans were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants were invited to
draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment.
Trail Segment 1 – Station 3:
•Concern over liability of trees dropping branches
•Graffiti
•Privacy & security
•Stats on crime - how will police monitor
•Parking will be issue
•Leave redwoods
•Why paved? Leave gravel
•No lights
•Homeless, privacy, security
•Alt 2 viable?
•Do we need a trail? Is demand there? For Apple employees?
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 133Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 12 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Trail Segment 2 – Station 4:
•Blaney avenue: don't block
•Blaney impacted by traffic
•Concern bringing kids through an already congested area.
•Keep fence to prohibit access from Lucille
•Drive kids to school due to speeding cars
•One access point may be ok
•No sidewalk
•Lucille not under some parking permit. Needs to be included in permit program
•Will trail encourage parking on Lucille?
•Lots of Apple bikes
•Can you provide access here? For Lawson & Apple
•Need access to Apple to Trail
•Two access points
•Speeding traffic to school
•Use mirrors for blind spots
•Call boxes along trail. Emergency.
•Bike runnels at stairs?
•Can we have police cameras on the trail
•Consider security of users in tunnel crossing
•Access for Apple employees to trail & the streets
•Would not preclude Alt 2 in the future
•Look @ stair channels
Trail Segment 3 – Station 5:
•Access for Guests & Visitors
Trail Enlargements/Sections
Mary Avenue Bridge
•Pedestrian Trail: concern about buffering
Stelling Road Crossing
•Would people loiter here? Sheriffs need to patrol trail. Presence.
•Heavy traffic on Stelling Rd
•Lights in ground too
•No loitering
Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue
•Might not be feasible
•Moving trucks double park and isn't safe
•Shift road to enable consistent class I
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study134Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 13 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Prohibit access in this area...not safe
•Add mirrors
•Redwood trees @ curb
•Trash & homeless
•Cut through lots of trash
•Hiding spot under bridge
•Homeless living in ex tunnel
•Taggers
•Can you put a sidewalk here?
•Parking concerns
•Safety - can you have call boxes? Mile markers
•Car theft (Lucille ave)
•Consider alternative fencing - that provides features of existing chainlink (e.g. animal/pedestrian
control)
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the
meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any
questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Attachments:
1.Input Packet Response Data Presentation
2.Meeting notification material
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 135Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate
311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
June 18, 2018
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #3
Location: Cupertino Civic Center, Community Hall
Date: June 6, 2018
Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Total number of people who signed-in: 19
Total number of people who turned-in an input packet: 13
Attendees:
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Santa Clara County Sergeant Jason Brown (JB), jason.brown@shf.sccgov.org
Sheriff’s Office:
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Kelly Kong (KK), kkong@callanderassociates.com
Community members were notified about the event through the following methods (refer to the end of
the report for example outreach materials):
•City’s website
•City Channel
•Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter)
•Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest
•Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall
•Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents
•Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter
•Postcard mailings to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents
including residents/businesses within 300 feet of a proposed trailhead
•Email notifications to subscribers of the “Bicycle Transportation Plan” email list
•Email notification to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the nearby surrounding neighborhoods
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study136Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 2 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
The format of the meeting was an open house style where participants were invited to arrive at any
time during the event window and provide individual feedback on the trail project. Sergeant Brown was
present to address concerns about safety and security along the potential trail. Six stations were set up
for participants to visit at their own pace. Station #1 was the welcome table, where participants were
greeted by City staff and provided a questionnaire to record comments as they traveled between
stations. The five remaining stations included:
•Project background and goals and objectives (Station #2)
•The three segments of the proposed trail (Stations #3, 4, 5)
•Refreshments (Station #6)
Participants were asked to return their questionnaire at Station #1 before leaving so that their
comments could be recorded. The following summarizes input received at and after the meeting,
including from questionnaires, flip charts, comments written onto the trail segment plans,
enlargements, sections, and follow-up e-mails.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire included two sections of questions and was comprised of general questions and more
specific input. The following organizes the comments received from the public in the order they appear
in the questionnaire. Multiple choice questions are summarized to show the percentage breakdown of
the answers received. Questions that had an open-ended answer include the individual comments
received.
I. General Background
Question 1: Did you attend Community Meeting #1 or Community Meeting #2?
Only #1 Only #2 Both #1 and #2 Neither
8% 17% 17% 58%
Written Comment:
•#1 or #2
Question 2: Do you support a trail at this location?
Yes No
75% 25%
Written Comment:
•Maybe only if its Alternative #2 on Mary
Question 3: How would you use the trail? (circle all that apply)
Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other
21% 21% 53% 0% 5%
Answers under “Other” include:
•Getting around town!
Question 4: Do you live or work in Cupertino?
Live Work Live and Work Do not Live or Work
50% 0% 50% 0%
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 137Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 3 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
II. Input
Question 1: What aspects of the trail design do you like? What do you like about the
proposed trail?
•Very nicely done.
•The bridge concept. Definitely is superior in my opinion. Aspects of safety,
aesthetics, cost etc. are best. I totally don’t like the tunnel concept. Not good for
safety, cost, etc.
•Thank you for listening to people’s comments.
•It’s a trail, where neighbor kids can ride/scooter/run safely. It’s an off-street
cross route for the non-motorized. If there’s a problem with homeless
encampment, it would probably help.
•In Alt 2 I like the buffer of increased space = plantings to have trail impact
residents less. I like how this would connect Apple’s campus making biking
easier & safer between campus. Like the idea of walking trail.
•Connect Apple to Apple relieving city streets of dangerous bikes. Safer
bike/vehicle separation is preferred. Trail option #2 east of De Anza is the only
acceptable option.
•Enclosed culvert with trail on top. Undercrossing at De Anza and Stelling (and
Wolfe). At Mary, prefer trail NOT adjacent to home (Alt 2)
•Under grade coming at Stelling bridge at De Anza Blvd
•The design where the trail sits on top of the drainage
Question 2: How can the proposed trail be improved?
•Don’t like the current plans for De Anza Blvd. Overcrossing or undercrossing.
•A beautiful designed bridge is the ideal.
•Mitigation for encroaching homeless and crime.
•Can’t think of anything in particular. The consultants have some good ideas, albeit expensive.
•Add lighting. Lighting that does not impact homes, but low enough to highlight
misuse during darkness. Trail heads official physical closure from dawn to dusk.
Need more parking at trailhead on Mary. It’s not realistic to say that people
won’t park at the trailhead.
•More parking would be needed at trailheads. Trail needs official closure from
Sherriff’s office and needs to be actively enforced. Lighting needs to be added. It
should be low profile as to not cause light pollution onto resident homes.
•Apple employees who will use this trail need access from their own campus to
get on trail. Having them come down onto the neighborhood to access trail is
unacceptable to Linwood Acres residents. No access point at end of Randy. Too
many bikes – pedestrians at this busy Apple school neighborhood.
•Vehicle barrier between Blaney overpass and Wolfe = dangerously close
pedestrian/homeless access to freeway and trail. As proposed no grade or
vertical barrier protecting path.
•Add the access from N Portal along Calwater Property. Add access on Apple side
of wall adjacent to homes on Larry way with a spur to Lawson Middle School.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study138Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 4 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•It good enough
•Mary Ave @ Bridge: prefer Alt #2 because it’s away from residents and allows
trail users to get on bridge faster. Blaney Ave Intersection – prefer Alt #2
because the width can be 12’ fixed rather than varying, there’s more plantings
bordering Lucille to buffer sound of freeway and trail users, safer for all users
because it will be wider.
•Remove all access points on Lucille except one by the Blaney overpass bridge
and one at the other end of Lucille at the cul de sac.
•It is critical to have an access point to this trail from Apple Infinity Loop to get
Apple employees off the streets and encourage them to use the trail.
•Negotiate a spur from the trail to Lawson Middle School on the Apple side of the
wall bordering residents on Larry Way.
Question 3: Do you have any other comments about the project?
•It is nice you can plan this even when we don’t know what will happen at Vallco.
•I do not like the trail across De Anza Blvd. I live in the condominium at the SW
corner of 280 and De Anza. Very impressed with the crew here on 3rd
community night.
•What is the upside for homeowners along Gardena and Mary? The trail will bring
security and privacy invasions with no apparent benefit to these residents.
Reevaluate necessity with existing bike boulevards.
•The wider you can make the path the safer it will be because bikes, peds,
strollers, skateboard, dogs, etc. will use it. Wider means fewer collisions.
•Good work with it!
•Is this a project that will be put up for a vote by the community or does the
community not have a say? Gardena Drive will become even more dangerous
with a greater influx of commuters commuting to the start of the trailhead on
Mary.
•This project should be put to an official vote. It negatively impacts several
residents while benefitting mostly Apple employees that want to bike to work.
These meetings are tough to make it to when you work outside of Cupertino.
Every neighbor that I have personally talks to is very against this project. I reside
on the proposed trail path.
•Prefer Alternative 2 – Why is Apple not yet involved as this literally will connect
its 2 campuses? Prefer lots of trees where the trail impacts neighborhoods to
mitigate noise, trash impact.
•The lack of detail between Randy and De Anza does not build public trust. A
failure to document access to Apple from the North and East, which does not
exist now, and which would have an immediate impact on neighborhood, is
unacceptable. Apple controls its own fences, and without documenting city
barrier intent, all that exists currently is Apple fence.
•Keep going! Negotiate to have Apple access point to trail that does not require
Apple bikes to ride through neighborhood streets to access trail.
•Mary Avenue – Use Alt #2/Segment 1 – Use Alt #2
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 139Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 5 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Bridge over De Anza looks good
•Alternative #1 on Mary is right behind our house. I strongly oppose it. It would
impact our privacy, safety and potentially other issues such as more noise,
obstructed views. If at all, Alternative #2 should be evaluated for this project and
the only option. Please take the homeowners along the trail @ Mary in
consideration & big negative impact it has with Alternative #1.
•The proposed 8 ft fence (wood) maintenance should also be the City’s
responsibility. Control area bike use should also be established which is not
evident in the I-280 overpass.
•Mary Ave @ Bridge – prefer Alt #2 because its away from residents & allows trail
users to get on bridge faster
•Blaney Ave Intersection – prefer, Alt #2 because:
1.The width can be 12’ fixed rather than varying
2.There are more plantings bordering Lucille to buffer sound of freeway and
trail users
3.Safer for all users because it will be wider
•Remove all access points on Lucille expect one by the Blaney overpass bridge
and one at the other end of Lucille at the cul-de-sac
•It is critical to have an access point to this trail from Apple Infinity Loop to get
Apple employees off the streets and encourage them to the trail
•Negotiate a spur from the trail to Lawson Middle School on the Apple side of the
wall bordering residents on Larry Way
Alternative Alignment Plan:
Alternative Alignment plans were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants were
invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment.
•Conduct sensibility of parking for those who will drive to Mary entrance
•Privacy and security concern for residents along path
•Consider mitigation for crime during non-use hours
•No tunnel – feels unsafe
•No at-grade crossing – most dangerous
•Trail safety critical for everyone
•Apple access point? Connect to Apple Park campus.
•Blaney: homeless
•Blaney intersection: wall?
What We Heard:
What We Heard boards were placed at stations 2 through 5. Participants were invited to draw and write
on each board to provide comments on what we heard from previous meetings.
•Alternative #1 too close to fence. No privacy. Alt #2
•Like’s Alt #2 @ Mary. Less impact to privacy.
•Establish rules of the road. Prepare a document explaining how shared use trail
works. Public outreach.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study140Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 6 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Series of public presentations in the City Hall to discuss proper trail etiquette.
This means what type of behavior is expected of pedestrians and bicyclists on
the Loop Trail.
Flip Charts
Flip Charts were placed at stations 2 through 5. Participants were invited to draw and write on each flip
chart to provide feedback for each station where there was a flip chart.
Bike path across De Anza Blvd. (Sunnyvale – Saratoga):
•Issue with the bike bridge over Sunnyvale – Saratoga Ave. This is a good idea, but it is visual clutter
and makes the whole area look like the middle of a big freeway going over Sunnyvale – Saratoga Rd.
This design detracts from the beauty of the Apple I campus and the trees and the other buildings. Too
much clutter.
•On other view of having an underground tunnel in lieu of the bike bridge over Sunnyvale – Saratoga
Avenue, the current tunnel as presented is dark and scarey [sic] and looks like it would not be safe to
walk in. There could be pick-pockets and purse snatchers. There is too much enclosed area in the
tunnel and as a woman I would not feel safe walking or bicycling in that dark tunnel with no one else
around.
•Can you come up with a better plan?
•Underground is good, but currently it is too dark and scarey [sic] and unsafe.
•Remove multiple access points on Lucille and keep only one at Blaney overpass and one at Apple
parking lot corner (possibly open on both Apple and Lucille sides)
•Negotiate with Apple to add a spur along edge of parking lot adjacent to homes on Larry Way to
provide off street parking access to Lawson Middle School and Apple employees
•Homelessness concern: What mitigations will be taken if homelessness does
become a problem after the trail is built?
•Connections Map: Show access points to trail!
Trail Enlargements/Sections
Trail Enlargements and Sections were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants
were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment.
Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue
•Apple access is very important
•Would rather have parking
•Flashing beacon
•Can a flashing sign be put here to alert cars of peds?
•Trash concerns
•Keep existing redwoods and water valve & existing boxes
•New landscape
•Informal trail
•Lots of litter
Stelling Rd Under Crossing:
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 141Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 7 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•More solid @ bottom of fence
•Deterrent to potential homeless camp
•Close
•Signage for cyclists
Community E-mails
Some community members who were not able to attend the community meeting sent Jennifer comments
about the project via e-mail.
E-mail #1:
Jennifer,
It was good meeting with you during last meeting in this topic. I won't be in town to participate in
person.
As expressed during our meeting I am reiterating my points,
1. Our primary stance is "complete No- No for this initiative."
The reason is we are very seriously concerned with Security, privacy as well
Our safety. In addition, unknown people hanging around and noise are concerns as well.
I had expressed similar concerns during Mary avenue bridge. City officials were deaf to our concerns.
We continue to suffer from late night noise, some illegal acts, unknowns hanging around in the area
between our backyard and empty area off Bridge.
2. However if city officials still continue to take same stance ( as in the past )and build a trail, here are
options,
1. Trail will be used only for walking/ Jogging.
2. No bike access / Skate boarders.
3. Strict access control to Homestead high students.
4. City officials Meeting with neighbors every quarter for any concerns.
I also insist on following,
1. We need 10 feet solid wood fence to be built. This will be maintained and managed by city.
2. No access to trail after 7 pm till 7 am.
3. More cops and police to monitor trail access and faster response in case of any issues or concerns.
4. 24x7, monitoring Cameras to be installed at the trail entrance. Alarms in case of access after 7 PM
till 7 AM.
5. Strict control policy on noise level. Currently we have several days the year people hanging around
bridge area making loud noises, chatting which goes on till late night.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study142Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 8 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Lastly, we need guarantee from city on our safety, security concerns are, if not a firm commitment
from city and owning responsibility for any issues / concerns arising from such incidences as well
being legally liable.
Please ensure our concerns and voice is heard clear and loud in any further planning.
Thank you,
”Name Omitted for Privacy”
E-mail #2:
Dear Jennifer,
As 20+ year residents of Cupertino, we would like to voice our support for the Junipero Serra bike
trail.
”Name Omitted for Privacy”
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the
meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any
questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates
cc: File
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 143Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 9 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Pictures of Community Meeting #3
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study144Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 11 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Door Hanger:
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 145Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 12 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Door Hanger for Residents Around Portal Avenue:
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study146Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 13 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Meeting Postcard:
(Front of Postcard)
(Back of Postcard)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 147Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study148Appendix
12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 149Appendix
12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study150Appendix
12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 151Appendix
12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study152Appendix
Outreach Materials - City Flier
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 153Appendix
Outreach Materials - City Postcard
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study154Appendix
Outreach Materials - City Door Hanger
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 155Appendix
Outreach Materials - City Door Hanger for Portal Ave Residents
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study156Appendix
Outreach Materials - Hand Out
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 157
Apple R.O.W. Aquisition Exhibit
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study158
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 159Appendix
Sandis - Box Culvert E-mail
Jana Schwartz <j.schwartz@callanderassociates.com>
Box Culvert Information - Junipero Serra Trail
1 message
David Rubin <drubin@callanderassociates.com>Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:07 PM
To: Jennifer Chu <JenniferC@cupertino.org>, David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org>
Cc: Jana Schwartz <jschwartz@callanderassociates.com>, Brian Fletcher <bfletcher@callanderassociates.com>
Jenn/David,
I wanted to follow up on your questions yesterday regarding the box culvert. I was able to connect with Sandis and get
some additional information. Below is the email from Jenner Phillips at Sandis regarding sizing of the culvert. Also,
attached to this email are Caltrans details for box culverts, similar to what we'd propose here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect the channel was designed for the full build-out condition as well as to accommodate the 100-yr storm. Assuming
everything from Stevens Creek Blvd flows north into the channel, I roughly calculate a 100-yr flow rate of 1329 cu-ft/sec.
This is based on a composite run-off coefficient of 0.64 for a drainage area of 940 acres.
I then compared that to the flow capacities of different parts of the channel. The box culvert (10ft wide x 6ft tall) just before
the naturalized channel at Wolfe has a roughly calculated capacity of approximately 1340 cu-ft/sec.
Based on our conversations to cover the culvert to gain more space for the path, I think a good option might be to replace
the trapezoidal channel with a box culvert where the top of the culvert could be the top of the path (or at least a part of the
path) with direct manhole access for maintenance personnel.
The following segments of could be changed per the following:
Mary to Stelling – 4’x4’ Box Culvert;
Stelling to De Anza – 8’x5’ Box Culvert;
De Anza to Wolfe – 10’x6’ Box Culvert;
Wolfe to Calabazas Creek – Remain Unlined Trapezoidal.
The unlined channel will very likely have to remain unlined. I doubt the Waterboards will allow a naturalized channel to be
paved. They actively try to do the reverse.
Drain inlets should be installed along the length to allow surface water to flow in and culvert water to flow out if the channel
floods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information regarding access and maintenance:
Q: How is culvert accessed and how far apart are access points?
A: Can cast the manhole access flush with the top of the culvert or add a riser if there is fill above. Typically manholes are
either 300 or 400 ft apart. It depends on maintenance preferences and costs. Either end of the culvert will need bars or
something to restrict access.
Q: How big are the access locations?
A: Typical 2' manhole access.
Q: What kind of equipment is needed to maintain culvert?
A: Smaller sections probably need to be flushed clean similar to circular pipe sections, larger sections could allow a crew
inside with equipment (power washers, brooms, shovels, etc…). The box culverts are designed to handle H-20 loading
Lastly, alternative #2 means converting 10,100 linear feet of ditch from Mary Ave. to Wolfe Rd to box culvert (or about
1.91 miles). The last section east of Wolfe would remain unlined as it is today.
I hope this helps and please let me know if you need anything else regarding the culverts. Thanks,
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study160Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 161
Sandis - CalTrans Box Culvert Notes
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study162
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 163
Sandis - CalTrans Box Culvert Notes
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study164
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 165
Sandis - De Anza Blvd Overhead Wires Survey
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study166
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 167Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet
17056_CommunityMeeting#1CommentHandout.indd
December 6, 2017
• Travel to each of the stations
and provide your input
• Enjoy the refreshments
• Ask us lots of questions
Junipero Serra Trail
December 6, 2017
How would you use this trail?
Circle all that apply.
Walking/Jogging/Biking
Commuting to Work
Taking children to school
None of the above
1.
2.
3.
4.
How often do you currently
use a trail system elsewhere?
Circle one.
Never
Once a year
Once a month
Once a week
More than once a week
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Regarding trail development, what’s
most important to you?
Circle all that apply.
Safety and security
Trail access
Trail amenities
Connections to other bike and pedestrian facilities
Other:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Community Meeting #1
Welcome!
How to get started
Tell us what you think
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study168Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet
December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1
Available Width, less than 14’-0”
(does not meet class 1 multi-use standards)
City Limits
Available Width, 14’-0” minimum
(meets class 1 multi-use standards)
Trail Connection Point
Existing Conditions
Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area
Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
Public Building (BA)
Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor
General Commercial (CG)
Office/Planned Office (OA/OP)
Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor
Agricultural Residential (A1)
Regional Shopping / Hotel
HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element)
(BA)
(CG, ML)
(BA)
(BQ,
Mini-Stor)
*residential zoning is not shown
Bike Lanes on Street
Existing Connections
Bike Route
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Overhead Utilities
Gateway
Class 1 Bike Path
Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial
Zone (MP)
(BA)
(BQ)
THE LOOPCupertino
0 50 100 200
17056_SiteAnalysis.indd
Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis
HOMESTEAD
HIGH SCHOOL
GARDEN GATE
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Mary Avenue Bridge
MARY AVENUESTELLING ROADI-280
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
STATION #3 - Mary Ave to De Anza Blvd
What do you like about this segment
of the trail?
What can be improved in this segment
of the trail?
Please rate this segment’s overall desirability:
Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities:
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Commuting to work
Walking/Jogging/Biking
Going to school
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 169Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet
December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1 B(CG, ML, OA)(BQ)
(R2, Mini-Stor)
(A1)
Available Width, less than 14’-0”
(does not meet class 1 multi-use standards)
City Limits
Available Width, 14’-0” minimum
(meets class 1 multi-use standards)
Trail Connection Point
Existing Conditions
Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area
Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
Public Building (BA)
Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor
General Commercial (CG)
Office/Planned Office (OA/OP)
Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor
Agricultural Residential (A1)
Regional Shopping / Hotel
HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element)
*residential zoning is not shown
Bike Lanes on Street
Bike Route
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Overhead Utilities
Gateway
0 50 100 200
Existing Connections
Class 1 Bike Path
Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP)
(BQ)
17056_SiteAnalysis.indd
THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis
APPLE
LAWSON
MIDDLE
SCHOOL BLANEY AVENUEDE ANZA BOULEVARDI-280
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
12 13
14 15 16 17 18
19
20
21
22
STATION #4 - De Anza Blvd to Vallco Center
What do you like about this segment
of the trail?
What can be improved in this segment
of the trail?
Please rate this segment’s overall desirability:
Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities:
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Commuting to work
Walking/Jogging/Biking
Going to school
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study170Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet
December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1
HE
HE
(Regional
Shopping)
(Heart of the City
Specific Plan Area)
HE
Enlargement Area - Hyatt House Hotel Bike/Ped Path Connection
Available Width, less than 14’-0”
(does not meet class 1 multi-use standards)
City Limits
Available Width, 14’-0” minimum
(meets class 1 multi-use standards)
Trail Connection Point
Existing Conditions
Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area
Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
Public Building (BA)
Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor
General Commercial (CG)
Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP)
Office/Planned Office (OA/OP)
Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor
Agricultural Residential (A1)
Regional Shopping / Hotel
HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element)
*residential zoning is not shown
Bike Lanes on Street
Bike Route
Class 1 Bike Path
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Overhead Utilities
Gateway
0 50 100 200
Existing Connections
(Hotel)
17056_SiteAnalysis.indd
THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014AADROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
OUTDOOR DINING
POOL
EXISTING TREE
SHADE TREE
FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE
UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE
STREET TREE IN GRATE
PUBLIC ART
DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE)
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
TRASH/RECYCLING BIN
STORMWATER PLANTING
ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP
SCREENED TRANSFORMER
LEGEND
NORTH SCALE:1” = 20’-0”
L-1
12
12
13 13
8
1
3 4
6
7
2
2
2
7
7 10
11
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
16
15
14
13
8
0’ 5’20’10’10’Aproposed calss IV separated bike
lane as part of I-280/Wolfe Road
interchange improvments
green-backed bike
lanes along N Tantau
Ave. and Vallco Pkwy.
see enlargement
area
connection to proposed trail
hotel bicycle/pedestrian path
CALABAZAS CREEKN TAN
TAU
AVENUE
VALLC
O
P
A
R
K
W
A
YN WO
L
FE
ROAD
I-280
Vallco marquee sign
P(MP)
APPLE
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
33
32
3130292827
26
25
24
23
STATION #5 - Vallco Center to Vallco Pkwy
What do you like about this segment
of the trail?
What can be improved in this segment
of the trail?
Please rate this segment’s overall desirability:
Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities:
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Commuting to work
Walking/Jogging/Biking
Going to school
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 171Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
17056_CommunityMeeting#2CommentHandout.indd
February 20 and 26, 2018
• Travel to each of the stations
and provide your input
• Enjoy the refreshments
• Ask us lots of questions
Junipero Serra Trail
February 20 and 26, 2018
1. Did you attend
Community Meeting #1?
Circle one.
Yes
No
A.
B.
3. How would you
use the trail?
Circle all that apply.
Biking
Jogging
Walking
Commuting
Other:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
4. Do you live or
work in Cupertino?
Circle one.
I live in Cupertino
I work in Cupertino
I live and work in Cupertino
I do not live or work in Cupertino
A.
B.
C.
D.
Community Meeting #2
Welcome!
How to get started
I. General Background
2. Do you support a
trail at this location?
Circle one.
Yes
No
A.
B.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study172Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
II. Trail Design
1. Which alternative do you prefer?
Circle one.
Alternative #1
Alternative #2
Neither
A.
B.
C.
2. What factors impact your decision in
selecting a trail alternative?
Please provide your response below.
3. Do you live next to the trail?
Circle one.
Yes
No
A.
B.
THE LOOPCupertinoTrail Sections
17056_TrailSections.indd
Public Service
Easement
City of Cupertino
Width Varies
75’- 0”
Existing Trail
ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-Stor
Slope Easement
Cupertino Loc-N-StorPublic Service
Easement
City of Cupertino
Width Varies
75’- 0”Slope Easement
Existing Trail
Residential
12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ.
2’-0”2’-0”
Pedestrian Trail
Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ.
10’-0”
Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor
Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside
Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull
Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree
Removal and Grading Will Be Required.
Existing
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0”
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
Shoulder,
Typ.
Asphalt Trail
35’- 0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Existing
Proposed
Pedestrian Trail
+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
35’- 0”
9’- 0”
2’-0”
Shoulder
Public
Storage
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
11’- 6”+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees
35- 0”
PG&E Transmission Poll
Existing Concrete Lined
Drainage Ditch
Existing Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B
+-
+-
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Sections
17056_TrailSections.indd
Public Service EasementCity of CupertinoWidth Varies 75’- 0”Existing Trail ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-StorSlope Easement
Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Public Service
Easement
City of Cupertino
Width Varies
75’- 0”
Slope Easement
Existing Trail
Residential
12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ.
2’-0”2’-0”
Pedestrian Trail
Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ.
10’-0”
Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor
Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside
Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull
Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree
Removal and Grading Will Be Required.
Existing
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
12’-0”2’-0”2’-0”
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
Shoulder,
Typ.
Asphalt Trail
35’- 0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Existing
Proposed
Pedestrian Trail
+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
35’- 0”
9’- 0”
2’-0” ShoulderPublic Storage Caltrans R.O.W.I-28011’- 6”+-SCVWD R.O.W.Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees35- 0”PG&E Transmission PollExisting Concrete Lined Drainage DitchExisting Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B+-
+-
Alternative #1
Open Drainage Ditch, Pedestrian Trail
Alternative #2
Covered Drainage Ditch, Class 1
Multi-UseTrail
4. Do you have children that would use this trail?
Circle one.
Yes
No
Possibly in the future
A.
B.
C.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 173Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
STATION #3 - Mary Avenue Trail Access
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Sections
17056_TrailSections.indd
Public Service
Easement
City of Cupertino
Width Varies
75’- 0”Existing Trail
ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-Stor
Slope Easement
Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Public Service
Easement
City of Cupertino
Width Varies
75’- 0”
Slope Easement
Existing Trail
Residential
12’-0”2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ.
2’-0”2’-0”
Pedestrian Trail
Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ.
10’-0”
Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor
Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside
Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull
Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree
Removal and Grading Will Be Required.
Existing
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0”
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
Shoulder,
Typ.
Asphalt Trail
35’- 0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Existing
Proposed
Pedestrian Trail
+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
35’- 0”
9’- 0”
2’-0”
Shoulder
Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W.I-28011’- 6”+-SCVWD R.O.W.Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees35- 0”PG&E Transmission PollExisting Concrete Lined Drainage DitchExisting Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B+-
+-
Alternative #1
Pedestrian Trail
Alternative #2
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
III. Mary Avenue
1. Which alternative do you prefer?
Circle one.
Alternative #1
Alternative #2
Neither
A.
B.
C.
2. What factors impact your decision in
selecting a trail alternative?
Please provide your response below
3. Would you use Mary Avenue Bridge to
connect to this trail system?
Circle one.
Yes
No
Maybe
A.
B.
C.
4. Do you have any additional comments about
the Mary Avenue Trail access point?
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study174Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
STATION #3 - Stelling RoadTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Auzerais Ave
Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’
Wide Over Covered Ditch
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk
Open Ditch
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide
Undercrossing Example
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
HWY
85
Stevens Cree
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
1. What crossing type do you prefer? Circle one.
A grade-separated crossing under Stelling Road with spur trail access and no crosswalk across Stelling Road
A crosswalk across Stelling Road with no grade-separated crossing under Stelling Road or spur trail access
Both a grade-separated crossing and crosswalk across Stelling Road with spur trail access
A.
B.
C.
Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail segment?
Stelling Road
Crossing Options
IV. Stelling Road Crossing
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Auzerais Ave
Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’
Wide Over Covered Ditch
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk
Open Ditch
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide
Undercrossing Example
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
HWY
85
Stevens Cree
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 175Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
STATION #4 - De Anza BoulevardTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Bicycle / Pedestrian Bridge Over-Crossing Examples
De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement
Bridge Over-CrossingDe Anza BoulevardInterstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Existing Caltrans
Fence To Remain
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 16’ Wide
PG&E Tower To
Remain
Stairs to Bridge
Over-Crossing, Typ.
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Trailhead Plaza, Typ.
Bridge
Over-Crossing
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Relocated PG&E
Tower
PG&E Tower To
Be Removed
Existing Property
Fence, Apple
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
40
MPH
1. What crossing type do you prefer?
Circle one.
Bridge over-crossing with crosswalk
across De Anza Boulevard
Tunnel under-crossing with crosswalk
across De Anza Boulevard
No grade-separated crossing and
maintain existing crosswalk across
De Anza Boulevard
A.
B.
C.
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Bicycle / Pedestrian Under-Crossing Examples
Stevens Creek Trail
Local Example: Stevens Creek Trail, Mountain View
Under-Crossing Below El Camino Real With Center Skylight And LightingDe Anza BoulevardDe Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement
Tunnel Under-Crossing
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Interstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
PG&E Tower To Be
Removed
Tunnel Under-Crossing
With Skylight For Natural
Lighting
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
Tunnel Approach
Ramp
Tunnel Approach
Ramp
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 16’ Wide
East Trail Spur, 10’
Wide
40
MPH
Reocated PG&E Tower
on Caltrans R.O.W.
Existing Property
Fence, Apple
Stairs to Tunnel
Under-Crossing, Typ.
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
De Anza Boulevard Bridge Over-Crossing
De Anza Boulevard Tunnel Under-Crossing
V. De Anza Boulevard Crossing
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Auzerais Ave
Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’
Wide Over Covered Ditch
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk
Open Ditch
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide
Undercrossing Example
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
HWY
85
Stevens Cree
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Auzerais Ave
Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’
Wide Over Covered Ditch
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk
Open Ditch
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide
Undercrossing Example
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
HWY
85
Stevens Cree
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
2. Would you support removal of the existing
crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard if the bridge
or tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided?
Circle one.
Yes
No
Maybe
A.
B.
C.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study176Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
STATION #4 - Blaney RoadTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements / Sections
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
C
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Interstate 280
Blaney AvenueRandy LaneVilla De Anza AvenueProposed Sidewalk To Meet Existing Sidewalk
at Olivewood StreetMetal Beam Guardrail
At Curve
Existing Edge Of Street
Proposed Curb Shift, 2’-0” approximately
10’ Width At
Pinch Point
Blaney Avenue
Intersection Enlargement
Alternative #1Existing
SECTION C
Alternative #2
City R.O.W.Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
18’- 6”+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
40’- 0”
Existing Tree
Existing Tree
Existing Sound Wall
PG&E Transmission
Pole
Lucille Avenue
Existing Chainlink Fence
Existing Concrete Lined
Drainage Ditch
PG&E Transmission
Lines
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
40’- 0”
Varies,
12’-0” Max.2’-0”2’-0”
Pedestrian or Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt Trail Shoulder,
Typ.
City R.O.W.
Existing Tree
To Remain
Sound Wall To Remain
Guardrail, 4’-6” Tall, Only
Where Drop-Off Slope
Exceeds 3:1
Concrete Lined Drainage
Ditch To RemainLucille Avenue
Existing Tree
To Remain
3:1
Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0”
Tall, With Openings
Along Lucille Avenue
For Trail Access
PG&E Transmission
Lines To Remain
PG&E Transmission
Pole To Remain
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
40’- 0”
12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt Trail Shoulder,
Typ.
City R.O.W.
Existing Tree
To Remain
Sound Wall To Remain
Lucille Avenue
Existing Tree
To Remain
Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0”
Tall, With Openings
Along Lucille Avenue
For Trail Access
Concrete Box Culvert
PG&E Transmission
Lines To Remain
PG&E Transmission
Pole To Remain
Planted Stormwater
Treatment Area
Paved Trail Access Point
Guy Anchor To Be Modified, Maintain
Min. 10’ Vertical Clearance Over Trail
Access manhole
at 400’- 0”, typ.
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 16’ Wide Over
Covered Ditch
Trailhead
Existing Tree To
Remain, Typ.Landscaping, Typ.
Existing On-street
Parking
Seatwall, Typ.
Low Split Rail Fence,
Typ.
Wires Overhead,
Typ.
D.G. Path
Connection, Typ.
PG&E Tower,
Typ.
Proposed Crosswalk
and Sidewalk With
Ramps
25
MPH
Lucille Avenue CEnlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
Do you have any comments about the Station #4 trail segment?
VI. Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue
Blaney Avenue with Trail
Access on Lucille Avenue
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Auzerais Ave
Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’
Wide Over Covered Ditch
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk
Open Ditch
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide
Undercrossing Example
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
HWY
85
Stevens Cree
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
1. Regarding trail access and amenities, which of the following do you support? Circle one.
Informal trail access and no trailhead or trail amenities at this location
Single trail access point and trailhead with limited trail amenities at this location
Multiple trail access points and a trailhead with greater level of amenities at this location
A.
B.
C.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 177Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
0 50 100 200
City Limits
Trail Connection Point / Enlargement Area
Existing Conditions
Trail Types
Bike Lanes on Street
Existing Connections
Bike Route
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Gateway
Class 1 Bike Path
Covered Ditch, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail,
16’-0” minimum
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’-0” minimum
Pedestrian Trail, less than 16’-0”
Alternative #2
Alternative #1
Standard
17056_AlternativeAlignmentPlan.indd
THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Trail - Alternative Alignment Plan
CALABAZAS CREEK
TAN
TAU
AV
ENUE
VALLC
O
P
A
R
K
W
A
YWOL
F
E
ROAD
I-280
Vallco marquee sign
APPLE
See Hyatt House
Hotel Enlargement
Vallco / I-280
Interchange Projects
Class 1 Multi-
Use Trail, 20’
Wide Public Trail
Easement
Potential
Trailhead and
Connection
to Signalized
Intersection DE
STATION #5 - Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway
Do you have any comments about the Station #5 trail segment?
VII. Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway
THE LOO
P
Cupertino
Trail Enl
a
r
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
17056_Tra
il
E
n
l
a
r
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
_
V
2
.
i
n
d
d
February
2
0
/
2
6
,
2
0
1
8
Auzerais
A
v
e
Stelling
R
o
a
d I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
ti
o
n
E
nl
a
r
g
e
m
e
n
tStelling RoadInterstate
2
8
0
Existing C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
F
e
n
c
e
T
o
R
e
m
ai
n
Class 1 M
ul
ti
-
U
s
e
T
r
ail,
1
6’
Wi
d
e
Over Cov
e
r
e
d
Di
t
c
h
West Trail
S
p
u
r
,
10’ Wide
East Trail
S
p
u
r,
10’ Wide
Class 1 M
ul
ti
-
U
s
e
T
r
ail,
1
6’
Wide Ove
r
C
o
v
e
r
e
d
Di
t
c
h
Barrier Rai
li
n
g,
Typ.
At-grade
Hi
g
h
e
r
Visibility
C
r
o
s
s
w
al
k
Open Dit
c
h
Access C
o
n
t
r
o
l
F
e
n
c
e
A
t
T
r
ail
E
d
g
e
Sloped T
r
ail
U
n
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
si
n
g,
<
5
%
Running
Sl
o
p
e,
Cl
a
s
s
1
M
ul
t
i
-
U
s
e
Trail, Cro
s
s
S
e
c
ti
o
n
s
=
1
6’
Wi
d
e
Undercro
s
si
n
g
E
x
a
m
pl
e
Trailhead
Pl
a
z
a
Wi
t
h
Seating,
T
y
p.HWY85Stevens Creek
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefie
l
d
Overhead
0
1
5’
3
0’
6
0’
Higher Vi
si
bili
t
y
C
r
o
s
s
w
al
k
E
x
a
m
pl
e
30
MPH
Enlargem
e
n
t
L
e
g
e
n
d
Primary V
ol
t
a
g
e
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
Seconda
r
y
V
ol
t
a
g
e
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
Drainage
Di
t
c
h (
W
h
e
n
C
o
v
e
r
e
d)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study178Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
Please return your packet to
the sign-in table
Thank you for your participation! Please join us again for:
Community Meeting #3
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
6:00pm – 8:00pm
Cupertino Community Hall
10350 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014
Do you have any other comments about the project?
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 179Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #3 Questionnaire
17056_CommMtg#3_Questionnaire.indd
June 6, 2018
• Travel to each of the stations
• Provide Input
• Enjoy the refreshments
• Ask us lots of questions
Junipero Serra Trail
1. Did you attend Community
Meeting #1 or Community
Meeting #2? Circle one.
Only, Community Meeting #1
Only, Community Meeting #2
Both, Community Meeting
#1 and #2
Neither
A.
B.
C.
D.
3. How would you
use the trail?
Circle all that apply.
Biking
Jogging
Walking
Commuting
Other:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
4. Do you live or
work in Cupertino?
Circle one.
I live in Cupertino
I work in Cupertino
I live and workin Cupertino
I do not live orwork in Cupertino
A.
B.
C.
D.
Community Meeting #3 - Questionnaire
How to get started
I. General Background
II. Input
2. Do you support a
trail at this location?
Circle one.
Yes
No
A.
B.
1. What aspects of the trail design do you like?
What do you like about the proposed trail?
2. How can the proposed trail be improved?
3. Do you have any other comments about the project?
Please return this questionaire to the sign-in station.
Thank you for your participation!
June 6, 2018
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study180Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 181
Input Board for Diwali Festival Pop-Up Booth
THE LOOPCupertino Share Your Thoughts!
17056_AlternativesInputQuestions.indd
April 21, 2018
Do you support
a trail at this
location?
1 Yes
How would you
use the trail?
3 Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other
No Do you live next
to the trail?
2 Yes No
Which trail
alternative do
you prefer?
4 Alternative #1 Alternative #2
At Stelling Road,
what type of
crossing do you
prefer?
5
Crosswalk On
Stelling Rd.
At De Anza
Boulevard, what
type of crossing
do you prefer?
6
Both Crossing
Options
Grade-Separated Crossing
Under Stelling Rd.
Bridge Crossing Over
De Anza Blvd.
Existing Crosswalk
Across De Anza Blvd.
Tunnel Crossing Under
De Anza Blvd.
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study182
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 183Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
• Cost: significantly more for alternative #2. Use: Alternative #1 will be used multi-use anyway.
• Wider, multi-purpose, dream big - one time cost
• Wider trail, safety that someone not going to fall in ditch.
• Safety
• Multi Use - Bike and Pedestrian
• Safety, traffic, parking, noise, lack of privacy, Increase of strangers in the area
• No bikes, lighting, noise, less privacy, security
• Open Space. It would provide a better experience.
• Impact of people and traffic
• Aesthetics, Width-allows easier bike + pedestrian traffic
• Separation from traffic
• Allowing bicycles on the trail is vital in order for the trail to provide a good commuting alternative
• Potential users; impact on privacy, security of residents along trail; reversibility; potential impact to water authority activities
• More room for ped and bike
• Trail width
• I like the extra width provided by Alt #2, but I think Alt #1 would be much simpler and less expensive which will help it happen!
Would particularly be concerned about limiting water flow or complicating maintenance when covering the ditch. Alt#2 also adds
some additional green buffer to neighbors, but I don’t think this will be a problem after it is constructed
• Safety, security, noise impact, privacy for those houses impacted
• This is the “aging of America” (I don’t think this is being considered). The aged are not going to be riding bicycles (nor walking
over bridges/trails) to get to their medical appointments or bring home groceries, etc. We have enough bicycle/access infiltrating our
area, bringing in outsiders. These “designs” will impact the quiet enjoyment of our homes even more!!
• Walking along a trail built right next to a major highway is not something of great appeal; physical and environmental safety
concerns (i.e. fumes from many motor vehicles, noise) will not be great appeal; Building and maintaining such a trail, built next to a
major highway will be much more expensive? What is the projected cost?
• The proposed trail would run directly behind my house, it would impact my privacy as well as increase the noise level
• Safety of existing redwood trees along 280; presence of bikes and pedestrians on same trail - how safe?
• For the second alternative, there is more space for people to commute to work, or go on a family walk. For people going to work,
it is a longer commute by bike without the trail
• It would be cosmetically nicer and it might keep out any random undesirable smells
• I am concerned about security for property owners next to the trail. As is, there is graffiti on I-280 sound wall
• Multi-use trail more useful than narrow pedestrian only trail
• It is wider, it looks nicer, there is more greenery
• This is for Apple-only and don’t care about us who live next to the trail
• Consistent width, avoids falling in ditches, more visually appealing, avoids conflict with location on PG&E poles, especially in
Station #4 area
• Width! The wider trail is safer to allow pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, etc.
What factors impact your decision selecting a trail alternative?
16%
55%
29%
#1
#2
Neither
Which alternative do you prefer?
Do you live next to the trail?
Do you have children that
would use the trail?
16%
55%
29%
#1
#2
Neither
62%
38%
Yes
No
19%
72%
9%
Possibly in
the Future
Community Meeting #1 Overall Input
Community Meeting #2 Overall Input
26%
35%4%
35%
0%
1. Safety and security
2. Trail access
3. Trail amenities
4. Connections to other bike
and pedestrian facilities
5. Other
26%
35%4%
35%
0%
1. Safety and security
2. Trail access
3. Trail amenities
4. Connections to other bike
and pedestrian facilities
5. Other
8%
17%
0%
50%
25%1. Never
2. Once a year
3. Once a month
4. Once a week
5. More than once a week
8%
17%
0%
50%
25%1. Never
2. Once a year
3. Once a month
4. Once a week
5. More than once a week
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6
Suitability for Commuting
to Work
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6
Overall Desirablility
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6
Suitability for Going to School
Suitability Going To SchoolSuitability For Commuting To WorkOverall Desirability
TRAIL SEGMENT 1 TRAIL SEGMENT 2 TRAIL SEGMENT 3 0 1 2 3 4 5LOW HIGH
How would you use this trail?
72%
14%
7%
7%
1. Walking/Jogging/Biking
2. Commuting to work
3. Taking children to school
4. None of the above
72%
14%
7%
7%
1. Walking/Jogging/Biking
2. Commuting to work
3. Taking children to school
4. None of the above
How often do you currently use
a trail system elsewhere?
Regarding trail development, what’s most
important to you? Circle all that apply.
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5# OF RESPONDENTS58%
42%
Yes
No
Input Packet
Yes
No
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study184Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
General Project Comments
• Great handout! Do this again.
• Make it a world class trail. Heart of Silicon Valley must look good. Plant new trees.
• Should be trail that represents Cupertino. Home of Apple. Best of best shall be created.
• My property backs up to the trail between Mary and Stelling. I currently see the trail used by PG&E. My concerns are: 1. liability - I have tall
trees that have dropped branches on the trail. 2. Safety - giving easier access to my back yard. 3. Privacy - I have no fence (just chain link). I am not
against the bike/ped path, just want my concerns addressed.
• This part of Cupertino has been impacted enough by the freeway, the schools, Apple and it’s employees.
• We are very worried about safety, security, privacy. Homestead high school kids jumping the fence (which they do), homeless, smokers, drugs and
nuisance.
• It’s a shame that Apple can cause such a project to be contemplated that would impact the residents of this area.
• I support alternate #2 for Mary to De Anza Blvd.
• Very supportive. Good luck!
• Please, please build it! This trail would remove a lot of local commuting traffic off the roads (Apple employees between campuses, students to
De Anza college…) and provide a great off-street recreational alternative within the city (jogger, dog walkers...). Provide trash cans along trail : dog
walkers; drinking fountains at trail ends would be great bonus
• Consider if paving is necessary. No lights - encourage dawn to dusk use; Consider Alternative #1 as a pilot which could be expanded if use of
trail becomes high.
• Seems like there needs to be more thought about intermediate access points. The major points are too far apart. While I favor choices that
reduce cost and complexity, I would encourage setting standards for trail width - there are too many narrow pinch points identified already. Please
spend the money to widen where needed.
• I am extremely concerned about safety, privacy, and noise issues. Currently, we have a lot of people hanging out at 2am during summer nights at
the Mary Avenue Bridge trail head, located directly behind my house. 1) I am extremely concerned this trail will add to the noise we experience. 2)
Make sure security is enforced after dusk (when officers are not busy with school patrolling). We already clean up broken glass bottles in our yards.
3) We are concerned about any trash, debris items that can be thrown over the fence into our backyards. 4) Can existing bike bridge be used to
access 280 per alternative #2 near Mary Avenue? This would perhaps reduce capital costs.
• All-in-all, do not think this to be a very worthwhile project. Probably very expensive and lacking in widespread appeal. Walkers, joggers, or
cycling along trail next to major highway not very appealing, especially at times of rush-hour traffic.
• I am totally opposed to the construction of the trail
• Super
• Very good graphics and presentation of trail options. Please keep the redwood trees along 280
• Really make sure Apple campus 1 and 2 have good connection to path
• Please think about possibly separating bikers and pedestrians if the trail becomes crowded, in the future
• Why do I and my neighbors have to suffer because the city can’t say no to Apple
• Mile Markers (1/4 mile markers), security cameras in key areas and convex mirrors for blind corners, all for safety. Please make an effort to tie
into the new signage style proposed for the City’s Bike Boulevards, including “destination” signs indicating what is near the access points. Post a
25 mph speed limit (or less). Allow E-bikes with 25 mph max speed. Prohibit other motorized vehicles (gas, diesel, etc.). I LIKE HAVING A CROSS-
TOWN CONNECTION OFF OF THE BUSY STREET LIKE STEVENS CREEK
• When it opens, safety & security has to be very good to “set the tone” of the project. If people think it is not safe they won’t use it or let their
kids use it. Prevent Apple bikes from riding 2-3-4 across & taking over the path like we currently see them, do on our neighborhood streets like
Vista Drive.
(Comments provided via email after both community meetings)
• After briefly reviewing the online story boards, I believe that accompanying trail construction, permit parking must be extended to the entirety of
Lucille between Blaney and Apple. Lucille already has the occasional Apple employee parking and is used daily for Employees to smoke at the cul
de sac at Apple. The neighborhood is permit parking because of the Apple overflow, and active vehicle commuters on Lucille is inconsistent with
the trail’s use for the three schools nearby. Also, if smoking is not allowed on the trail, then it somehow should be restricted in the neighborhood.
Apple doesn’t allow smoking on their campus, and if they think the trail bordering their property is also non-smoking, they will be driving smokers
into the neighborhood which is unacceptable. We already have employees parking on Lucille then coming back to the area to smoke during
breaks.
• I just learned about a potential bike path along the Junipero Serra Channel. This is exciting, as it would give bicycles a protected way to get from
Mary to Tantau. Currently, if you’re near 280, you need to go to Homestead or Stevens Creek to go between Blaney and Wolfe. This change would
encourage more bicycling, getting even more cars off the roadways. Hope you find some common ground with the water district and Caltrans to
get this done. Of course, it would be great if the road crossings weren’t at grade, but I’ll leave that to the experts.
Project Background, Goals and Objectives
• Goal 4 - Have the trail access along I-280 be strictly for bike traffic. That way bike riders can travel at a faster speed. This would be good for people commuting on bikes between Apple
Campus (Sunnyvale) and Apple Campus 2 (Tantau).
• If pedestrian and bikes are on the same trial, the bikes need to go slower and pedestrians need to understand how to go on a trail with bikes
Flip Chart
Input Packet
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 185Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
• Wider, bike friendly
• Do the right thing. If trail is not proper and wide it won’t be usable and people won’t use it. Having wider trail is right idea.
• Safety
• Multi Use, wider trail
• Security, noise, lighting, privacy
• Terrible proposal
• Width of the trail being better for multiple uses - pedestrian and bicycles; plant a new tree or bush to replace tree removed.
• Maintain trees along residences
• Slope is more natural and pleasing. In an emergency, trail users can leave the trail by climbing the slope; sharp easement feels
walled in.
• Security underpass area
• Pleasant landscaping
• Easier, cheaper, better
• Again, making a choice for a simpler solution has a better chance of getting approved and built; I would encourage you to
maintain as much natural screening as possible and NOT excavate more to create neighbor isolation; the perception of the
negative is greater than the reality
• Why can’t the existing Mary Ave. bridge on-ramp be used to access trail? That will reduce the project costs. Alternative 2 is my
second choice, do not support Alternative 1
• See former page [Trail Design]
• Concerns over expense of such a project versus the benefit to public. Do not believe this project will have a great deal of
appeal to most people
• I am not in favor of either alternative especially because it will be right behind our house/property. This trail would be an
invasion of my privacy. The foot and bike traffic would result in noise and debris left on the trail
• Amount of water flowing in ditch
• Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have parkour skills, which most
people don’t). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and next to a hillside, it would be nicer
• It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :)
• Multi-use of bicycles
• Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail
• Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic
• Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area.
• Restroom, Water station, bench, camera, lighting, mile marker, safety patrol, website to promote
• Putting water, parking spaces, lighting, maybe restrooms near parks is a good idea.
• You should plan trail on ‘storage’ side at pedestrian bridge
• Consider collaborating with residences to improve robustness of fences along trail
• Amenities for bikers and walkers here please! Benches and congregating spaces here would be great (mini-park). Keep those
away from the neighbors though
• Concerns over effects and disruption to the local residents, especially over Alternative #1
• Have police on bike patrol at the Stelling undercrossing to deter loitering and theft and graffiti
• Concerned w/ safety for trail users, particularly with potentially being in a secluded area out of plain sight, by the Loc-N-Stor
• Safety - it seems secluded. Add mirrors for blind spots.
• Amount of water flowing in ditch
• Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have parkour skills, which most
people don’t). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and next to a hillside, it would be nicer
• It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :)
• Multi-use of bicycles
• Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail
• Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic
• Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area.
What factors impact your decision in selecting
a trail alternative (Mary Ave Alternative)?
Do you have any additional comments about the Mary Ave Trail access point?
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
6%
65%
29%
#1
#2
Neither
At Mary Ave., which
alternative do you prefer?
Would you use Mary Avenue
Bridge to connect to
his trail system?
16%
55%
29%
#1
#2
Neither
35%
21%
44%#1
#2
Maybe
Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard)
Input Packet
• Pedestrian Trail: concern about buffering
Comments on Mary Avenue Bridge Enlargement
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study186Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
• Safety, security #1 issue. Graffiti already there. Had a burglary.
• Connect to Stevens Creek Trail to the west?
• Trail on north side of 280
• No monitoring of ex. Plaza. Needs monitoring. Use cameras.
• Concern about beacon crossing stopping traffic on Stelling. Concern about safety. Low
visibility southbound.
• Do a soundwall for safety and privacy.
• Light for night use.
• Amenities, drinking fountains, seating, “dream big”
• Security cameras at problem/key areas.
• Traffic stacks at Stelling.
• Concern over liability of trees dropping branches
• Graffiti
• Privacy & security
• Stats on crime - how will police monitor
• Parking will be issue
• Leave redwoods
• Why paved? Leave gravel
• No lights
• Homeless, privacy, security
• Alt 2 viable?
• Do we need a trail? Is demand there? For Apple employees?
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard)
Input Packet (cont.)
Flip Chart
Comments on Trail Segment 1 Plan
• This is heavy traffic area, option C is better. Least preferred choice is A.
• Stelling is extremely busy at rush hour in morning and evening. A surface crosswalk would be a disaster
• Not option B: will cause traffic backups on Stelling. Will cause safety issues. Also the bridge railing when traveling south
on Stelling blocks sight line to the trail toward the west making it much less safe.
• For biking on busy streets, like Stelling, separation is very important to induce casual/weekend bicyclists
• Crosswalk good for pedestrian access and in case of flooding (?)
• Traffic on Stelling is heavy and depends on events at De Anza College. A crosswalk is likely to be overlooked (note
crosswalk near Quinlan); A Stelling Road entrance to the bike path is likely to influence and impact traffic on Stelling
• Very noisy
• Very clever solution, if possible and affordable
• Both please! Don’t know if Stelling will be a big turning point, the underpass path would obstruct people wanting to
get on Stelling. The crosswalk support will be nominal in cost for the benefit
• Apple employees have access to trail from campus and not on streets!!!
• Security of undercrossing
• A crosswalk across Stelling Road will make traffic on Stelling much worse than now. The traffic is bad enough now with
traffic from Gardena Dr., Greenleaf, and the apartment complex feeding into Stelling. During peak hours, traffic can back
into Hollenbeck in the north and all the way to Stevens Creek Blvd to the south
• Both would be great, but any of the options seems workable
• For long distance bike riders, it is much faster to have a grade-separated crossing, it is also safer
• Very concerned about a crosswalk and the interaction with traffic - especially during school drop-off/pick-up and
during rush hour
• If you can’t do #1C then do #1A. Do not do just 1B! Add mirrors for blind spots.
Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail seg-
ment (Stelling Road Crossing)?
36%
8%
56%
Grade-separated Crossing
Crosswalk
Both
36%
8%
56%
Grade-separated Crossing
Crosswalk
Both
At Stelling Rd., what crossing
type do you prefer?
Comments on Stelling Road Crossing Enlargement
• Concerns at Lucille Trailhead:
• Safety
• Parking (unwanted!)
• Traffic
• Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime)
• Apple employees (this project is for Apple only)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 187Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
Trail Segment #2 (De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center)
Input Packet
43%
50%
7%
Bridge
Tunnel
Existing
At De Anza Blvd., what crossing
type do you prefer?
Would you support removal of the existing
crosswalk across De Anza Blvd, if a bridge or
tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided?
Regarding trail access and amenities,
which of the following do you support?
43%
50%
7%
Bridge
Tunnel
Existing
21%
31%
48%
Yes
No
Maybe
39%
32%
29%
Do you have any additional comments abou the Station #4 trail segment?
Flip Chart
• Concerns at Lucille Trailhead:
• Safety
• Parking (unwanted!)
• Traffic
• Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime)
• Apple employees (this project is for Apple only)
Comments on Trail Segment 2 Plan
• Blaney avenue: don’t block
• Blaney impacted by traffic
• Concern bringing kids through an already congested area.
• Keep fence to prohibit access from Lucille
• Drive kids to school due to speeding cars
• One access point may be ok
• No sidewalk
• Lucille not under some parking permit. Needs to be included in permit program
• Will trail encourage parking on Lucille?
• Lots of Apple bikes
• Can you provide access here? For Lawson & Apple
• Need access to Apple to Trail
• Two access points
• Speeding traffic to school
• Use mirrors for blind spots
• Call boxes along trail. Emergency.
• Bike runnels at stairs?
• Can we have police cameras on the trail
• Consider security of users in tunnel crossing
• Access for Apple employees to trail & the streets
• Would not preclude Alt 2 in the future
• Look @ stair channels
• Must have direct Apple access (infinite loop) to trail, to reduce bikes on Randy Ln/Larry Way. Limit access
points to two: One east of Randy, (just far enough away from Apple to discourage parking) and one at Blaney.
This grade-level proposal for crossing at Blaney is great.
• Right next to my house. Privacy concerns. Live on Larry/Lucille.
• Privacy, parking, traffic are concerns for residents of Lucille, Larry and Randy. 1: Consider wall to help with
privacy. 2: Big no to any access points on Lucille Ave.
• Not familiar with this section so no comment.
• No trail access on Blaney/Lucille
• Maintain fence - ideally make opaque for privacy. Make Lucille permitted parking M-F like Randy and Larry.
Need frequent garbage clean up. Limited access - far from apple side to prevent parking problems. Maintain
access under bridge for car traffic. Need police patrol for safety.
• I support none of these. I live here and would be impacted.
• Maintenance of trash can emptying would be very important
• Multiple access points make the trail more usable for people living in the neighborhood, and would provide
trail users route options
• Informal trail access could serve as a pilot and could be upgraded if the trail use supports expansion
• Some convenience but less cost
• I prefer tunnel over bridge at De Anza mainly because of reduced elevation gain/loss; Use box culvert only
when needed for trail width
• Mostly just need trailhead here; benches would be the only amenities needed
• How is security mentioned? Security patrol? How about people using trail for “hanging out”?
• Don’t care…
• As shown
• Get Apple off the streets; safer alternatives for walkers/bikers; be mindful of neighborhood
• Section east of Blaney - no soundwall; trail users protection form vehicles leaving the road
• Provide access to Portal Ave. through CalWater site
• I live next to the trail on Randy Lane; trail would cause such a problem for traffic and people, let alone
criminal activity
• Consider adding Trailhead/access point at the end of Lucille adjacent to the Apple campus. Work with Apple
to create a linkage to Lawson Middle School along the edge of the Apple property, parallel to Larry Way, It
would be nice to have some way to go directly from the trail up to the Blaney overpass.
• Do not put the additional access points in the middle of Lucille. Trail amenities needed: a map of trail, a
beach, mile markers, lighting. Extra security around the main entrance & under the bridge. There has been
tagging & dumping (mattresses, etc) in this area. Keep the road (Lucille) open under the bridge. Do not close it.
The neighborhood relies on it to get to Homestead without having to cross Blaney. Critical to AM/PM traffic flow
& school traffic.
Comments on Blaney Ave/
Lucille Ave Crossing Enlargement
• Concerns at Lucille Trailhead:
• Safety
• Parking (unwanted!)
• Traffic
• Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime)
• Apple employees (this project is for Apple only)
Multiple Trail Access
Pointsand Trailhead
withGreater Levels
of Amenities
Single Trail Access
Point and Trailhead
with Limited
Trail Amenities
Informal Trail Access
and No Trailheads
or Trail Amenities
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study188Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
General Station #5 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 trail segment?
• Keep Crossing at Wolfe not competing with cross traffic
• This trail is for apple only. What a shame.
• Be sure the contractor of Vallco includes space for bikeway
• Perhaps stipulate that a proper multi-use trail along the south and east edges of hotel development be included in future development
there.
• The proposed path behind the new hotel is bad! It’s still under construction - is there a way to create a path (or alternative path) that passes
in front of hotel tracing Perimeter Road.
• Nice
• Have Vallco future pay for access to trail and out of neighborhood!!! Access to trail from Vallco itself not in neighborhood at all!
• It is important to keep redwoods along 280 intact behind Hyatt House and property behind the old Macys. Will there be public creek trail
along Calabazas Creek from 280 and Calabazas intersection to the Calabazas and Vallco Parkway intersection? One portion of the creek trail
mentioned above along the small portion of Calabazas Creek should be both pedestrian and bike.
• Provide easy access to hotel for residents and guests. Use CalWater area for access to Portal Ave.
• East-west connectivity for bikes between Blaney and Tantau is important, especially with Pruneridge gone
• Underpass is good
• Make all sections of it as wide as possible to allow lots of multi-uses & improve safety. Add mirrors for blind spots & destination signs.
Trail Segment #3 (Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway)
Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 Trail Segment?
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
Input Packet
Comments on Trail Segment 3 Plan
Flip Chart
Comments on Stelling Road Crossing Enlargement
• Access for Guests & Visitors
• No e-bikes (more than 25 mph)
• No motorized
• Allow e-bikes, speed < 25 mph
• Concerns at Lucille Trailhead:
• Safety
• Parking (unwanted!)
• Traffic
• Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime)
• Apple employees (this project is for Apple only)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 189Appendix
Document Review
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email
February 26, 2018
MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu
FROM: Jana Schwartz, Designer
Dave Rubin, Project Manager
Callander Associates
RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo
The Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study is evaluating the feasibility of a trail segment that supports a
bicycle and pedestrian connection south of and roughly parallel to Interstate 280 between Mary Avenue
and Tantau Avenue. This trail segment is a part of a larger vision plan, called the “Loop”, for a bicycle
and pedestrian network within the City of Cupertino, as well as a greater regional planning effort. The
study includes providing background on the project history, goals, and relationship to existing plans and
other relevant documents. This memo provides a summary of relevance to other planning efforts and
describes how the Junipero Serra Trail aligns with previous planning efforts and standards, as well as
any additional findings that would affect trail development.
Documents Reviewed Standards Reviewed
Local
Planning
Efforts
Cupertino General Plan (2015) Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD)
2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan (2016) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
South Vallco Connectivity Plan (2014) Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Regional
Planning
Efforts
Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study
(2015)
Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (1995)
Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis (2015)
VTA Bikeways Map D (Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos)
(2016)
Santa Clara County I-280 Corridor Study (2017)
The trail is envisioned as a 2.88 mile-long off-street, multi-use trail and serve as the City of Cupertino’s
first east/west off-street transportation corridor. The City views this trail project as a high-priority and
would like to see the trail allow for the shared use of bicycle and pedestrian users. A majority of the
trail runs adjacent to a drainage ditch, owned by SCVWD. The proposed trail has a limited number of
street crossings, located at Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Wolfe Road. There are underground
and overhead utilities, identified by partnering agencies PG&E and CalWater. Overhead transmission
lines run roughly parallel to the proposed trail west of Blaney Avenue. Underground utilities, such as
water and gas mains have been identified and planned for in the development of the preferred trail
alignment.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study190Appendix
Document Review
Memo
RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo
February 26, 2018
Page 2 of 4
17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Local planning efforts that correlate with this study include the Cupertino General Plan (Land Use and
Community Design, Mobility, Parks and Open Space), City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation
Plan, Santa Clara County I-280 Corridor Study, and the South Vallco Connectivity Plan. Each of these
plans encompasses the geographical study area and includes goals and objectives that have been
reviewed and complimented by the study. Each of these plans has overarching goals that hit on two
main ideas:
1.Improving connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians by creating a multi-modal transportation
network.
2.Enhancing accessibility and safety for bicycles and pedestrians through trail design and
maintenance.
Each of these plans provides a framework for the trail to align with and contribute towards the City-
wide goal of elevating bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The South Vallco Connectivity Plan focuses on a
specific section of the study area and provides information about the Vallco redevelopment project. The
timeline of this effort coincides with this study and a final decision on the outcome of the Vallco project
is unknown. Thus, the study will need to work in parallel with the final plan for the Vallco development
to include a trail system as contemplated in this study.
Regional planning efforts have created plans that work together to strengthen the regional bicycle and
pedestrian network. Documents that were reviewed include the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek
Trail Feasibility Study, Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Update, Countywide Trails
Prioritization and Gaps Analysis, and VTA Bikeways Map D (Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos).
To balance the identity and goals of each jurisdiction, many of the regional plans relied on a city’s
general plan for city-specific information. The Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility
Study referenced the City of Cupertino General Plan from 2000. Information about City facilities and
demographic information has been updated in the recent General Plan from 2015. The other regional
plans take a similar snapshot of the Santa Clara County region and highlight bicycle and pedestrian
facilities and opportunities to connect and expand the network. Countywide Trails Prioritization and
Gaps Analysis summarizes the existing and potential trail reaches. This document, as well as the VTA
Bikeways Map D, do not include the study area and only identify the Stevens Creek Trail and on-street
connections as major bicycle and pedestrian projects for the City. More recent planning efforts, like the
Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan (to be released spring 2018) and VTA’s Santa Clara Countywide Bike Plan
(in-progress) have been asked to include the study area in textual and graphic depictions of trail
opportunities.
Standards that were reviewed are also across jurisdictions and not specific to the City of Cupertino. The
review of standards ensures the safety of trail users and compliance with related entities. Since the trail
is located in SCVWD right-of-way and includes PG&E facilities, standards related to maintenance and
access were reviewed before proposing design alternatives.
PG&E Standards
4.4.4 Vertical Clearance
Table 4-3, “Vertical Clearance From the Ground on Nonresidential Property,” located below, provides
the minimum vertical distance (in feet) from the ground on nonresidential property.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 191Appendix
Document Review
Memo
RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo
February 26, 2018
Page 3 of 4
17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Table 4-3 Vertical Clearance From the Ground on Nonresidential Property1
Description Minimum Vertical Distance
(In Feet)
Over private driveways, lanes, and other areas
(e.g., alleys and parking lots) accessible to vehicles.
16
Over areas accessible to pedestrians only. 12
Over buildings and bridges, or over structures (attached or unattached) that
do not ordinarily support conductors and on which people can walk.8
1 Clearance requirements may be different than local electrical codes.
−4.4.4A-1: Normal radial clearance: a minimum of 24 inches.
−4.4.4A-2: Within 15 feet of the point of attachment on a building or structure: the normal radial
clearances may be reduced to a minimum of 12 inches.
4.10 Required Vegetation Clearances
−4.10.1 General Requirements: For electric distribution, high-voltage lines rated up to 60,000
volts, applicants must establish a 15-foot “low-growth” zone on both sides of all new lines. Also
applicants must not plant trees that exceed 25 feet in height at maturity under or within 15 feet
of distribution power poles.
SCVWD Standards
Most of the guidelines and details, which are specifically related to streams, grading and riparian
resources, have been excerpted from the document, Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use and
Management Guidelines (UD) (April 15, 1999), which was prepared by the Santa Clara County Parks and
Recreation Department.
−To control trail use and prevent environmental damage, the design should include barriers such
as fences, vegetation, stiles and fallen trees. (UD – 1.3.1.3)
−Use existing maintenance trails, access route and levees wherever possible to minimize impacts
of new construction in riparian zones (UD – 1.3.2.3)
−Trail use will generally be limited to the hours between dawn and dusk to minimize impacts to
wildlife.
−Lighting of trails should be avoided. Exceptions include security lighting in downtown
commercial and entertainment areas where lighting should be minimized.
−Surface water shall be diverted from trails by cross sloping the trail tread between 2 and 3%.
(UD – 3.5.4)
−Do not locate irrigation systems within 2 feet of the edge of the trail. Irrigation for turf areas
around a trail should use only a pop-up variety of irrigation head. To avoid erosion and
undercutting of the trail, the irrigation system should be controlled so that only incidental spray
might reach the trail surface and edge. (UD – 3.5.6)
−Select plants for streamside areas that do not require irrigation beyond an establishment
period.
−Use permeable pavements where possible.
−Where overland direction of drainage away from the creek is constrained, provide positive
drainage.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study192Appendix
Document Review
Memo
RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo
February 26, 2018
Page 4 of 4
17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
The study area is almost entirely within the City of Cupertino but would have regional and local benefits
as a transportation and recreational corridor. Due to the location of the study area, the local planning
efforts and the standards provide the most guidance for implementing a trail at this location. The
regional planning efforts should include this study area to best illustrate the collective bicycle and
pedestrian network. The trail study area does not connect directly with any other regional trail system,
but there are potential future connections that may be captured in future development plans.
- END -
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 193Appendix
Public Outreach Outline
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email
September 15, 2017
MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu
FROM: Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
RE: I-280 CHANNEL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY/ Public Outreach Outline
Below is an outline of all outreach events, as listed in the project scope. Details for each event are
described to help anticipate the necessary materials and preparation. Details with “TBD” shall be
discussed and decided on between the City of Cupertino (City) and Callander Associates (CA).
Community Events (2)
When: 9/17 – 4/18
Where: Pop-up style at City events
•Diwali Festival – September 30, 2017
•Earth Day – April 2018
Who: CA, City, Community
What: Outreach materials, table banner, map of site/specific sections, meeting newsletter, pop-up tent,
link to on-line resources, on-line survey link (?), balloons/eye catcher
Why: Generate project interest, publicize upcoming meetings, and discuss project objectives
TAC Meeting #1
When: Wednesday Nov. 29, 2017, 630pm to 8pm (scope: 11/27-12/1)
Where: Working meeting; City Hall – Conference Room C
Who: CA, City, TAC Members
What: Review project purpose, background, and Public Meeting #1 materials
Why: Gather input and apply edits to materials prior to public meeting, discuss next steps
Public Meeting #1
When: Wednesday Dec. 6, 2017, 6pm to 8pm (scope: 12/4-12/8)
Where: Quinlan Community Center – Cupertino Room
Who: CA, City, Community, Commission and Council Members
What: Existing conditions, local/regional context, goals and objectives, opportunity and constraints,
initial public reactions, refreshments, on-line survey link
Why: Listen to public input, discuss project objectives (short and long term), next steps
TAC Meeting #2
When: Monday Feb. 12, 2017, 630pm to 8pm (scope: 2/12-2/16)
Where: Working meeting; City Hall – Conference Room C
Who: CA, City, TAC Members
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study194Appendix
Public Outreach Plan
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email
August 22, 2017
MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu
FROM: Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
RE: I-280 CHANNEL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY/ Public Outreach Plan
Below is the language to be used on promotional materials for upcoming meetings. Items include, but
are not limited to, meeting newsletter, meeting postcard, social media, utility mailer, and NextDoor
postings. Dates for these events shall be confirmed by 9/15.
Document Text:
Large Text: We want to hear from you! Come share your thoughts!
Sub Text: Please join us to review trail alignment plans to help build connections in Cupertino. A series
of community meetings have been planned for you to provide input on a proposed trail system near I-
280 and participate in improving the pedestrian and bicycle network near you!
Upcoming events:
Pop-Up Events
•West Coast Farmers’ Market | Cupertino Oaks Shopping Center, October 15, 2017 9am to 1 pm
•Silicon Valley Fall Festival | Memorial Park in Cupertino, September 9, 2017 from 10am to 5pm
Public Meeting #1
•Cupertino Public Library (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|December 5, 2017, 6pm to
8pm
Public Meeting #2a
•Homestead High School (21370 Homestead Rd, Cupertino, CA 95014)|February 20, 2017, 4pm
to 8pm
Public Meeting #2b
City Hall (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|March 1, 2018, 4pm to 8pm
Bike and Pedestrian Commission Meeting #1
City Council Meeting #1
Public Meeting #3
•Cupertino Public Library (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|June 6, 2017, 4pm to 8pm
Bike and Pedestrian Commission Meeting #2
Park and Recreation Commission
Planning Commission
City Council Meeting #2
Thank you.
- END -
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 195Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study196Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
160 W. Santa Clara Street | Suite 675 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 3, 2018
To: David Rubin, Callander Associates Landscape Architects
From: Steve Davis, PE, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Alternatives Evaluation for Junipero Serra Trail Crossing at De Anza Boulevard
Cupertino, California
SJ17-1771
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of a traffic operational analysis
conducted to evaluate alternatives for an at-grade crossing of De Anza Boulevard for the proposed
Junipero Serra Trail in Cupertino, California. It is our understanding that the City of Cupertino prefers
a grade-separated crossing for the Junipero Serra Trail at De Anza Boulevard. However, due to
construction and logistical challenges, a grade-separated alternative may not be feasible. The
potential at-grade crossing would be provided at the location of the existing crosswalk on the south
leg of the intersection of De Anza Boulevard with the Southbound Interstate 280 (I-280) Ramps.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The intersection of De Anza Boulevard, which is oriented north-south, and the Southbound I-280
Ramps, which are oriented one-way eastbound, is signalized with crosswalks provided on the east,
west, and south legs. The existing lane configuration and turning movement volumes from counts
collected in December 2017 during the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours are shown in
Figure 1.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 197Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 2 of 6
Figure 1: Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configuration
Fehr & Peers conducted field reconnaissance at this location to identify signal timing and phasing
as well as overall traffic operational characteristics during the AM and PM peak periods as part of
the Vallco Specific Plan EIR project. The eastbound approach of the Southbound I-280 Off-ramp
operates concurrently with the parallel pedestrian crossing across De Anza Boulevard as depicted
in Figure 2. This arrangement is most efficient for vehicle operations given the existing geometry,
but results in a high potential for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles since eastbound right
turns from two lanes occur during the pedestrian “walk” signal phase. These concurrent movements
increase the risk for collisions involving pedestrians as well as rear-end crashes resulting from
vehicles unexpectedly stopping to wait for pedestrians.
Figure 2: Existing Signal Phase Sequence
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study198Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin
October 3, 2018
Page 3 of 6
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Due to the potential for collisions, high level of pedestrian exposure, and anticipated increase in
usage of the at-grade crossing with the completion of the Junipero Serra Trail, it is desirable to
modify the intersection to minimize interactions between modes. As such, two project alternatives
have been developed for consideration:
Alternative 1 – No physical improvements would be constructed, but signal phasing would be
modified such that the eastbound right-turn movement and pedestrian crossings would not be in
conflict. As the eastbound approach has a shared left/through/right-turn lane, all movements on
this approach would continue to operate together as a standalone phase and pedestrian crossings
of De Anza Boulevard would operate concurrently wit h the southbound left turn as shown in Figure
3.
Figure 3: Proposed Alternative 1 Signal Phase Sequence
Alternative 2 – An additional lane would be constructed on the Southbound I-280 Off-ramp, as
shown in Attachment A, to provide a left-turn lane, shared left-turn/through lane, and two
dedicated right-turn lanes. This change would allow separate signal phases for the right-turn
movement and the shared left-turn/through movement, making it possible for the crosswalk phase
to operate concurrently with the eastbound left-turn/through movement as shown in Figure 4.
Eastbound right turns and southbound left turns would operate concurrently in this alternative.
Figure 4: Proposed Alternative 2 Signal Phase Sequence
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 199Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 4 of 6
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic operations were evaluated for the existing (no-
build) conditions and two project alternatives using the HCM 2000 methodology included in
Synchro 10 software.
Level of Service
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of Service
(LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay,
and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, the best operating conditions, to LOS
F, the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents “at-capacity” operations. When traffic volumes
exceed the intersection capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated as
LOS F.
The method described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report
209, Transportation Research Board) was used to prepare the level of service calculations for the
subject intersection. This level of service method, which is approved by the City of Cupertino and
VTA, analyzes a signalized intersection’s operation based on average control delay per vehicle.
Control delay includes the initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final
acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is correlated to a LOS
designation as shown in Table 1.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study200Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 5 of 6
TABLE 1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
USING AVERAGE CONTROL VEHICULAR DELAY
Level of Service Description Average Control Delay
Per Vehicle (Seconds)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable
progression and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0
E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 55.1 to 80.0
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0
Source: Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, October 2014; VTA Congestion Management Program, June 2003; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.
Analysis Results
The Existing operating conditions as well as anticipated operated conditions for Alternatives 1 and
2 are presented in Table 2. HCM 2000 capacity analysis outputs can be found in Attachment B.
As can be seen, the intersection generally operates acceptably in the Existing condition with LOS D
or better during both peak periods. Operations would degrade with the implementation of
Alternative 1 due to less efficient signal timing constraining overall intersection capacity.
Overall delay would remain relatively consistent compared to Existing Conditions with the
implementation of Alternative 2 as the reduction in efficiency caused by modified traffic signal
phasing is largely offset by the increase in physical capacity associated with ramp widening.
Additionally, the separation of left-turn/through and right-turn traffic signal phases in Alternative
2 would allow more efficient signal phasing than proposed in Alternative 1.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 201Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 6 of 6
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Alternative AM PM
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Existing 38.7 D 34.3 C
Alternative 1 78.5 E 48.9 D
Alternative 2 38.2 D 35.4 D
Source: Fehr & Peers (2018)
FINDINGS
Based on the analysis the following can be concluded:
• This existing intersection configuration at De Anza Boulevard and the Southbound I-280
Ramps, while most efficient for vehicle operations, results in a high potential for conflicts
between pedestrians and vehicles since eastbound right turns from two lanes occur during
the parallel pedestrian “walk” signal phase.
• Alternative 1 would not include any physical improvements, but signal phasing would be
modified such that the eastbound right turn and pedestrian crossings would not be in
conflict. It is anticipated this would result in a degradation of traffic operations at the
intersection.
• Alternative 2 would include the construction of an additional lane on the Southbound I-
280 Off-ramp, resulting in a left-turn lane, shared left-turn/through lane, and two dedicated
right-turn lanes. This change would allow separate signal phases for the right-turn
movement and the shared left-turn/through movement, making it possible for the
crosswalk phase to operate concurrently with the eastbound left-turn/through movement.
Overall intersection delay would remain relatively consistent with Existing Conditions in this
scenario.
• As a result of the above, Fehr & Peers recommends Alternative 2 should an at-grade
crossing be pursued for the Junipero Serra Trail at De Anza Boulevard.
Attachment A – Proposed Alternative 2 Concept
Attachment B – HCM 2000 Capacity Analysis Outputs
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study202Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin
October 2, 2018
Attachment A
Proposed Alternative 2 Concept
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 203
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study204
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 205Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin
October 2, 2018
Attachment B
HCM 2000 Capacity Analysis Outputs
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study206Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Configuration
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1452 1448 7471 1443 3400 5036
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1452 1448 7471 1443 3400 5036
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 26 0 0 0 0 0 282 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 517 477 447 0 0 0 0 1636 142 619 1554 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 6 52
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 48.4 48.4 48.4 43.6 43.6 26.0 73.6
Effective Green, g (s) 48.4 48.4 48.4 43.6 43.6 26.0 73.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.34 0.20 0.57
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 619 540 539 2505 483 680 2851
v/s Ratio Prot 0.31 c0.33 c0.22 c0.18 0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.88 0.83 0.65 0.29 0.91 0.55
Uniform Delay, d1 37.2 38.2 37.0 36.8 31.9 50.9 17.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 15.7 10.2 1.3 1.5 18.4 0.8
Delay (s)46.7 53.8 47.2 38.1 33.4 69.3 18.4
Level of Service D D D DCEB
Approach Delay (s)49.2 0.0 37.1 32.9
Approach LOS D A D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.8% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 207Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Existing PM Exisiting Configuration
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 0.94 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1430 1413 7544 1514 3433 5085
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1430 1413 7544 1514 3433 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 303 270 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 6 52
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 54.0 54.0 36.0 94.0
Effective Green, g (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 54.0 54.0 36.0 94.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.39 0.39 0.26 0.67
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 456 388 383 2909 583 882 3414
v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.21 0.26 0.13 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 c0.35
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.78 0.70 0.68 0.92 0.50 0.63
Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 47.2 45.9 35.9 40.9 44.3 13.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 9.8 5.8 1.3 21.7 2.0 0.9
Delay (s)51.0 57.0 51.7 37.2 62.6 46.4 14.1
Level of Service D E D DEDB
Approach Delay (s)53.2 0.0 42.6 19.5
Approach LOS D A D B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Existing Conditions
PM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study208Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Existing AM Option 1 Configuration
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1443 1435 7471 1443 3400 5036
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1443 1435 7471 1443 3400 5036
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 64 371 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 517 426 102 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 6 5 8 2
Permitted Phases 3 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.0 28.0 28.0 41.7 41.7 48.3 50.7
Effective Green, g (s) 28.0 28.0 28.0 41.7 41.7 48.3 50.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.39
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 358 310 309 2396 462 1263 1964
v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 0.29 0.22 c0.18 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.29
v/c Ratio 1.44 1.37 0.33 0.68 0.92 0.49 0.79
Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 51.0 43.1 38.4 42.5 31.4 35.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 215.1 187.1 0.6 1.6 25.7 0.3 3.4
Delay (s)266.1 238.1 43.7 40.0 68.2 31.7 38.3
Level of Service F F D DECD
Approach Delay (s)185.7 0.0 45.8 36.4
Approach LOS F A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 78.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.0% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Alternative 1
AM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 209Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Existing PM Option 1 with Extended Cycle Length
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.93 0.90 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1388 1355 7544 1514 3433 5085
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1388 1355 7544 1514 3433 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 69 247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 240 51 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 6 5 8 2
Permitted Phases 3 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 57.6 57.6 46.4 66.6
Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 57.6 57.6 46.4 66.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.33 0.48
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 288 237 232 3103 622 1137 2419
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.17 0.26 c0.13 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.35
v/c Ratio 1.12 1.01 0.22 0.64 0.86 0.39 0.90
Uniform Delay, d1 58.0 58.0 49.9 32.9 37.5 35.9 33.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 89.8 62.0 0.5 1.0 14.5 0.2 5.7
Delay (s)147.8 120.0 50.4 34.0 52.0 36.1 39.2
Level of Service F F D CDDD
Approach Delay (s)107.4 0.0 37.8 38.7
Approach LOS F A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Alternative 1
PM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study210Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Option 2 Existing AM
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1669 2760 7471 1443 3400 5036
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1669 2760 7471 1443 3400 5036
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 652 0 0 0 0 0 241 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 331 334 163 0 0 0 0 1636 183 619 1554 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Split NA custom NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1!6!5! 2!
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 26.0 56.0 56.0 26.0 56.0
Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 26.0 56.0 56.0 26.0 56.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.43 0.43 0.20 0.43
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 461 462 552 3218 621 680 2169
v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.20 0.06 0.22 c0.18 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.30 0.51 0.29 0.91 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 42.5 44.2 27.0 24.1 50.9 30.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.3 5.5 1.4 0.6 1.2 18.4 2.1
Delay (s)47.7 48.0 45.6 27.5 25.3 69.3 32.5
Level of Service D D D CCEC
Approach Delay (s)46.6 0.0 27.1 43.0
Approach LOS D A C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Alternative 2
AM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 211Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Existing PM Option 2
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1696 2787 7544 1514 3433 5085
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1696 2787 7544 1514 3433 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 206 97 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12
Turn Type Split NA custom NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1!6!5! 2!
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 32.6 32.6 26.0 69.4 69.4 26.0 69.4
Effective Green, g (s) 32.6 32.6 26.0 69.4 69.4 26.0 69.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.50
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 391 394 517 3739 750 637 2520
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.12 0.03 0.26 c0.13 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm 0.35
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.52 0.19 0.53 0.71 0.69 0.86
Uniform Delay, d1 46.8 46.9 48.1 24.2 27.5 53.3 31.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.5 5.7 6.1 4.1
Delay (s)47.9 48.2 48.9 24.7 33.3 59.4 35.1
Level of Service D D D CCED
Approach Delay (s)48.5 0.0 26.5 39.2
Approach LOS D A C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.0% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Alternative 2
PM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study212Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 213
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
A Pr o j ec t St ar t -Up
1.Bonding and mobilization 8%LS Allow $118,452 Allow $121,184 Allow $76,128
2.Construction staking $10,000.00 LS Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000
3.Temporary construction fencing $5.00 LF 200 $1,000 460 $2,300 1,440 $7,200
4.Traffic control $20,000.00 LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000
5.Tree protection and pruning Allow LS Allow $5,000 Allow $5,000 Allow $2,500
$154,450 $158,480 $115,830 $428,760
B Dem o l i t io n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 70,000 $52,500 70,400 $52,800 68,800 $51,600
2.Chain link fence $10.00 LF 35 $350 1,050 $10,500 20 $200
3.Wood fence at Mary Ave $10.00 LF 490 $4,900 0 $0 0 $0
4.Chain link gate $500.00 EA 3 $1,500 4 $2,000 2 $1,000
5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 7 $5,250 0 $0 0 $0
$64,500 $65,300 $52,800 $182,600
C Gr ad i n g & Dr ai n ag e
1.Rough grading, 8" depth $30.00 CY 1,730 $51,900 1,750 $52,500 1,670 $50,100
2.Adjust manholes and vaults to grade $25,000.00 LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000
3.Soil off haul, 8" depth min.$50.00 CY 1,730 $86,500 1,750 $87,500 1,670 $83,500
$163,400 $165,000 $158,600 $487,000
D Er o s i o n Co n t r o l
1.Temporary construction entrance $3,000.00 LS Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000
2.Fiber rolls $4.00 LF 5,100 $20,400 4,000 $16,000 3,500 $14,000
3.SWPPP maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000
$48,400 $44,000 $42,000 $134,400
E Tr ai l & Sit e Fu r n i s h i n g s
1.Asphalt path including base rock, 10' average
width
$5.00 SF 52,230 $261,150 52,860 $264,300 51,600 $258,000
2.Asphalt shoulder, 2' wide both sides $5.00 LF 6,200 $31,000 4,400 $22,000 7,000 $35,000
3.Striping, on-trail $2.00 LF 5,600 $11,200 4,400 $8,800 4,300 $8,600
4.Decorative concrete pavement at trailhead $30.00 SF 480 $14,400 2,700 $81,000 2,300 $69,000
5.Retaining curb $50.00 LF 5,100 $255,000 4,400 $220,000 4,000 $200,000
6.Retaining wall (height varies, see plan)$200.00 LF 375 $75,000 0 $0 0 $0
7.Concrete seatwall at trailhead $300.00 LF 30 $9,000 120 $36,000 70 $21,000
8.Signal timing upgrades at De Anza (base project)Allow LS 0 $0 1 $30,000 0 $0
9.Flashing beacon and crosswalk at Stelling (base
project)
$50,000.00 EA 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0
10.Intersection modifications at Vallco Parkway
trailhead
Allow LS 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000
11.Curb and gutter $45.00 LF 0 $0 400 $18,000 160 $7,200
12.Curb ramp $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 1 $3,500
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #1
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y
17056_CE_Alt#1.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.1 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study214
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 215
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #1
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y
13.Interpretive sign $6,000.00 EA 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 1 $6,000
14.Dog waste bag dispenser $1,200.00 EA 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 2 $2,400
15.Trash receptacle $1,500.00 EA 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 3 $4,500
16.Trail directional signage $500.00 EA 2 $1,000 2 $1,000 2 $1,000
17.Security and privacy wood fence, 8'$100,000.00 LS Allow $100,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $0
18.Barrier railing, 4'$60.00 LF 5,600 $336,000 5,400 $324,000 0 $0
19.Chainlink fence, 6'$60.00 LF 70 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0
20.Vehicular crash barrier $100.00 LF 0 $0 75 $7,500 0 $0
21.Trail map sign $2,000.00 EA 2 $4,000 2 $4,000 2 $4,000
22.Collapsible bollard $1,000.00 EA 3 $3,000 4 $4,000 3 $3,000
$1,174,850 $1,140,500 $673,200 $2,988,550
F Pl an t i n g & Ir r i g at io n
1.Soil preparation, irrigation, planting, maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $25,000
2.Tree, 24" box $500.00 EA 9 $4,500 0 $0 0 $0
$29,500 $100,000 $25,000 $154,500
G Co n s t r u c t i o n Su b -To t al , B as e Pr o j ec t $1,635,100 $1,673,280 $1,067,430 $4,375,810
H Des i g n Co n t i n g en c y 15%LS Allow $245,265 Allow $250,992 Allow $160,115
$245,270 $250,990 $160,110 $656,370
I ANTICIPATED L OW B ID, B as e Pr o j ec t $1,880,370 $1,924,270 $1,227,540 $5,032,180
J Co n s t r u c t i o n Co n t i n g en c y 10%LS Allow $188,037 Allow $192,427 Allow $122,754
$188,040 $192,430 $122,750 $503,220
K Es c al at io n (3% p er yr f o r 3 y ear s )9%LS Allow $169,233 Allow $173,184 Allow $110,479
$169,230 $173,180 $110,480 $452,890
L TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS,
B ASE PROJ ECT
$2,237,640 $2,289,880 $1,460,770 $5,988,290
M Pr o f es s i o n al Ser v ic es , B as e Pr o j ec t
1.Topographic survey Allow LS Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000
2.Geotechnical services Allow LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000
3.Design development 3%LS Allow $67,129 Allow $68,696 Allow $43,823
17056_CE_Alt#1.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.2 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study216
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 217
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un it Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #1
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
4.Construction documents and permitting 8%LS Allow $179,011 Allow $183,190 Allow $116,862
5.Bidding and construction administration 3%LS Allow $67,129 Allow $68,696 Allow $43,823
6.Testing and special inspection 1%LS Allow $22,376 Allow $22,899 Allow $14,608
7.Environmental documentation (MND), assumes
no NEPA
Allow LS Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000
$405,650 $413,480 $289,120 $1,108,250
N TOTAL B ASE PROJ ECT COSTS $2,643,290 $2,703,360 $1,749,890 $7,096,540
O St el l i n g Un d er c r o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 13,380 $10,035 0 $0 0 $0
2.Chain link fence removal $50.00 LF 30 $1,500 0 $0 0 $0
3.Tree removal $750.00 EA 10 $7,500 0 $0 0 $0
4.Rough grading, 8" depth $50.00 CY 250 $12,500 0 $0 0 $0
5.Soil off-haul, 8" depth $100.00 CY 250 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0
6.Barrier fence $100.00 LF 460 $46,000 0 $0 0 $0
7.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 4,600 $115,000 0 $0 0 $0
8.Retaining wall $400.00 LF 840 $336,000 0 $0 0 $0
9.Striping, on-trail $5.00 LF 840 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0
10.Security lighting $40,000.00 LS Allow $40,000 0 $0 0 $0
11.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0
12.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $59,774 Allow $0 Allow $0
13.Inflation 9%LS Allow $53,796 Allow $0 Allow $0
14.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0
$890,630 $0 $0 $890,630
P De An za Ped es t r i an B r i d g e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 19,700 $14,775 0 $0
2.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 12 $9,000 0 $0
3.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0
4.Pedestrian bridge, approaches, stairs, support
columns and railing
$8,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $8,000,000 0 $0
5.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 730 $912,500 0 $0
17056_CE_Alt#1.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.3 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study218
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 219
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #1
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y
6.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10'
wide
$5.25 SF 0 $0 7,300 $38,325 0 $0
7.Security lighting $60,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $60,000 0 $0
8.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0
9.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,003,460 Allow $0
10.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $903,114 Allow $0
11.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0
$0 $14,951,550 $0 $14,951,550
Q DeAn za Tu n n el Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 16,900 $12,675 0 $0
2.Chain link fence removal $10.00 LF 0 $0 170 $1,700 0 $0
3.Underground utility relocation $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0
4.Tunnel drainage $150,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $150,000 Allow $0
5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0
6.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0
7.Tunnel, stairs, approaches, railings $12,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $12,000,000 0 $0
8.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 450 $562,500 0 $0
9.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10'
wide
$5.25 SF 0 $0 4,500 $23,625 0 $0
10.Skylight $10,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $10,000 0 $0
11.Chain link fence $60.00 LF 0 $0 200 $12,000 0 $0
12.Property acquisition costs $8,000,000.00 Acre 0 $0 0.05 $400,000 0 $0
13.Security lighting $200,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $200,000 0 $0
14.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0
15.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,487,400 Allow $0
16.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,338,660 Allow $0
17.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0
$0 $22,162,260 $0 $22,162,260
R DeAn za At -g r ad e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 6,550 $4,913 0 $0
2.Curb removal $15.00 LF 0 $0 220 $3,300 0 $0
3.Concrete removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 1,500 $4,500 0 $0
4.Asphalt removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 480 $1,440 0 $0
5.Sawcut $5.00 LF 0 $0 280 $1,400 0 $0
17056_CE_Alt#1.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.4 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study220
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 221
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #1
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y
6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0
7.Traffic signal modification $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0
8.Traffic sign relocation $7,500.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $7,500 0 $0
9.Asphalt pavement $5.00 SF 0 $0 5,200 $26,000 0 $0
10.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 0 $0 3,400 $85,000 0 $0
11.Concrete ramp $2,500.00 EA 0 $0 4 $10,000 0 $0
12.Concrete curb and gutter $70.00 LF 0 $0 200 $14,000 0 $0
13.Retaining wall, max. 4'$500.00 LF 0 $0 360 $180,000 0 $0
14.Traffic striping $5,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $5,000 0 $0
15.Relocate irrigation $25,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $25,000 0 $0
16.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0
17.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $86,955 Allow $0
18.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $78,260 Allow $0
19.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0
$0 $1,295,630 $0 $1,295,630
The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates
has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and
actual construction prices.
B as ed o n d r aw i n g s en t it l ed "Al t er n at i v e Al i g n m en t Pl an ", d at ed "2/20/2018"
17056_CE_Alt#1.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.5 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study222
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 223
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
A Pr o j ec t St ar t -Up
1.Bonding and mobilization 8%LS Allow $471,460 Allow $817,824 Allow $77,536
2.Construction staking $10,000.00 LS Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000
3.Temporary construction fencing $5.00 LF 200 $1,000 460 $2,300 1,440 $7,200
4.Traffic control $20,000.00 LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000
5.Tree protection and pruning Allow LS Allow $5,000 Allow $5,000 Allow $2,500
$507,460 $855,120 $117,240 $1,479,820
B Dem o l i t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 67,800 $50,850 70,400 $52,800 68,800 $51,600
2.Concrete lined ditch $30.00 LF 5,260 $157,800 5,030 $150,900 0 $0
3.Chain link fence $10.00 LF 35 $350 1,050 $10,500 20 $200
4.Wood fence at Mary Ave $10.00 LF 490 $4,900 0 $0 0 $0
5.Chain link gate $500.00 EA 3 $1,500 4 $2,000 2 $1,000
6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 7 $5,250 0 $0 0 $0
$220,650 $216,200 $52,800 $489,650
C Gr ad i n g & Dr ai n ag e
1.Rough grading, 8" depth $30.00 CY 1,680 $50,400 1,750 $52,500 1,670 $50,100
2.Adjust manholes and vaults to grade $25,000.00 LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000
3.Earthwork at box culvert Allow LS Allow $50,000 Allow $50,000 Allow $0
4.Drainage re-connections to box culvert Allow LS Allow $50,000 Allow $50,000 Allow $0
5.Soil off haul, 8" depth min.$50.00 CY 1,680 $84,000 1,750 $87,500 1,670 $83,500
$259,400 $265,000 $158,600 $683,000
D Er o s i o n Co n t r o l
1.Temporary construction entrance $3,000.00 LS Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000
2.Fiber rolls $4.00 LF 5,100 $20,400 4,000 $16,000 3,500 $14,000
3.SWPPP maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000
$48,400 $44,000 $42,000 $134,400
E Tr ai l & Si t e Fu r n i s h i n g s
1.Asphalt lift over box culvert, 4" deep $2.50 SF 62,940 $157,350 52,800 $132,000 8,400 $21,000
2.Asphalt pavement over agg base $5.00 SF 4,230 $21,150 8,800 $44,000 43,800 $219,000
3.DG shoulder, 2' wide both sides $4.00 LF 22,400 $89,600 17,600 $70,400 17,200 $68,800
4.4'x4' box culvert $500.00 LF 2,710 $1,355,000 0 $0 0 $0
5.5'x8' box culvert $1,250.00 LF 2,550 $3,187,500 0 $0 0 $0
6.6'x10' box culvert $1,750.00 LF 0 $0 5,030 $8,802,500 0 $0
7.Striping, on-trail $2.00 LF 5,600 $11,200 4,400 $8,800 4,300 $8,600
8.Decorative concrete pavement at trailhead $30.00 SF 480 $14,400 2,700 $81,000 2,300 $69,000
9.Retaining curb $50.00 LF 5,100 $255,000 4,400 $220,000 4,000 $200,000
10.Retaining wall (height varies)$200.00 LF 220 $44,000 0 $0 0 $0
11.Concrete seatwall at trailhead $300.00 LF 30 $9,000 120 $36,000 70 $21,000
12.Signal timing upgrades at De Anza (base project)Allow LS 0 $0 1 $30,000 0 $0
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #2
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B lv d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
17056_CE_Alt#2.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.1 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study224
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 225
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #2
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
13.Flashing beacon and crosswalk at Stelling (base
project)
$50,000.00 EA 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0
14.Intersection modifications at Vallco Parkway
trailhead
Allow LS 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000
15.Curb and gutter $45.00 LF 0 $0 400 $18,000 0 $0
16.Curb ramp $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 1 $3,500
17.Interpretive sign $6,000.00 EA 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 1 $6,000
18.Dog waste bag dispenser $1,200.00 EA 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 2 $2,400
19.Trash receptacle $1,500.00 EA 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 3 $4,500
20.Trail directional signage $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 2 $7,000
21.Security and privacy wood fence, 8' tall $100,000.00 LS Allow $100,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $0
22.Chainlink fence, 6'$60.00 LF 70 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0
23.Vehicular crash barrier $200.00 LF 0 $0 75 $15,000 0 $0
24.Trail map sign $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 2 $7,000
25.Collapsible bollard $1,000.00 EA 3 $3,000 6 $6,000 3 $3,000
$5,335,300 $9,597,600 $690,800 $15,623,700
F Pl an t i n g & Ir r i g at i o n
1.Soil preparation, irrigation, planting, maintenance Allow LS 25,000 $25,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $25,000
2.Tree, 24" box $500.00 EA 9 $4,500 0 $0 0 $0
$29,500 $100,000 $25,000 $154,500
G Co n s t r u c t i o n Su b -To t al , B as e Pr o j ec t $6,400,710 $11,077,920 $1,086,440 $18,565,070
H Des i g n Co n t i n g en c y 15%LS Allow $960,107 Allow $1,661,688 Allow $162,966
$960,110 $1,661,690 $162,970 $2,784,770
I ANTICIPATED L OW B ID, B as e Pr o j ec t $7,360,820 $12,739,610 $1,249,410 $21,349,840
J Co n s t r u c t i o n Co n t i n g en c y 10%LS Allow $736,082 Allow $1,273,961 Allow $124,941
$736,080 $1,273,960 $124,940 $2,134,980
K Es c al at i o n (3% p er y r f o r 3 y ear s )9%LS Allow $662,474 Allow $1,146,565 Allow $112,447
$662,470 $1,146,560 $112,450 $1,921,480
L TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS,
B ASE PROJ ECT
$8,759,370 $15,160,130 $1,486,800 $25,406,300
M Pr o f es s i o n al Ser v i c es , B as e Pr o j ec t
17056_CE_Alt#2.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.2 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study226
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 227
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #2
Mar y Av e t o De An za B lv d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
1.Topographic survey Allow LS Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000
2.Geotechnical services Allow LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000
3.Design development 3%LS Allow $262,781 Allow $454,804 Allow $44,604
4.Construction documents and permitting 8%LS Allow $700,750 Allow $1,212,810 Allow $118,944
5.Bidding and construction administration 3%LS Allow $262,781 Allow $454,804 Allow $44,604
6.Testing and special inspection 1%LS Allow $87,594 Allow $151,601 Allow $14,868
7.Environmental documentation (MND), assumes
no NEPA
Allow LS Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000
$1,383,910 $2,344,020 $293,020 $4,020,950
N TOTAL B ASE PROJ ECT COSTS $10,143,280 $17,504,150 $1,779,820 $29,427,250
O St el l i n g Un d er c r o s s in g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 13,380 $10,035 0 $0 0 $0
2.Chain link fence removal $50.00 LF 30 $1,500 0 $0 0 $0
3.Tree removal $750.00 EA 10 $7,500 0 $0 0 $0
4.Rough grading, 8" depth $50.00 CY 250 $12,500 0 $0 0 $0
5.Soil off-haul, 8" depth $100.00 CY 250 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0
6.Barrier fence $100.00 LF 460 $46,000 0 $0 0 $0
7.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 4,600 $115,000 0 $0 0 $0
8.Retaining wall $400.00 LF 840 $336,000 0 $0 0 $0
9.Striping, on-trail $5.00 LF 840 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0
10.Security lighting $40,000.00 LS Allow $40,000 0 $0 0 $0
11.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0
12.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $59,774 Allow $0 Allow $0
13.Inflation 9%LS Allow $53,796 Allow $0 Allow $0
14.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0
$890,630 $0 $0 $890,630
P De An za Ped es t r i an B r i d g e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 19,700 $14,775 0 $0
2.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 12 $9,000 0 $0
3.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0
4.Pedestrian bridge, approaches, stairs, support
columns and railing
$8,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $8,000,000 0 $0
17056_CE_Alt#2.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.3 of 5
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study228
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 229
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #2
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
5.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 730 $912,500 0 $0
6.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10'
wide
$5.25 SF 0 $0 7,300 $38,325 0 $0
7.Security lighting $60,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $60,000 0 $0
8.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0
9.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,003,460 Allow $0
10.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $903,114 Allow $0
11.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0
$0 $14,951,550 $0 $14,951,550
Q DeAn za Tu n n el Cr o s s i n g Op t io n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 16,900 $12,675 0 $0
2.Chain link fence removal $10.00 LF 0 $0 170 $1,700 0 $0
3.Underground utility relocation $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0
4.Tunnel drainage $150,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $150,000 Allow $0
5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0
6.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0
7.Tunnel, stairs, approaches, railings $12,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $12,000,000 0 $0
8.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 450 $562,500 0 $0
9.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10'
wide
$5.25 SF 0 $0 4,500 $23,625 0 $0
10.Skylight $10,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $10,000 0 $0
11.Chain link fence $60.00 LF 0 $0 200 $12,000 0 $0
12.Property acquisition costs $8,000,000.00 Acre 0 $0 0.05 $400,000 0 $0
12.Security lighting $200,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $200,000 0 $0
13.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0
14.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,487,400 Allow $0
15.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $1,338,660 Allow $0
16.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0
$0 $22,162,260 $0 $22,162,260
R DeAn za At -g r ad e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 6,550 $4,913 0 $0
2.Curb removal $15.00 LF 0 $0 220 $3,300 0 $0
3.Concrete removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 1,500 $4,500 0 $0
17056_CE_Alt#2.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.4 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study230
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 231
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #2
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
4.Asphalt removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 480 $1,440 0 $0
5.Sawcut $5.00 LF 0 $0 280 $1,400 0 $0
6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0
7.Traffic signal modification $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0
8.Traffic sign relocation $7,500.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $7,500 0 $0
9.Asphalt pavement $5.00 SF 0 $0 5,200 $26,000 0 $0
10.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 0 $0 3,400 $85,000 0 $0
11.Concrete ramp $2,500.00 EA 0 $0 4 $10,000 0 $0
12.Concrete curb and gutter $70.00 LF 0 $0 200 $14,000 0 $0
13.Retaining wall, max. 4'$500.00 LF 0 $0 360 $180,000 0 $0
14.Traffic striping $5,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $5,000 0 $0
15.Relocate irrigation $25,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $25,000 0 $0
16.Design contingency 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0
17.Construction contingency 10%LS Allow $0 Allow $86,955 Allow $0
18.Inflation 9%LS Allow $0 Allow $78,260 Allow $0
19.Professional Services 15%LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0
$0 $1,295,630 $0 $1,295,630
The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates
has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and
actual construction prices.
B as ed o n d r aw i n g s en t i t l ed "Al t er n at i v e Al i g n m en t Pl an ", d at ed "2/20/2018"
17056_CE_Alt#2.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.5 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study232
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 233Appendix
Engineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for Box Culvert for Alternative #2
Date:24-Apr-18
Project #:617052
Project:I-280 Channel trail
Prepared By:DPH
Engineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount
1 Earthwork (subgrade prep)SF 53240 $0.50 $26,620
TOTAL $26,620
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount
2 4'x4' Box Culvert LF 2686 $500.00 $1,343,000
3 8'x5' Box Culvert LF 2532 $1,250.00 $3,165,000
4 10'x6' Box Culvert LF 2224 $1,750.00 $3,892,000
TOTAL $8,400,000
Notes:
EARTHWORK
STORM DRAINAGE
1. This Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs should be used only as a guide. There is no responsibility assumed for
fluctuations in cost or quantity of material, labor or components.
1 of 1
X:\P\617052\(4) ENGINEERING\(1) DOCUMENTS\STUDIES & REPORTS\2018-04-24 I280 Cost Estimate.xlsx
Date:24-Apr-18Project #:617052Project:I-280 Channel trailPrepared By:DPHEngineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount
1 Earthwork (subgrade prep)SF 53240 $0.50 $26,620
TOTAL $26,620
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount
2 4'x4' Box Culvert LF 2686 $500.00 $1,343,000
3 8'x5' Box Culvert LF 2532 $1,250.00 $3,165,000
4 10'x6' Box Culvert LF 2224 $1,750.00 $3,892,000
TOTAL $8,400,000
Notes:
EARTHWORK
STORM DRAINAGE
1. This Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs should be used only as a guide. There is no responsibility assumed for
fluctuations in cost or quantity of material, labor or components.
1 of 1
X:\P\617052\(4) ENGINEERING\(1) DOCUMENTS\STUDIES & REPORTS\2018-04-24 I280 Cost Estimate.xlsx
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study234Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 235
Enlargement LegendDe Anza BoulevardInterstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
0 15’30’60’
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Existing Caltrans
Fence To Remain
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
PG&E Tower To
Remain
PG&E Tower To
Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 14’ Wide
Caltrans Easement
Stairs to Bridge
Over-Crossing, Typ.
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Trailhead Plaza, Typ.
Bridge
Over-Crossing
Traffic Light to
be Relocated
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide
Over Covered Channel
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Utility Box to
be Relocated
Pull Out to
be Removed
Cobra Light
to be
Relocated
Existing Property
Fence, Apple
40
MPH
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Centerline
Culvert
Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to Remain
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study236
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 237
Enlargement Legend
0 15’30’60’
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Centerline
Culvert
Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to be Removed
De Anza BoulevardInterstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Existing Caltrans
Fence To Remain
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 14’ Wide
PG&E Tower To
Remain
Stairs to Bridge
Over-Crossing, Typ.
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Trailhead Plaza, Typ.
Bridge
Over-Crossing
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Relocated PG&E
Tower
PG&E Tower To
Be Removed
Existing Property
Fence, Apple
40
MPH
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study238
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 239Appendix
City of Sunnyvale Comments
November 12, 2018
Jennifer Chu, Associate Civil Engineer
City of Cupertino
Public Works
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Comments for the Draft Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
Dear Jennifer:
Thank you for allowing the City of Sunnyvale to review and provide comments for
the Draft Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study in the City of Cupertino. Comments
concerning the draft feasibility study are as follows:
1. On pages 15 and 17, the City Limits symbol shown on the legend do not
match the City Limits show on the figures.
We truly appreciate your consideration of our comments in this matter. Please
keep us up-to-date on any trail development. You can reach me by email at
ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov or by phone at 408-730-7556.
Sincerely,
Lillian Tsang, P.E.
Principal Transportation Engineer
Division of Transportation and Traffic
Department of Public Work
Cc: Shahid Abbas, Transportation and Traffic Manager
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study240Appendix
Caltrans Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 241Appendix
Caltrans Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study242Appendix
Caltrans Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 243Appendix
Caltrans Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study244Appendix
SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 245Appendix
SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study246Appendix
SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 247Appendix
SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study248Appendix
December 18, 2018
Ms. Lillian Tsang, P.E.
Principal Transportation Engineer
City of Sunnyvale, Public Works
456 W Olive Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
Response Letter to City of Sunnyvale 11/12/18 Comments
Dear Ms. Tsang,
The City of Cupertino would like to thank City of Sunnyvale staff for their participation
in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and guidance provided
throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. We look forward
to continuing to work with Sunnyvale as this project moves forward.
Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address Sunnyvale
comments which were received on November 12, 2018. The City has provided the
following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made.
Sunnyvale comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics.
1)On Pages 15 and 17, the City Limits symbol shown on the legend do not match the
City Limits shown on the figures.
The City Limits have been revised to match.
Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chu, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
Reponse to City of Sunnyvale Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 249Appendix
Reponse to City of Sunnyvale Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 2
cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman
City of Sunnyvale – Shahid Abbas
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study250Appendix
Reponse to Caltrans Comments
December 18, 2018
Mr. Sergio Ruiz
Pedestrian & Bicycle Coordinator, Branch Chief
Caltrans District 4
111 Grand Ave
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
Response Letter to Caltrans 11/13/18 Comments
Dear Mr. Ruiz,
The City of Cupertino would like to thank Caltrans District 4 staff for their participation
in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and guidance provided
throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. We look forward
to continuing to work with Caltrans as this project moves forward.
Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address Caltrans
comments which were received on November 13, 2018. The City has provided the
following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made.
Caltrans comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics.
1)What signal timing and phasing was set up in the model? Were demand volumes
inputted into the traffic operations analysis model or are intersection output counts
being used only? Traffic models require demand volumes as input. This area looks
pretty congested so intersection output counts may not give you the true demand that
is trying to use this intersection and the delay and LOS could be worse than what is
being stated here. In addition, include the 95th percentile queuing results for existing
and with project conditions in the report. If adjacent intersection operations or ramp
meters are affecting the traffic flow at this intersection, then this would also need to
be captured as a system analysis using the SimTraffic software model in order to
reflect the true operations of this intersection.
The preliminary traffic evaluation referenced in the feasibility study was performed
utilizing traffic signal timing measured during on-site observations during the
morning and afternoon peak periods. Volumes utilized for this effort were
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 251Appendix
Reponse to Caltrans Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 2
intersection output counts and only the study intersection was included for the
purpose of evaluating high-level feasibility for an at-grade crossing solution where
the proposed trail intersects De Anza Blvd.
City staff is anticipating to seek City Council approval of the study in February 2019.
Should City Council decide to approve the study and fund the engineering design of
the trail to include an at-grade crossing solution at De Anza Blvd, then the City
understands that design, and ultimately implementation, of geometric modifications
would require the completion of traffic operations analyses scoped in coordination
with Caltrans staff.
Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chu, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study252Appendix
Reponse to SCVWD Comments
December 18, 2018
Ms. Yvonne Arroyo
Associate Engineer, Community Projects Review Unit
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
Response Letter to SCVWD 11/26/18 Comments
Dear Ms. Arroyo,
The City of Cupertino would like to thank Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff
for their participation in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and
guidance provided throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility
Study. We look forward to continuing to work with the District as this project moves
forward.
Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address the District
comments which were received on November 26, 2018. The City has provided the
following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made.
District comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics.
1)Page 1, “Executive Summary”: The executive summary states that Alternative #2 is the
preferred alternative. Alternative #2 would enclose Junipero Serra Channel in a box
culvert. District staff has preliminarily agreed to this concept if the City accepts all
right of way and maintenance of the facility as part of the City storm drain system
prior to construction of any improvements, subject to approval from the District's
Board of Directors.
This section has been revised as noted.
2)Page 22, "Trail Access": This section states "Direct access to the trail may be desired by
Apple for its employees." For the portion of the trail along Calabazas Creek, public
access should be limited to the trailhead at Vallco Parkway (Figure 3-15) in order that
the District may control public access to the creek during operation and maintenance
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 253Appendix
Reponse to SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 2
activities. Additionally, if Alternative 2 is not chosen, then similar controlled public
access points should be provided along the Junipero Serra Channel.
This section has been revised as noted.
3)Page 23, "CalTrans": This section should also mention that Caltrans reserved ingress-
egress rights over the District's fee title right of way for Junipero Serra Channel when
they transferred the right of way to the District. Caltrans may need to also review and
approve any plans that could affect their ingress-egress rights.
This section has been revised as noted.
4)Page 26, "Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD):" This section should reflect that
the proposed guard rail barrier or fencing along Junipero Serra Channel in Alternative
#1 is not acceptable to the District due to the significant adverse effects on maintenance
operations, rather than just a concern. Other alternatives to address any safety
concerns should be explored.
This section has been revised as noted. City staff is anticipating to seek City Council
approval of the study in February 2019. Should City Council decide to approve the
study and fund the engineering design phase of the trail to include Alternative #1, then
City staff will continue to work with SCVWD staff for alternative edge treatments
for pedestrian protection. For this reason, the guard rails are still shown in all
Alternative #1 graphics.
The discussion on alternative #2 should be revised to reflect that SCVWD staff has
preliminarily agreed to alternative #2 upon the condition that the City of Cupertino
(City) assume full ownership and maintenance of Junipero Serra Channel as part of
the city storm drain system prior to any modifications being implemented. The
transfer of the District's right of way and Junipero Serra Channel to the city is subject
to prior approval by the District's Board of Directors. Additionally, regulatory
approval will be needed from regulatory agencies, including US Army Corps of
Engineers, California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
This section has been revised as noted.
5)Page 28, "Santa Clara Valley Water District": Please revise the second bullet point to
reflect that the District will not approve physical barriers along Junipero Serra
Channel, rather than it being a preference.
This section has been revised as noted.
6)Page 29, "CalTrans": Caltrans approval may also be required for any changes to the
District's fee title right of way for Junipero Serra Channel where they reserved ingress-
egress easement.
This section has been revised as noted.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study254Appendix
Reponse to SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 3
7)Page 30, Trail Criteria and Standards: This section should include the trail design
standards contained in the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and
the District's Water Resources Protection Manual for portions of the trail on District
right of way.
This section has been revised as noted.
8)Page 40, Pedestrian Trail Alternative #1: Please see comment 4, above, for comments
on Alternative #1.
See response to Comment #4.
9)Page 40, Class I Multi-Use Trail Alternative #2: The text states "SCVWD has indicated
that they do not maintain box culverts and that the City would need to assume
maintenance and responsibility." This sentence should be revised to state
"Maintenance of enclosed culverts or channels is not the District's expertise. If
Alternative #2 is pursued by the city, the District will request that the city accept
ownership and maintenance responsibility prior to project construction." The District
suggests that the text and/or figures include the sizing of the box culvert and describe
the maintenance activities that will be needed.
This section has been revised as noted.
10)Page 40, Figure 4-3: On the portion of Junipero Serra Channel, generally east of Wolfe
Road, where the channel is not proposed to be enclosed as part of Alternative #2, the
District may still not allow guard railing or fencing along the top of bank where it
would reduce the width of our maintenance road unacceptably or inhibit access to the
channel for maintenance operations.
Understood. The proposed guard rails are removed along the trail segment east of
Wolfe Rd.
11)Page 41, Figure 4-4: Please see comment 4, above, for comments on Alternative #1.
See response to Comment #4.
12)Page 51, Figure 4-9: The figure shows a proposed trail connection to the Junipero Serra
Channel "within existing roadway easement." The alignment of the trail connection
appears to be very similar to the alignment of a road easement the District previously
quitclaimed in 1975 in exchange for a new ingress-egress easement through assessor
parcel number 326-06-050. If the City has its own road easement at this location, then
there is no issue. However, if the roadway easement is referring to our prior easement,
then the trail connection will need to be redesigned or new right of way will need to
be acquired by the City.
Cupertino Loc-N-Stor (APN 326-06-050) is proposing to improve their property and
has submitted preliminary plans for City review. This section has been revised to
clarify that any improvements made to the Cupertino Loc-N-Stor property will not
preclude trail development.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 255Appendix
Reponse to SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 4
13)Page 72, Figure 4-29, Alternative 1: Please see comment 4, above, for comments on
Alternative #1.
See response to Comment #4.
14)Page 77, Segment 3-Vallco to Vallco Parkway: This section runs along Junipero Serra
Channel from Wolfe Road to the Calabazas Creek confluence and then along the west
bank of Calabazas Creek to Vallco Parkway. There is only one proposed alternative in
this section due to the maintenance access road width of 14 feet or greater. The
proposed channel and creek are to remain as is, but there are still fences or guard rails
proposed along the bank in areas where the bank is steeper than 3:1 slope. Comment
4, above, is still applicable for the area along Junipero Serra Channel. The District's as-
builts for Calabazas Creek show the bank was constructed at 3:1 between Highway
280 and Vallco Parkway, so the study should be revised to reflect this condition and
remove reference to fencing. Additionally, District studies indicate the maintenance
road along Calabazas Creek is below top of bank of the creek and subject to inundation
approximately during 10-year storm events and greater. Improvements to the
Calabazas Creek maintenance road will require approvals from regulatory agencies,
including California State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
This section has been revised as noted and the proposed guard rails are removed from
the graphics shown along the trail segment east of Wolfe Rd.
15)Page 84, Guard Rail Adjacent to Open Ditch: Again, please see comment 4 and 14 for
comments regarding fencing and/or guard rails adjacent to Junipero Serra Channel or
Calabazas Creek.
See response to Comment #4 and #14.
16)Page 87, Summary Recommendations: This section states that a joint use agreement is
only necessary if SCVWD retains ownership. This appears to be a reference to
Alternative 2. However, even Alternative 2 includes a portion of Junipero Serra
Channel and Calabazas Creek which will not be placed in a culvert and is assumed to
be retained by the District (please clarify if that is not the City's understanding).
Therefore, in any alternative, a joint use agreement with the District will be necessary.
The City is in agreement with this understanding. This section has been revised to
specify a joint use agreement with the District will be necessary in any alternative.
17)Page 97, TAC Meeting #1 Summary, Item 5: The District would like to clarify that the
loss of access at Wolfe Road was due to the installation of a concrete guard rail, not a
fallen tree.
The meeting summary has been revised as noted.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study256Appendix
Reponse to SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 5
Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chu, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman
SCVWD – Usha Chatwani, Devin Mody, Cody Houston, Jennifer Codianne,
Chad Grande
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 257Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study92Appendix
Meeting Summaries
Start Up Meeting Summary
SCVWD Meeting Summary
TAC Meeting #1 Summary
Staff Meeting Summary
Community Meeting #1 Summary
CalWater Meeting Summary
PG&E Meeting Summary
CalTrans Meeting Summary
TAC Meeting #2 Summary
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Community Meeting #3 Summary
12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes
Outreach Materials
City Flier
City Postcard
City Door Hanger
City Door Hanger for Portal Ave Residents
CALA Hand Out
Apple R.O.W. Acquisition Exhibit
Sandis - Surveyor
Box Culvert E-mail
CalTrans Box Culvert Notes
De Anza Blvd Overhead Wires Survey
Input Materials
Community Meeting #1 Input Packet
Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
Community Meeting #3 Questionnaire
Input Board for Diwali Festival
94
94
96
98
102
104
112
114
116
118
122
136
148
152
152
153
154
155
156
157
159
159
163
165
167
167
171
179
181
Appendix
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 93Appendix
6
183
183
189
189
193
194
196
213
213
223
233
235
235
237
239
239
240
244
248
248
250
252
Community Meeting #3 Materials
What We Heard Boards
Memos
Document Review
Public Outreach Outline
Public Outreach Plan
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Cost Estimate
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Engineering Option of Probable Construction Costs
for Box Culvert for Alternative #2
Draft De Anza Boulevard Crossings
Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement
- Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to Remain
Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement
- Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to be Removed
TAC Comments on Draft Study
City of Sunnyvale Comments
Caltrans Comments
SCVWD Comments
City of Cupertino Responses to TAC Comments
Response to City of Sunnyvale Comments
Response to Caltrans Comments
Response to SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study94Appendix
Start Up Meeting Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via E-mail Only
August 23, 2017
Meeting Summary
I-280 Channel Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Project Start-Up Meeting
Date: Tuesday, 8/22/17
Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
(Site Walk: 3:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.)
Attendees: City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
A meeting was held to kick-off the project, review background information and materials needed, discuss
project goals and objectives, and review the City’s preliminary thoughts on public outreach, branding, and
TAC coordination. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in
bold identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Discussed
1)City to send back executed agreement by 8/29 or soon after, CA submitted signed agreement to JC
at meeting on 8/22.
2)Roles and Responsibilities
a)CA to correspond through JC and copy DS
b)City to correspond through DR and copy JS
3)Project Materials
a)JC to request 2016 contours and aerial by 8/25 (received by CA on 8/23)
b)CA to send link for contours and aerial to Sandis by 8/29 and ensure files are AutoCAD
compatible
c)JC to send link to assessors maps by 8/25 (received by CA on 8/23)
d)CA to ask Sandis about materials needed by 8/25 and correspond with City
e)Other planning efforts underway include:
•Pedestrian Trail Guidelines (expected adoption later this year)
•Countywide Bicycle Plan by VTA (late 2017)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 95Appendix
Start Up Meeting Summary
I-280 Channel Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Project Start-Up Meeting
August 22, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_StartUpMtg
© copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Discussed
•City to provide input from Parks and Recreation Master Plan (in-progress)
f)CA to review City standard details, suggested by City
4)TAC Formation
a)CA to separate invite for TAC and businesses/private owners, TAC will be agencies only
b)DS to correspond with businesses/private owners
•Likely businesses/private owners:
−Apple
−Loc-N-Stor
−Vallco
−HOAs
c)CA to create directory by 9/30 for TAC and businesses/private owners
5)Public Outreach Plan
a)City/CA to staff 2 community events (Diwali Festival-Sep., Earth Day-Apr.)
b)Consider small community events (i.e. Farmers’ markets, Bike to Work Day) throughout study
period to promote project. These would be attended by City staff
c)City to select outreach dates/locations by 9/15 and reserve space for events
d)CA to get notices out by 9/20, before Diwali Festival
e)CA to send examples of prior notices/flyers by 8/23 for City to review
6)Branding
a)City to review and provide feedback on branding by 8/30
•City to meet on 8/28 to review/discuss branding for the trail
•City to discuss use of “The Loop”
•City to suggest use of branding colors, font, graphic style from other City-signage programs
b)City to send wayfinding signage example to CA from bike boulevard project (received by CA on
8/23)
c)CA to provide branding alternatives by 9/13 for City to review and to incorporate in outreach
materials
- END -
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached
at the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study96Appendix
SCVWD Meeting Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 1, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: SCVWD Review Meeting
Date: November 28, 2017
Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Attendees:
SCVWD : Sue Tippets (ST), SCVWD, stippets@valleywater.org
Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org
Cody Houston (CH), SCVWD, chouston@valleywater.org
Devin Mody (DM), SCVWD, dmody@valleywater.org
Consultants: Jon Cacciotti (JCa), HMHca, jcacciotti@hmhca.com
Jodi Starbird (JS), DJP, jstarbird@davidjpowers.com
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with SCVWD, gather technical input, and discuss design
alternative options for the drainage ditch that runs parallel to the trail alignment study area. The following
information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify
specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
1.SCVWD generally prefers no barrier between
trails/maintenance roads and creeks. However, if there is a
severe drop they would consider a low open barrier.
CA to study edge conditions
2.SCVWD discussed the desire for "permeable pavement" use
however during further discussion the intent is for more natural
looking pavements. They talked about a recent project that
Google did near Crittenden Bridge.
CA to review example project
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 97Appendix
SCVWD Meeting Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: SCVWD Review Meeting
December 1, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_SCVWDMtg.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
3.The Junipero Serra Creek was never a creek. The drainage ditch
was constructed when I-280 was built. It was constructed by
Caltrans then transferred over to the Water District.
CA to remove “creek” from all
materials
4.Would be open to considering an option that would replace the
ditch with a closed pipe and buried. This should not be the only
option studied. SCVWD expressed some hesitance with the
maintenance of a closed pipe as they are more comfortable
with maintaining open channels.
CA to include covered and open
alternative options
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study98Appendix
TAC Meeting #1 Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 1, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #1
Date: November 29, 2017
Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Attendees: TAC Member: Richard Tanaka (RT), CSD/Mark Thomas, rtanaka@markthomas.com
Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org
Lauren Ledbetter (LL), VTA, lauren.ledbetter@vta.org
Lillian Tsang (LT), City of Sunnyvale, ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org
Ben Fu (BF), Planning, benjaminf@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review the project background and existing conditions of the site, discuss
the trail alignment locations, and gather technical input and documents from the TAC members. The
following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take”
column identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
1.The Junipero Serra Trail (trail) has been identified as a high
priority by City Council. The trail would be a
recreational/transportation corridor. Apple has a large bicycle
population that would likely use it. The trail supports
Cupertino’s interconnectivity.
Noted
2.SCVWD refers to the waterway in the corridor as a “drainage
ditch”, it is not a natural channel. It was constructed in
conjunction with the construction of I-280.
Noted
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 99Appendix
TAC Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #1
December 1, 2017
Page 2 of 3
17056_SUM_TACMtg#1.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
3. LL noted personal security concerns, lack of access points.
Access points are identified on the site assessment plans; an
access point at the CalWater facility is to be evaluated. Stevens
Creek is a trail that also has limited access points, high volumes
of users makes it feel safe.
CA to review project with
CalWater by 12/15
4. Treatment of trail crossings over major streets: Stelling is an on-
street crossing with possible beacons; City is encouraging grade-
separated crossing at De Anza; Blaney has a curve that creates
pinch point; Vallco will be coordinated with concurrent planning
projects.
Noted
5. SCVWD has maintenance requirements in the corridor; need
access for maintenance and vegetation management;
installation of a concrete guard rail closed off access near Wolfe
Rd. recently.
Noted
6. Caltrans should have a hydraulic report available for I-280 that
would elaborate on the drainage ditch. It is believed that the
ditch was constructed to accommodate 100 year storm from
overland flows, from the neighborhoods, intercepted before
flowing onto the freeway. Waters from I-280 are not believed
to be flowing into the drainage ditch. Caltrans turned
responsibility over to SCVWD.
CA to request hydraulic report
and drawings for the ditch from
Caltrans by 12/8
7. RT discussed CalWater 14” ACP water line at the confluence of
the drainage ditch and the Calabazas Creek. Location of facilities
is unknown. CalWater crosses the creek at image #30. Check
14’-0” trail width availability.
CA to discuss with CalWater by
12/15
8. There is a sanitary easement adjacent to the SCVWD property in
the vicinity of the Apple campus (photo images #13 - #20).
There is an undersized 8” sewer line within the easement that
the Sanitary District to upgrade to at least 12”. They are
studying options.
CA to review by 12/15
9. Sanitary District needs width of 8’-0” (HydroFlush truck
capabilities); SCVWD will inform CA of width
requirements/preference.
UC to provide width
requirements by 12/15
10. VTA is updating the Countywide Bike Plan now (available
February 2018); trail eligible for 2016 Measure B, Safe Routes to
School, and ATP funding.
CA to review funding options
with VTA and include in report
estimate
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study100Appendix
TAC Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #1
December 1, 2017
Page 3 of 3
17056_SUM_TACMtg#1.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
11.SCVWD is seeing a lot of challenges in dealing with trails –
people want them available 24/7, but SCVWD has to
occasionally close trail for maintenance. SCVWD has noticed
impacts to riparian areas and trails are getting more
constrained. There is a trend towards evaluating trails policy
(CSJ developing Toolkit). SCVWD wants to review VTA
Countywide Bike Plan when available to include SCVWD
policies. SCVWD wants to stay away from lighting and bridge
crossings.
Noted
12.RT asked if the City would consider ownership of R.O.W. where
trail is being proposed; it would be a multi-use trail over a
drainage facility, not a flood control facility.
City to review
13.VTA is managing Wolfe interchange project with HMH. No plans
available yet; in environmental review phase (15-18 month
timeline); not fully funded.
Noted
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 101Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study102Appendix
Staff Meeting Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 1, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Staff Meeting, Phone Call
Date: November 30, 2017
Time: 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Attendees:
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review TAC Meeting #1 and prepare for Community Meeting #1. The
following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take”
column identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
TAC Meeting #1
1.VTA funding sources for the Junipero Serra Trail is a part of the
County-wide bicycle plan. Funding sources will be incorporated
into the estimates for the feasibility study.
CA to email VTA (Lauren
Ledbetter) by 12/8
2.Need to better understand the structure of the drainage ditch
and how stormwater intercepted. In a covered alternative,
consider appropriate pipe sizing/capacity. Access and
maintenance requirements will also need to be accounted for.
CA to review with Caltrans by
12/15
3.Need to show a non-covered alternative for the trail alignment.
Alternatives show cost difference and ability to accommodate
class 1 facilities.
CA to include in alternatives
4.Send email with TAC meeting materials to non-attendees
(Caltrans, Cal Water, PG&E) and schedule follow-up
call/meeting to discuss project purpose/objective and agency
concerns.
JS to send draft email text and
materials to City. City to send
email by 11/30
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 103Appendix
Staff Meeting Summary
Meeting Summary
Juniper0 Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Staff Meeting, Phone Call
December 1, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_StaffMtg_171130.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
5.Send Doodle poll to TAC members to coordinate time for next
TAC meeting (February).
JC to send Doodle by 12/8
Community Meeting #1
6.Room layout for event has attendees visiting 7 stations and
recording input in a handout. CA created diagrammatic layout
of the Cupertino Room with table/chair layout and the purpose
for each station.
JC to send layout to City staff by
12/1 for room preparation
7.City staff includes Jenn, David, and Erick. CA will be positioned
at segment stations; City staff will be positioned at sign-in, goals
+ objectives, background, and floating around the room.
Noted
8.Finalize all materials for the meeting and bring to event.
Remove “creek” on all materials.
CA to bring materials to event
9.Refreshments to be provided at community meeting CA to provide
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Community Meeting #1 Summary
SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate
311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 12, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
Location: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room
Date: December 6, 2017
Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Number of people who signed-in: 29
Number of people who turned-in an input packet: 13
Attendees:
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
Community Meeting #1 was open house style where participants were invited to arrive at any time
during the event window (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and provide individual feedback on the trail project.
Community members were notified about the event through the following methods:
•City’s website
•City Channel
•Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter)
•Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest
•Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall
•Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents
•Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter
The meeting included six stations for community participants to provide their input at their own pace.
Station #1 was the welcome table, where participants were greeted by City staff and provided an input
packet to record comments as they traveled between stations. The five additional stations included
project background and goals and objectives (Station #2), Stations #3, 4, 5 were for the three segments
of the proposed trail, and refreshments (Station #6). Participants were asked to return their input
packets to Station #1 before leaving so that their comments could be recorded. The next sections
review the input methodology and summarize the input received at the meeting.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study104Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 2 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Commenting Material
Community Meeting #1 included several opportunities to provide written input and have that input
recorded. Input methods included the input packet, the trail segment plans, and large flip charts.
Participants were not limited to one commenting method and everyone was encouraged to document
their input. Below is a description of each input method available:
Input Packet
The input packet included the same two open-ended questions for each trail segment. Community
members were asked to respond to these questions as they traveled to each of the trail segments.
•Questions 1: What do you like about this segment of the trail?
•Question 2: What can be improved in this segment of the trail?
Trail Segment Comments
The trail was divided into three segments and set up at three separate stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Each
trail segment plan was printed at a large scale to help community members identify neighborhood
features and the proximity of the trail to community resources (i.e., schools and businesses). Participants
were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback on each trail segment. Commenting
directly onto the large plans is a useful tool for input because context can be applied to a specific
comment and ideas can be drawn and documented. Each of the trail segments provided this input
method, but the geographic differences between each segment generated unique comments from the
community.
•Trail Segment #1 – Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard
This segment includes the connection to Mary Avenue Bridge and the on-street bicycle network
that connects to Garden Gate Elementary School. This segment includes a street crossing at
Stelling Road.
•Trail Segment #2 – De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center
This segment is in close proximity to Lawson Middle School and runs along the northern edge of
the Infinite Loop. This segment includes a street crossing at De Anza Boulevard and would have
the trail running under Blaney Avenue.
•Trail Segment #3 – Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway
This segment is near the Vallco Center and runs along the northern edge of to the new Hyatt
Hotel and Apple. The trail runs under Wolfe Road and terminates at Vallco Parkway and
Calabazas Creek.
Flip Charts
Flip Charts were placed at Station #2 and each of the three trail segment stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Flip charts
did not include a prompted question, all feedback provided was open-ended. Not all Stations with flip charts
received comments.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 105Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 3 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Input Received
Station #2 - Project Background and Goals and Objectives
Flip Chart
•Please keep redwood trees along I-280 frontage. Do not cut down. They run the length of I-280
from Los Altos to San Jose so the provide a greenbelt along the freeway and buffer residential
from the freeway. Redwoods also clean impurities from the air.
Station #3 – Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard)
Input Packet – Question #1
•I would like to have lights on the way, some benches to sit, a water station, restroom facility
•Connecting the trail to the bridge is great!
•No stoplights (well almost)
•Minimal cross streets
•The bike bridge
•Everything
•Good access to western areas in the city
•It's a trail
•Less car traffic for students going to De Anza College
•Easy connection to Mary Ave. bridge and avoids Stevens Creek Blvd.
•Connectivity to Mary Avenue Bridge
•Takes you to Mountain View
•Connection to Mary Avenue Bridge
Input Packet – Question #2
•Protect bikes from falling into ditches
•Have a camera at the main junctions
•Put up signs (dog on-leash, no loitering, speed limit)
•Stelling Rd. crossing needs bridge over
•Need mile markers
•Access to the trail via Stelling Rd. is too dangerous for kids
•Take it along the wall all the way to De Anza College; use the City maintenance land to go from
Mary Ave back to the sound wall here
•Put underground crossing under Stevens Creek Blvd to De Anza College
•Have the City buy a house along [Flora Vista Ave.] to allow Lawson students to access the trail
(Garden Gate Elem. feeds into Lawson Middle)
•Need access near [photo] #4; buy a house, tear it down, provide access
•A glass sound wall so Teslas stuck in traffic can see how fast bikes go
•East end of bike bridge (Homestead Rd and Mary Ave) needs to be reconfigured
•Need grade separation (prefer underpass) for trail at Stelling Rd.
•Improve Stelling Rd. crossing if possible
•Safety and security of residence and businesses - how are we going to protect our business and
homes along the path? Need regular monitoring for security concerns!
•Parents will still drive kids to neighborhood regardless
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study106Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 4 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Crossing at Stelling Rd. should be above or below street, no crosswalk is near the access point
right now
•Widen 14' for multi-use
•All segments use over or under grade crossings to major streets
•Extend via bridge or tunnel to De Anza College and across 85 with dedicated bridge protected
from cars/ramps
•Traffic light or bridge tunnel between [picture] #6 and #7
•Prefer the route be closer to storage, as it would have less impact on the
residents and it is wider
•Safety and security of the trail while maintaining safety, security and privacy for
the residents impacted by the trail
Trail Segment Plan Comments
•This speed table [on Meteor Dr.] will drive cars to Amulet then Nathanson Ave.
•Median on Meteor Dr. slows traffic and is a good thing
•Nobody stops at Nathanson Ave. turning onto Meteor Dr.
•Some late night noise at trail head [Mary Avenue Bridge]
•Hit by car at Glenbrook
•Mini-store employee concern about vandalism and homeless
•Purchase property at curve of Castine Ave. to Gardena Dr.
•Pedestrian bridge would be great between image #7 and #8 (Stelling Rd.) [other
response] - or tunnel
•Suggest 20' minimum width to accommodate bikes, strollers, etc.
Flip Chart Comments
•Deter vehicular speed
•Drivers don't respect hawk signals
•Steven's Creek Blvd and Homestead Rd are existing east-west on-street connections
•Fencing for neighbors
•Trail is very isolated
Station #4 – Trail Segment #2 (De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center)
Input Packet – Question #1
•Keep the existing trees and plant some new trees
•IDEA: Give property owners a cut in their property taxes to allow a portion of their land for the
trail is selected cases. Bar Harbor along their harbor does this
•Spur to Lawson Middle along the east edge of Apple's property
•Will help Apple and it’s near my house :)
•Everything
•This is a great connector across the city without riding/walking on busy streets
•It's a trail
•Less vehicle traffic
•Avoids Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza Blvd
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 107Appendix
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study108Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 5 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Good east-west trail through Cupertino
Input Packet – Question #2
•Under/over bridge at the De Anza Blvd. crossing
•Add underground crossing under De Anza Blvd.
•Do not remove car access under Blaney Ave. bridge, it is used heavily
•Do not remove parking on Lucille Ave because it is used by PBC Church, apartment tenants, and
Apple
•Take trail UNDER De Anza Blvd., look at Loveland, CO for examples!
•Removing vegetation to put trail in will increase sound from freeway, please put sound
considerations high on design list
•Use negotiations with Apple to get Lawson students off the street [arrow pointed to east edge of
Apple property]
•A wide, bright tunnel at [image] #17
•Suggest oaks with hairy leaves that will filter the freeway soot (East PA has done this)
•Pedestrian/bike undercrossing at De Anza Blvd.
•Add connection along Apple sound wall (parallel to Larry Way) to permit direct route to Lawson
Middle and Merrit Way bike boulevard
•De Anza Blvd. crossing
•Safety of bikes
•Widen 14' for multi-use
•De Anza Blvd crossing should be above or below street level
•Make access for Garden Gate Elementary
•Reduce conflict between north-bound De Anza Blvd. to south-bound I-280 vs. crossing
Trail Segment Plan Comments
•Suggest a tunnel or bridge (built by Apple of glass and chrome…)
•Evening backup on I-280 south-bound on-ramp at De Anza Blvd.
•Will this trail connect to De Anza Blvd. bike lanes? Optimize the crossing
•Loveland, CO has lots of underpass connections
•Bar Harbor - gave a cut in property taxes to allow for trail
•Could there be a spur [east side of infinite loop Apple property], provide
connection to school and bike boulevard [other response] - yes!
•[Between image #15 and #16] Church parking, don't take parking away
•Add label for all BQ zoned properties
•When apartments are full [between Blaney Ave. and Randy Ln.] they park on
street
•Don't close the loop under Blaney Ave.
•[Behind Mini-Stor] - Lots of graffiti when fence comes down;
•Wolfe improvements get tagged, may have taken another chain-link fence
•If trail is narrower than full width, is it harder to obtain funding?
•I would use [the trail] on commute and evening walks
•Look at Santa Clara Agilent property - proposed trail
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 109Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 6 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Flip Chart Comments
•No comments provided at this station
Station #5 – Trail Segment #3 (Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway)
Input Packet – Question #1
•Overall love this idea of Cupertino Loop; can't wait to start running on the trail
•Will help Vallco and retail, when it's built
•Everything
•Utilization of existing Wolfe underpass at Vallco
•Access to Main Street and future Vallco activities and shopping
•It's a trail
•Less Apple traffic
•Wolfe crossing is not at street level
•Allows access to Vallco and Main Street
•Scenic
•Connection to Main Street, hotels, Apple
Input Packet – Question #2
•Add emergency blue poles throughout the trail
•Vegetation all along wall helps with freeway pollution and sound reduction, please consider this
when designing the entire trail
•Bridge trail over Wolfe Rd.
•Overall, I suggest a 20' minimum width to accommodate a wide range of transportation
preferences; trees, trees, trees (large species)
•Why not a full width new trail around "Section A"? [Hyatt Hotel Trail segment]
•Make sure bicycles abide by same rules as road users
•Make SHP developer incorporate bike access to trails
•Nothing
•Turning left onto Vallco Pkwy. on a bicycle is impossible/dangerous/requires using sidewalk?
Trail Segment Plan Comments
•Why not go across? [keep trail parallel to I-280, cut through Wolfe Rd. interchange and hook
into trail at the Hyatt Hotel]
•Make the new trail at the hotel property wider, it's new
•Bridge over Wolfe Rd.? [Where underpass is currently]
•Is Perimeter Rd. public or private; is there an easement?
•Be aware of how a dotted melted strip bike lane feels on 110 psi bike tires
•Radius of speed hump should exceed that of 27" bike wheel!
•Traffic volume will increase at Vallco Pkwy. and Tantau Ave. intersection
•Continue trail across I-280 [follow Calabazas Creek] and connect at Tantau Ave.
•Add button for cyclists well ahead of intersection with priority timing [Idea is to be able to hit
the button while on your bike and the light will be green by the time cyclist gets to the
intersection]
•[At the Vallco Pkwy. trailhead] - What happens when you want to turn left onto Vallco Pkwy.?
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study110Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 7 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Add roundabout at Tantau Ave./Vallco Pkwy. intersection [other response] - I would be scared
to use that
Flip Chart Comments
•No comments provided at this station
Community Meeting #1 Images
This section illustrates images captured from the meeting.
Sign-in and Input Packet Pick-Up Trail Section
Background and Goals and Objectives Background and Goals and Objectives
Trail Section Input Packet
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 111Appendix
Community Meeting #1 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #1
December 12, 2017
Page 8 of 8
17056_SUM_CommMtg#1_171206_Final.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the
meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any
questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Attachments:
1.Input Packet Response Data Presentation
2.Notification Flyers
CalWater Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study112Appendix
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 7, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: CalWater Review Meeting, Phone Call
Date: December 6, 2017
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Attendees:
California Water Service
(CalWater): Chris Wilson (CW), CalWater, cwilson@calwater.com
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with CalWater and gather technical input. The
following information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take”
column identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
1.CalWater is supportive of the project. There are certain security
measures to consider in implementing a trail next to their
facilities, mostly concerning access control.
Noted
2.CalWater is adding concertina wire to address intrusion issues.
CalWater has vandalism and trash dumping in the past.
Noted
3.CalWater has an underground tank at this site that serves a
large portion of Cupertino.
Noted
4.CalWater supports a wider trail for maintenance purposes.
Currentl they access corridor from N. Portal Avenue.
Noted
5.CalWater is open to the idea of providing access through their
site to access the trail.
CA to consider CalWater site as
a potential trail access point.
-END-
CalWater Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 113Appendix
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: CalWater Review Meeting, Phone Call
December 7, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_CalWaterMtg.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study114Appendix
PG&E Meeting Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 14, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: PG&E Review Meeting (Conference Call)
Date: December 12, 2017
Time: 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Attendees:
PG&E: Jessy Borges (JB), PG&E, jy16@pge.com
Ramiro Coronel (RC), PG&E, RSC7@pge.com
Ted Quach (TQ), PG&E, tpq1@pge.com
Albert Le (AL), PG&E, ahla@pge.com
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with PG&E, gather technical input, and discuss initial
design alternative options for the study area. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon
in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
1.PG&E noted the presence of gas lines near the drainage ditch.
There are gas lines at Stelling Rd.
City to request gas facilities
throughout project limits.
2.115kv overhead electrical transmission lines run along the
project limits.
City to request electrical
facilities throughout project
limits.
3.PG&E needs a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to provide
mapping information.
City to coordinate with PG&E.
4.Maintenance road would need to support line trucks, trucks
weigh approximately 80 tons.
Noted.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 115Appendix
PG&E Meeting Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: PG&E Review Meeting (Conference Call)
December 14, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_PGEMtg.docx
© copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
5.Wire height will need to be verified. The voltage goes up as the
height increases.
PG&E to verify wire clearances.
6.Identify locations where poles potentially conflict with trail
alignments.
CA to mark up and send exhibit
to City.
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
CalTrans Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study116Appendix
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
December 22, 2017
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Caltrans Review Meeting (Conference Call)
Date: December 20, 2017
Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Attendees:
Caltrans: Sergio Ruiz (SR), Caltrans, sergio.ruiz@dot.ca.gov
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review the project with Caltrans, gather technical input, and discuss initial
design alternative options for the study area. The following information was discussed and/or decided upon
in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
1.SR has requested drainage ditch As-Builts from the hydraulic
team and has not heard back. SR will follow-up with the design
team to get turn-around time for drawings.
SR to request drainage ditch As-
Builts within the project limits.
2.The road segment under the Blaney Rd. overpass (on Lucille) is
Caltrans R.O.W., but Caltrans believes that segment has a
maintenance agreement with the City.
SR to locate the maintenance
agreement and send to JC.
3.An encroachment permit would be needed for any trail
development on Caltrans R.O.W. Access control review may be
needed if the trail alignment moves onto the north side of the
sound wall. The review process is dependent on the size of the
project. Caltrans can review the drawings once a trail alignment
is decided.
Noted.
CalTrans Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 117Appendix
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Caltrans Review Meeting (Conference Call)
December 22, 2017
Page 2 of 2
17056_SUM_CalTransMtg.docx
© copyrighted 2017 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
4.Caltrans will make their draft Bicycle Plan available. SR to provide draft plan.
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study118Appendix
TAC Meeting #2 Summary
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
February 6, 2018
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #2
Date: January 31, 2018
Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Attendees: TAC Member: Usha Chatwani (UC), SCVWD, uchatwani@valleywater.org
Lauren Ledbetter (LL), VTA, lauren.ledbetter@vta.org
Lillian Tsang (LT), City of Sunnyvale, ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Ted Quach (TQ), PG&E, tpq1@pge.com
Albert Le (AL), PG&E, ahla@pge.com
Chris Wilson (CW), CalWater, cwilson@calwater.com
Steve Davis (SD), Fehr&Peers, s.davis@fehrandpeers.com
T. Saadati (TS), Walk Bike Cupertino, tsaadati@sbcglobal.net
Dianne Yee (DY), Caltrans, dianne.yee@dot.ca.gov
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
The purpose of this meeting was to review input received from Community Meeting #1, discuss the trail
alignment plan alternatives, and gather technical input and documents from the TAC members. The following
information was discussed and/or decided upon in our meeting. Items in the “Action to take” column identify
specific action items and the party responsible.
Item Action to take
Segment 1 – Mary Avenue Bridge to De Anza Boulevard
1.The public storage facility near De Anza Boulevard may include
a public access easement as a part of a redevelopment project.
Plans should identify easement and review impacts.
CA and City to review by 2/14
2.JC asked what “covering the ditch” means. Is the action to cover
or to rebuild? The design assumes a box culvert.
Noted
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 119Appendix
TAC Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #2
February 6, 2018
Page 2 of 3
17056_SUM_TACMtg#2.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
3.LL asked how the alternative route for maintenance closures
was selected. It is based on existing bike/ped facilities and
directness.
Noted
4.All development projects are subject to PG&E review. Noted
5.How much is the undercrossing encroaching on Caltrans R.O.W? CA to review and provide to
Caltrans by 2/14
6.There is a water main along Stelling Road (unknown if the line
runs through the bridge or under I-280).
CW sent drawings on 2/6
Segment 2 – De Anza Boulevard to the Vallco Shopping Center
7.The guy anchor near trail entrance at the curve of Lucille Road
can be repositioned for vertical clearance.
Noted
8.If the ditch stays open (along Lucille) versus a closed ditch,
amenities shown in the enlargement (i.e. bioswale retention, a
continuous class 1 facility, etc.) will not be included.
Noted (this is true for all
alternative #1 scenarios)
9.Relocating a steel transmission pole is expensive (~$1 million). Noted
10.If the crosswalk is removed across De Anza Boulevard, people
will still cross and additional treatments may be required.
CA to review with the City by
2/14
11.LL asked about bicycle behavior in response to the circuitous
route at De Anza Boulevard with the stair and ramp
approaches.
Noted
12.SCVWD asked how the bridge will be supported and still
preserve maintenance access?
CA to review by 2/14
13.TS asked if there is an option to move the spur trail onto
Caltrans R.O.W. for the tunnel crossing scenario.
CA to review by 2/14
14.There is a CalWater water main along De Anza Boulevard
(through tunnel option) and one behind Apple’s Infinite Loop.
CW sent drawings on 2/6
15.What are the lighting requirements for the trail? Are there
CMAQ requirements? The lighting may be dawn/dusk or 24
hours.
CA to review by 2/14
16.Clearance from PG&E wires is still unknown. SCVWD requires
15’-0” vertical clearance for maintenance vehicles.
Noted
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study120Appendix
TAC Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: TAC Meeting #2
February 6, 2018
Page 3 of 3
17056_SUM_TACMtg#2.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Item Action to take
17.5% grade might be too steep for bridge and tunnel approaches;
consider switchbacks or reducing the grade.
Noted
Segment 3 – Vallco Shopping Center to Vallco Parkway
18.Identify and preserve access gate for SCVWD near the Hyatt
Hotel (at I-280 on-ramp); hotel plans do not show access for
SCVWD.
Noted
19.CalWater has a water main that crosses I-280 and moves
towards Vallco Parkway.
CW sent drawings on 2/6
20.Incorporate design recommendations from this feasibility study
into the Wolfe Road / I-280 / Vallco Plans
Noted
21.Design a better transition at the Vallco Parkway trailhead. Noted
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at
the meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 121Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study122Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate
311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
March 5, 2018
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #2a and 2b
Meeting #2a
Location: Quinlan Community Center, Cupertino Room
Date: February 20, 2018
Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Meeting #2b
Location: Community Hall, Cupertino Civic Center
Date: February 26, 2018
Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Total number of people who signed-in: 37
Total number of people who turned-in an input packet: 37*
*5 packets were provided by a neighbor for others who could not attend either meeting
Attendees:
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Erick Serrano (ES), Planning, ericks@cupertino.org
Julie Chiu (JCh), Public Works, juliec@cupertino.org
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Jana Schwartz (JS), jschwartz@callanderassociates.com
Community Meeting #2 was held on two separate dates at two separate locations to provide an
opportunity for the community to attend one of the meetings and provide input. Community Meeting
#2a was held in the Cupertino Room at the Quinlan Community Center on February 20th and Community
Meeting #2b was held in the Community Hall at the Cupertino Civic Center on February 26th. Community
members were notified about the event through the following methods:
•City’s website
•City Channel
•Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter)
•Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest
•Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall
•Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 123Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 2 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter
•Postcard mailings to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents
including residents/businesses within 300 feet of a proposed trailhead
•Email notifications to subscribers of the “Bicycle Transportation Plan” email list
•Email notification to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the nearby surrounding neighborhoods
The format of the meetings, as well as the project displays and the questions asked of the community,
were the same at both meetings. Each meeting was open house style where participants were invited to
arrive at any time during the event window and provide individual feedback on the trail project. Six
stations were set up for participants to visit at their own pace. Station #1 was the welcome table, where
participants were greeted by City staff and provided an input packet to record comments as they
traveled between stations. The five remaining stations included:
•Project background and goals and objectives (Station #2)
•The three segments of the proposed trail (Stations #3, 4, 5)
•Refreshments (Station #6)
Participants were asked to return their input packets at Station #1 before leaving so that their
comments could be recorded. The following summarizes input received for both meetings, including
from input packets, flip charts, and comments applied onto the trail segment plans, enlargements, and
sections.
Input Packet
The input packet included seven sections of questions, and was comprised of general questions, trail
design alternative questions, and segment-specific questions. The following organizes the comments
received from the public in the order they appear in the input packet. Multiple choice questions are
summarized to show the percentage breakdown of the answers received. Questions that had an open
ended answer include the individual comments received.
I. General Background
Question 1: Did you attend Community Meeting #1?
Yes No
37% 63%
Question 2: Do you support a trail at this location?
Yes No
62% 38%
Question 3: How would you use the trail? (circle all that apply)
Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other
40% 10% 33% 4% 13%
Answers under “Other” include:
•Would not use it
•Not at all
•Not at all!
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study124Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 3 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Wouldn’t use it!
•Not
•To walk to restaurants and stores
•To shops and restaurants
Question 4: Do you live or work in Cupertino?
Live Work Live and Work Do not Live or Work
77% 0% 14% 9%
II. Trail Design
Question 1: Which alternative do you prefer?
Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither
16% 55% 29%
Question 2: What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative?
•Cost: significantly more for alternative #2. Use: Alternative #1 will be used multi-use anyway.
•Wider, multi-purpose, dream big - one time cost
•Wider trail, safety that someone not going to fall in ditch.
•Safety
•Multi Use - Bike and Pedestrian
•Safety, traffic, parking, noise, lack of privacy, Increase of strangers in the area
•No bikes, lighting, noise, less privacy, security
•Open Space. It would provide a better experience.
•Impact of people and traffic
•Aesthetics, Width-allows easier bike + pedestrian traffic
•Separation from traffic
•Allowing bicycles on the trail is vital in order for the trail to provide a good commuting
alternative
•Potential users; impact on privacy, security of residents along trail; reversibility; potential impact
to water authority activities
•More room for ped and bike
•Trail width
•I like the extra width provided by Alt #2, but I think Alt #1 would be much simpler and less
expensive which will help it happen! Would particularly be concerned about limiting water flow
or complicating maintenance when covering the ditch. Alt#2 also adds some additional green
buffer to neighbors, but I don't think this will be a problem after it is constructed
•Safety, security, noise impact, privacy for those houses impacted
•This is the "aging of America" (I don't think this is being considered). The aged are not going to
be riding bicycles (nor walking over bridges/trails) to get to their medical appointments or bring
home groceries, etc. We have enough bicycle/access infiltrating our area, bringing in outsiders.
These "designs" will impact the quiet enjoyment of our homes even more!!
•Walking along a trail built right next to a major highway is not something of great appeal;
physical and environmental safety concerns (i.e. fumes from many motor vehicles, noise) will
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 125Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 4 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
not be great appeal; Building and maintaining such a trail, built next to a major highway will be
much more expensive? What is the projected cost?
•The proposed trail would run directly behind my house, it would impact my privacy as well as
increase the noise level
•Safety of existing redwood trees along 280; presence of bikes and pedestrians on same trail -
how safe?
•For the second alternative, there is more space for people to commute to work, or go on a
family walk. For people going to work, it is a longer commute by bike without the trail
•It would be cosmetically nicer and it might keep out any random undesirable smells
•I am concerned about security for property owners next to the trail. As is, there is graffiti on I-
280 sound wall
•Multi-use trail more useful than narrow pedestrian only trail
•It is wider, it looks nicer, there is more greenery
•This is for Apple-only and don't care about us who live next to the trail
•Consistent width, avoids falling in ditches, more visually appealing, avoids conflict with location
on PG&E poles, especially in Station #4 area
•Width! The wider trail is safer to allow pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, etc.
Question 3: Do you live next to the trail?
Yes No
58% 42%
Question 4: Do you have children that would use the trail?
Yes No Possibly in the Future
19% 72% 9%
Station #3 (Trail Segment 1 – Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard)
III. Mary Avenue
Question 1: Which alternative do you prefer?
Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Neither
6% 65% 29%
Question 2: What factors impact your decision in selecting a trail alternative?
•Wider, bike friendly
•Do the right thing. If trail is not proper and wide it won't be usable and people won't use it.
Having wider trail is right idea.
•Safety
•Multi Use, wider trail
•Security, noise, lighting, privacy
•Terrible proposal
•Width of the trail being better for multiple uses - pedestrian and bicycles; plant a new tree or
bush to replace tree removed.
•Maintain trees along residences
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study126Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 5 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Slope is more natural and pleasing. In an emergency, trail users can leave the trail by climbing
the slope; sharp easement feels walled in.
•Security underpass area
•Pleasant landscaping
•Easier, cheaper, better
•Again, making a choice for a simpler solution has a better chance of getting approved and built; I
would encourage you to maintain as much natural screening as possible and NOT excavate more
to create neighbor isolation; the perception of the negative is greater than the reality
•Why can't the existing Mary Ave. bridge on-ramp be used to access trail? That will reduce the
project costs. Alternative 2 is my second choice, do not support Alternative 1
•See former page [Trail Design]
•Concerns over expense of such a project versus the benefit to public. Do not believe this project
will have a great deal of appeal to most people
•I am not in favor of either alternative especially because it will be right behind our
house/property. This trail would be an invasion of my privacy. The foot and bike traffic would
result in noise and debris left on the trail
•Amount of water flowing in ditch
•Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have
parkour skills, which most people don't). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and
next to a hillside, it would be nicer
•It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :)
•Multi-use of bicycles
•Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail
•Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic
•Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area.
Question 3: Would you use Mary Avenue Bridge to connect to this trail system?
Yes No Maybe
35% 44% 21%
Question 4: Do you have any additional comments about the Mary Avenue Trail access point?
•Restroom, Water station, bench, camera, lighting, mile marker, safety patrol, website to
promote
•Putting water, parking spaces, lighting, maybe restrooms near parks is a good idea.
•You should plan trail on 'storage' side at pedestrian bridge
•Consider collaborating with residences to improve robustness of fences along trail
•Amenities for bikers and walkers here please! Benches and congregating spaces here would be
great (mini-park). Keep those away from the neighbors though
•Concerns over effects and disruption to the local residents, especially over Alternative #1
•Have police on bike patrol at the Stelling undercrossing to deter loitering and theft and graffiti
•Concerned w/ safety for trail users, particularly with potentially being in a secluded area out of
plain sight, by the Loc-N-Stor
•Safety - it seems secluded. Add mirrors for blind spots.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 127Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 6 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
IV. Stelling Road Crossing
Question 1: What type of crossing do you prefer?
Grade-Separated Crossing
Under Stelling Road with
Spur Trail Access and No
Crosswalk Across Stelling
Road
Crosswalk Across Stelling
Road and No Grade-
Separated Crossing under
Stelling Road or Spur Trail
Access
Both a Grade-Separated
Crossing Under Stelling Road
with Spur Trail Access and a
crosswalk Across Stelling
Road
36% 8% 56%
General Station #3 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail segment?
•This is heavy traffic area, option C is better. Least preferred choice is A.
•Stelling is extremely busy at rush hour in morning and evening. A surface crosswalk would be a
disaster
•Not option B: will cause traffic backups on Stelling. Will cause safety issues. Also the bridge
railing when traveling south on Stelling blocks sight line to the trail toward the west making it
much less safe.
•For biking on busy streets, like Stelling, separation is very important to induce casual/weekend
bicyclists
•Crosswalk good for pedestrian access and in case of flooding (?)
•Traffic on Stelling is heavy and depends on events at De Anza College. A crosswalk is likely to be
overlooked (note crosswalk near Quinlan); A Stelling Road entrance to the bike path is likely to
influence and impact traffic on Stelling
•Very noisy
•Very clever solution, if possible and affordable
•Both please! Don't know if Stelling will be a big turning point, the underpass path would
obstruct people wanting to get on Stelling. The crosswalk support will be nominal in cost for the
benefit
•Apple employees have access to trail from campus and not on streets!!!
•Security of undercrossing
•A crosswalk across Stelling Road will make traffic on Stelling much worse than now. The traffic is
bad enough now with traffic from Gardena Dr., Greenleaf, and the apartment complex feeding
into Stelling. During peak hours, traffic can back into Hollenbeck in the north and all the way to
Stevens Creek Blvd to the south
•Both would be great, but any of the options seems workable
•For long distance bike riders, it is much faster to have a grade-separated crossing, it is also safer
•Very concerned about a crosswalk and the interaction with traffic - especially during school
drop-off/pick-up and during rush hour
•If you can't do #1C then do #1A. Do not do just 1B! Add mirrors for blind spots.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study128Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 7 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Station #4 (Trail Segment 2 –De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center)
V. De Anza Boulevard Crossing
Question 1: What type of crossing do you prefer?
Bridge Over-Crossing with
Crosswalk Across De Anza
Boulevard
Tunnel Under-Crossing with
Crosswalk Across De Anza
Boulevard
No Grade-Separated Crossing
and Maintain Existing
Crosswalk Across De Anza
Boulevard
43% 50% 7%
Two people who voted for the bridge option said either the tunnel or bridge option would be fine.
Question 2: Would you support removal of the existing crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard if the bridge
of tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided?
Yes No Maybe
48% 21% 31%
VI. Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue
Question 1: Regarding trail access and amenities, which of the following do you support?
Informal Trail Access and No
Trailhead or Trail Amenities
Single Trail Access Point and
Trailhead with Limited Trail
Amenities
Multiple Trail Access Points
and a Trailhead with Greater
Level of Amenities
29% 32% 39%
General Station #4 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #4 trail segment?
•Must have direct Apple access (infinite loop) to trail, to reduce bikes on Randy Ln/Larry Way.
Limit access points to two: One east of Randy, (just far enough away from Apple to discourage
parking) and one at Blaney. This grade-level proposal for crossing at Blaney is great.
•Right next to my house. Privacy concerns. Live on Larry/Lucille.
•Privacy, parking, traffic are concerns for residents of Lucille, Larry and Randy. 1: Consider wall to
help with privacy. 2: Big no to any access points on Lucille Ave.
•Not familiar with this section so no comment.
•No trail access on Blaney/Lucille
•Maintain fence - ideally make opaque for privacy. Make Lucille permitted parking M-F like Randy
and Larry. Need frequent garbage clean up. Limited access - far from apple side to prevent
parking problems. Maintain access under bridge for car traffic. Need police patrol for safety.
•I support none of these. I live here and would be impacted.
•Maintenance of trash can emptying would be very important
•Multiple access points make the trail more usable for people living in the neighborhood, and
would provide trail users route options
•Informal trail access could serve as a pilot and could be upgraded if the trail use supports
expansion
•Some convenience but less cost
•I prefer tunnel over bridge at De Anza mainly because of reduced elevation gain/loss; Use box
culvert only when needed for trail width
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 129Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 8 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Mostly just need trailhead here; benches would be the only amenities needed
•How is security mentioned? Security patrol? How about people using trail for "hanging out"?
•Don't care…
•As shown
•Get Apple off the streets; safer alternatives for walkers/bikers; be mindful of neighborhood
•Section east of Blaney - no soundwall; trail users protection form vehicles leaving the road
•Provide access to Portal Ave. through CalWater site
•I live next to the trail on Randy Lane; trail would cause such a problem for traffic and people, let
alone criminal activity
•Consider adding Trailhead/access point at the end of Lucille adjacent to the Apple campus. Work
with Apple to create a linkage to Lawson Middle School along the edge of the Apple property,
parallel to Larry Way, It would be nice to have some way to go directly from the trail up to the
Blaney overpass.
•Do not put the additional access points in the middle of Lucille. Trail amenities needed: a map of
trail, a beach, mile markers, lighting. Extra security around the main entrance & under the
bridge. There has been tagging & dumping (mattresses, etc) in this area. Keep the road (Lucille)
open under the bridge. Do not close it. The neighborhood relies on it to get to Homestead
without having to cross Blaney. Critical to AM/PM traffic flow & school traffic.
VII. Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway
General Station #5 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 trail segment?
•Keep Crossing at Wolfe not competing with cross traffic
•This trail is for apple only. What a shame.
•Be sure the contractor of Vallco includes space for bikeway
•Perhaps stipulate that a proper multi-use trail along the south and east edges of hotel
development be included in future development there.
•The proposed path behind the new hotel is bad! It's still under construction - is there a way to
create a path (or alternative path) that passes in front of hotel tracing Perimeter Road.
•Nice
•Have Vallco future pay for access to trail and out of neighborhood!!! Access to trail from Vallco
itself not in neighborhood at all!
•It is important to keep redwoods along 280 intact behind Hyatt House and property behind the
old Macys. Will there be public creek trail along Calabazas Creek from 280 and Calabazas
intersection to the Calabazas and Vallco Parkway intersection? One portion of the creek trail
mentioned above along the small portion of Calabazas Creek should be both pedestrian and
bike.
•Provide easy access to hotel for residents and guests. Use CalWater area for access to Portal
Ave.
•East-west connectivity for bikes between Blaney and Tantau is important, especially with
Pruneridge gone
•Underpass is good
•Make all sections of it as wide as possible to allow lots of multi-uses & improve safety. Add
mirrors for blind spots & destination signs.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study130Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 9 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
General Project Comments (end of input packet)
•Great handout! Do this again.
•Make it a world class trail. Heart of Silicon Valley must look good. Plant new trees.
•Should be trail that represents Cupertino. Home of Apple. Best of best shall be created.
•My property backs up to the trail between Mary and Stelling. I currently see the trail used by
PG&E. My concerns are: 1. liability - I have tall trees that have dropped branches on the trail. 2.
Safety - giving easier access to my back yard. 3. Privacy - I have no fence (just chain link). I am
not against the bike/ped path, just want my concerns addressed.
•This part of Cupertino has been impacted enough by the freeway, the schools, Apple and it's
employees.
•We are very worried about safety, security, privacy. Homestead high school kids jumping the
fence (which they do), homeless, smokers, drugs and nuisance.
•It's a shame that Apple can cause such a project to be contemplated that would impact the
residents of this area.
•I support alternate #2 for Mary to De Anza Blvd.
•Very supportive. Good luck!
•Please, please build it! This trail would remove a lot of local commuting traffic off the roads
(Apple employees between campuses, students to De Anza college…) and provide a great off-
street recreational alternative within the city (jogger, dog walkers...). Provide trash cans along
trail : dog walkers; drinking fountains at trail ends would be great bonus
•Consider if paving is necessary. No lights - encourage dawn to dusk use; Consider Alternative #1
as a pilot which could be expanded if use of trail becomes high.
•Seems like there needs to be more thought about intermediate access points. The major points
are too far apart. While I favor choices that reduce cost and complexity, I would encourage
setting standards for trail width - there are too many narrow pinch points identified already.
Please spend the money to widen where needed.
•I am extremely concerned about safety, privacy, and noise issues. Currently, we have a lot of
people hanging out at 2am during summer nights at the Mary Avenue Bridge trail head, located
directly behind my house. 1) I am extremely concerned this trail will add to the noise we
experience. 2) Make sure security is enforced after dusk (when officers are not busy with school
patrolling). We already clean up broken glass bottles in our yards. 3) We are concerned about
any trash, debris items that can be thrown over the fence into our backyards. 4) Can existing
bike bridge be used to access 280 per alternative #2 near Mary Avenue? This would perhaps
reduce capital costs.
•All-in-all, do not think this to be a very worthwhile project. Probably very expensive and lacking
in widespread appeal. Walkers, joggers, or cycling along trail next to major highway not very
appealing, especially at times of rush-hour traffic.
•I am totally opposed to the construction of the trail
•Super
•Very good graphics and presentation of trail options. Please keep the redwood trees along 280
•Really make sure Apple campus 1 and 2 have good connection to path
•Please think about possibly separating bikers and pedestrians if the trail becomes crowded, in
the future
•Why do I and my neighbors have to suffer because the city can't say no to Apple
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 131Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 10 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Mile Markers (1/4 mile markers), security cameras in key areas and convex mirrors for blind
corners, all for safety. Please make an effort to tie into the new signage style proposed for the
City's Bike Boulevards, including "destination" signs indicating what is near the access points.
Post a 25 mph speed limit (or less). Allow E-bikes with 25 mph max speed. Prohibit other
motorized vehicles (gas, diesel, etc.). I LIKE HAVING A CROSS-TOWN CONNECTION OFF OF THE
BUSY STREET LIKE STEVENS CREEK
•When it opens, safety & security has to be very good to "set the tone" of the project. If people
think it is not safe they won't use it or let their kids use it. Prevent Apple bikes from riding 2-3-4
across & taking over the path like we currently see them, do on our neighborhood streets like
Vista Drive.
(Comments provided via email after both community meetings)
•After briefly reviewing the online story boards, I believe that accompanying trail construction,
permit parking must be extended to the entirety of Lucille between Blaney and Apple. Lucille
already has the occasional Apple employee parking and is used daily for Employees to smoke at
the cul de sac at Apple. The neighborhood is permit parking because of the Apple overflow, and
active vehicle commuters on Lucille is inconsistent with the trail’s use for the three schools
nearby. Also, if smoking is not allowed on the trail, then it somehow should be restricted in the
neighborhood. Apple doesn’t allow smoking on their campus, and if they think the trail
bordering their property is also non-smoking, they will be driving smokers into the
neighborhood which is unacceptable. We already have employees parking on Lucille then
coming back to the area to smoke during breaks.
•I just learned about a potential bike path along the Junipero Serra Channel. This is exciting, as it
would give bicycles a protected way to get from Mary to Tantau. Currently, if you're near 280,
you need to go to Homestead or Stevens Creek to go between Blaney and Wolfe. This change
would encourage more bicycling, getting even more cars off the roadways. Hope you find some
common ground with the water district and Caltrans to get this done. Of course, it would be
great if the road crossings weren't at grade, but I'll leave that to the experts.
Flip Charts
Flip Charts were placed at Station #2 and each of the three trail segment stations (Stations #3, 4, 5). Flip charts
did not include a prompted question, all feedback provided was open-ended. Not all Stations with flip charts
received comments.
Project Background And Goals and Objectives – Station 2:
•Goal 4 - Have the trail access along I-280 be strictly for bike traffic. That way bike riders can
travel at a faster speed. This would be good for people commuting on bikes between Apple
Campus (Sunnyvale) and Apple Campus 2 (Tantau).
•If pedestrian and bikes are on the same trial, the bikes need to go slower and pedestrians need
to understand how to go on a trail with bikes
Trail Segment 1 – Station 3:
•Safety, security #1 issue. Graffiti already there. Had a burglary.
•Connect to Stevens Creek Trail to the west?
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study132Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 11 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Trail on north side of 280
•No monitoring of ex. Plaza. Needs monitoring. Use cameras.
•Concern about beacon crossing stopping traffic on Stelling. Concern about safety. Low visibility
southbound.
•Do a soundwall for safety and privacy.
•Light for night use.
•Amenities, drinking fountains, seating, "dream big"
•Security cameras at problem/key areas.
•Traffic stacks at Stelling.
Trail Segment 2 – Station 4:
•Concerns at Lucille Trailhead:
•Safety
•Parking (unwanted!)
•Traffic
•Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime)
•Apple employees (this project is for Apple only)
Trail Segment 3 – Station 5:
•No e-bikes (more than 25 mph)
•No motorized
•Allow e-bikes, speed < 25 mph
Trail Segment Plans
Trail segment plans were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants were invited to
draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment.
Trail Segment 1 – Station 3:
•Concern over liability of trees dropping branches
•Graffiti
•Privacy & security
•Stats on crime - how will police monitor
•Parking will be issue
•Leave redwoods
•Why paved? Leave gravel
•No lights
•Homeless, privacy, security
•Alt 2 viable?
•Do we need a trail? Is demand there? For Apple employees?
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 133Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 12 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Trail Segment 2 – Station 4:
•Blaney avenue: don't block
•Blaney impacted by traffic
•Concern bringing kids through an already congested area.
•Keep fence to prohibit access from Lucille
•Drive kids to school due to speeding cars
•One access point may be ok
•No sidewalk
•Lucille not under some parking permit. Needs to be included in permit program
•Will trail encourage parking on Lucille?
•Lots of Apple bikes
•Can you provide access here? For Lawson & Apple
•Need access to Apple to Trail
•Two access points
•Speeding traffic to school
•Use mirrors for blind spots
•Call boxes along trail. Emergency.
•Bike runnels at stairs?
•Can we have police cameras on the trail
•Consider security of users in tunnel crossing
•Access for Apple employees to trail & the streets
•Would not preclude Alt 2 in the future
•Look @ stair channels
Trail Segment 3 – Station 5:
•Access for Guests & Visitors
Trail Enlargements/Sections
Mary Avenue Bridge
•Pedestrian Trail: concern about buffering
Stelling Road Crossing
•Would people loiter here? Sheriffs need to patrol trail. Presence.
•Heavy traffic on Stelling Rd
•Lights in ground too
•No loitering
Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue
•Might not be feasible
•Moving trucks double park and isn't safe
•Shift road to enable consistent class I
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study134Appendix
Community Meeting #2 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #2a and 2b
February 20 and 26, 2018
Page 13 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#2_180226.docx
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Prohibit access in this area...not safe
•Add mirrors
•Redwood trees @ curb
•Trash & homeless
•Cut through lots of trash
•Hiding spot under bridge
•Homeless living in ex tunnel
•Taggers
•Can you put a sidewalk here?
•Parking concerns
•Safety - can you have call boxes? Mile markers
•Car theft (Lucille ave)
•Consider alternative fencing - that provides features of existing chainlink (e.g. animal/pedestrian
control)
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the
meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any
questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates
cc: All attendees
Attachments:
1.Input Packet Response Data Presentation
2.Meeting notification material
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 135Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
SAN MATEO SAN JOSE RANCHO CORDOVA Recreate
311 Seventh Avenue 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
San Mateo, CA 94401 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email Only
June 18, 2018
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meeting #3
Location: Cupertino Civic Center, Community Hall
Date: June 6, 2018
Time: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Total number of people who signed-in: 19
Total number of people who turned-in an input packet: 13
Attendees:
City of Cupertino (City): Jennifer Chu (JC), Public Works, jenniferc@cupertino.org
David Stillman (DS), Public Works, davids@cupertino.org
Santa Clara County Sergeant Jason Brown (JB), jason.brown@shf.sccgov.org
Sheriff’s Office:
Callander Associates (CA): Brian Fletcher (BF), bfletcher@callanderassociates.com
Dave Rubin (DR), drubin@callanderassociates.com
Kelly Kong (KK), kkong@callanderassociates.com
Community members were notified about the event through the following methods (refer to the end of
the report for example outreach materials):
•City’s website
•City Channel
•Social media (Next Door, Facebook, Twitter)
•Tabling/flyer distribution at the Fall Festival, Diwali Festival, Fall Family Bike Fest
•Flyer postings at the Library and City Hall
•Door hangers and flyers to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents
•Safe Routes to School (SR2S) monthly newsletter
•Postcard mailings to residents/businesses directly adjacent to the proposed trail extents
including residents/businesses within 300 feet of a proposed trailhead
•Email notifications to subscribers of the “Bicycle Transportation Plan” email list
•Email notification to the Cupertino Block Leaders in the nearby surrounding neighborhoods
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study136Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 2 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
The format of the meeting was an open house style where participants were invited to arrive at any
time during the event window and provide individual feedback on the trail project. Sergeant Brown was
present to address concerns about safety and security along the potential trail. Six stations were set up
for participants to visit at their own pace. Station #1 was the welcome table, where participants were
greeted by City staff and provided a questionnaire to record comments as they traveled between
stations. The five remaining stations included:
•Project background and goals and objectives (Station #2)
•The three segments of the proposed trail (Stations #3, 4, 5)
•Refreshments (Station #6)
Participants were asked to return their questionnaire at Station #1 before leaving so that their
comments could be recorded. The following summarizes input received at and after the meeting,
including from questionnaires, flip charts, comments written onto the trail segment plans,
enlargements, sections, and follow-up e-mails.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire included two sections of questions and was comprised of general questions and more
specific input. The following organizes the comments received from the public in the order they appear
in the questionnaire. Multiple choice questions are summarized to show the percentage breakdown of
the answers received. Questions that had an open-ended answer include the individual comments
received.
I. General Background
Question 1: Did you attend Community Meeting #1 or Community Meeting #2?
Only #1 Only #2 Both #1 and #2 Neither
8% 17% 17% 58%
Written Comment:
•#1 or #2
Question 2: Do you support a trail at this location?
Yes No
75% 25%
Written Comment:
•Maybe only if its Alternative #2 on Mary
Question 3: How would you use the trail? (circle all that apply)
Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other
21% 21% 53% 0% 5%
Answers under “Other” include:
•Getting around town!
Question 4: Do you live or work in Cupertino?
Live Work Live and Work Do not Live or Work
50% 0% 50% 0%
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 137Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 3 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
II. Input
Question 1: What aspects of the trail design do you like? What do you like about the
proposed trail?
•Very nicely done.
•The bridge concept. Definitely is superior in my opinion. Aspects of safety,
aesthetics, cost etc. are best. I totally don’t like the tunnel concept. Not good for
safety, cost, etc.
•Thank you for listening to people’s comments.
•It’s a trail, where neighbor kids can ride/scooter/run safely. It’s an off-street
cross route for the non-motorized. If there’s a problem with homeless
encampment, it would probably help.
•In Alt 2 I like the buffer of increased space = plantings to have trail impact
residents less. I like how this would connect Apple’s campus making biking
easier & safer between campus. Like the idea of walking trail.
•Connect Apple to Apple relieving city streets of dangerous bikes. Safer
bike/vehicle separation is preferred. Trail option #2 east of De Anza is the only
acceptable option.
•Enclosed culvert with trail on top. Undercrossing at De Anza and Stelling (and
Wolfe). At Mary, prefer trail NOT adjacent to home (Alt 2)
•Under grade coming at Stelling bridge at De Anza Blvd
•The design where the trail sits on top of the drainage
Question 2: How can the proposed trail be improved?
•Don’t like the current plans for De Anza Blvd. Overcrossing or undercrossing.
•A beautiful designed bridge is the ideal.
•Mitigation for encroaching homeless and crime.
•Can’t think of anything in particular. The consultants have some good ideas, albeit expensive.
•Add lighting. Lighting that does not impact homes, but low enough to highlight
misuse during darkness. Trail heads official physical closure from dawn to dusk.
Need more parking at trailhead on Mary. It’s not realistic to say that people
won’t park at the trailhead.
•More parking would be needed at trailheads. Trail needs official closure from
Sherriff’s office and needs to be actively enforced. Lighting needs to be added. It
should be low profile as to not cause light pollution onto resident homes.
•Apple employees who will use this trail need access from their own campus to
get on trail. Having them come down onto the neighborhood to access trail is
unacceptable to Linwood Acres residents. No access point at end of Randy. Too
many bikes – pedestrians at this busy Apple school neighborhood.
•Vehicle barrier between Blaney overpass and Wolfe = dangerously close
pedestrian/homeless access to freeway and trail. As proposed no grade or
vertical barrier protecting path.
•Add the access from N Portal along Calwater Property. Add access on Apple side
of wall adjacent to homes on Larry way with a spur to Lawson Middle School.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study138Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 4 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•It good enough
•Mary Ave @ Bridge: prefer Alt #2 because it’s away from residents and allows
trail users to get on bridge faster. Blaney Ave Intersection – prefer Alt #2
because the width can be 12’ fixed rather than varying, there’s more plantings
bordering Lucille to buffer sound of freeway and trail users, safer for all users
because it will be wider.
•Remove all access points on Lucille except one by the Blaney overpass bridge
and one at the other end of Lucille at the cul de sac.
•It is critical to have an access point to this trail from Apple Infinity Loop to get
Apple employees off the streets and encourage them to use the trail.
•Negotiate a spur from the trail to Lawson Middle School on the Apple side of the
wall bordering residents on Larry Way.
Question 3: Do you have any other comments about the project?
•It is nice you can plan this even when we don’t know what will happen at Vallco.
•I do not like the trail across De Anza Blvd. I live in the condominium at the SW
corner of 280 and De Anza. Very impressed with the crew here on 3rd
community night.
•What is the upside for homeowners along Gardena and Mary? The trail will bring
security and privacy invasions with no apparent benefit to these residents.
Reevaluate necessity with existing bike boulevards.
•The wider you can make the path the safer it will be because bikes, peds,
strollers, skateboard, dogs, etc. will use it. Wider means fewer collisions.
•Good work with it!
•Is this a project that will be put up for a vote by the community or does the
community not have a say? Gardena Drive will become even more dangerous
with a greater influx of commuters commuting to the start of the trailhead on
Mary.
•This project should be put to an official vote. It negatively impacts several
residents while benefitting mostly Apple employees that want to bike to work.
These meetings are tough to make it to when you work outside of Cupertino.
Every neighbor that I have personally talks to is very against this project. I reside
on the proposed trail path.
•Prefer Alternative 2 – Why is Apple not yet involved as this literally will connect
its 2 campuses? Prefer lots of trees where the trail impacts neighborhoods to
mitigate noise, trash impact.
•The lack of detail between Randy and De Anza does not build public trust. A
failure to document access to Apple from the North and East, which does not
exist now, and which would have an immediate impact on neighborhood, is
unacceptable. Apple controls its own fences, and without documenting city
barrier intent, all that exists currently is Apple fence.
•Keep going! Negotiate to have Apple access point to trail that does not require
Apple bikes to ride through neighborhood streets to access trail.
•Mary Avenue – Use Alt #2/Segment 1 – Use Alt #2
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 139Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 5 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Bridge over De Anza looks good
•Alternative #1 on Mary is right behind our house. I strongly oppose it. It would
impact our privacy, safety and potentially other issues such as more noise,
obstructed views. If at all, Alternative #2 should be evaluated for this project and
the only option. Please take the homeowners along the trail @ Mary in
consideration & big negative impact it has with Alternative #1.
•The proposed 8 ft fence (wood) maintenance should also be the City’s
responsibility. Control area bike use should also be established which is not
evident in the I-280 overpass.
•Mary Ave @ Bridge – prefer Alt #2 because its away from residents & allows trail
users to get on bridge faster
•Blaney Ave Intersection – prefer, Alt #2 because:
1.The width can be 12’ fixed rather than varying
2.There are more plantings bordering Lucille to buffer sound of freeway and
trail users
3.Safer for all users because it will be wider
•Remove all access points on Lucille expect one by the Blaney overpass bridge
and one at the other end of Lucille at the cul-de-sac
•It is critical to have an access point to this trail from Apple Infinity Loop to get
Apple employees off the streets and encourage them to the trail
•Negotiate a spur from the trail to Lawson Middle School on the Apple side of the
wall bordering residents on Larry Way
Alternative Alignment Plan:
Alternative Alignment plans were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants were
invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment.
•Conduct sensibility of parking for those who will drive to Mary entrance
•Privacy and security concern for residents along path
•Consider mitigation for crime during non-use hours
•No tunnel – feels unsafe
•No at-grade crossing – most dangerous
•Trail safety critical for everyone
•Apple access point? Connect to Apple Park campus.
•Blaney: homeless
•Blaney intersection: wall?
What We Heard:
What We Heard boards were placed at stations 2 through 5. Participants were invited to draw and write
on each board to provide comments on what we heard from previous meetings.
•Alternative #1 too close to fence. No privacy. Alt #2
•Like’s Alt #2 @ Mary. Less impact to privacy.
•Establish rules of the road. Prepare a document explaining how shared use trail
works. Public outreach.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study140Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 6 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•Series of public presentations in the City Hall to discuss proper trail etiquette.
This means what type of behavior is expected of pedestrians and bicyclists on
the Loop Trail.
Flip Charts
Flip Charts were placed at stations 2 through 5. Participants were invited to draw and write on each flip
chart to provide feedback for each station where there was a flip chart.
Bike path across De Anza Blvd. (Sunnyvale – Saratoga):
•Issue with the bike bridge over Sunnyvale – Saratoga Ave. This is a good idea, but it is visual clutter
and makes the whole area look like the middle of a big freeway going over Sunnyvale – Saratoga Rd.
This design detracts from the beauty of the Apple I campus and the trees and the other buildings. Too
much clutter.
•On other view of having an underground tunnel in lieu of the bike bridge over Sunnyvale – Saratoga
Avenue, the current tunnel as presented is dark and scarey [sic] and looks like it would not be safe to
walk in. There could be pick-pockets and purse snatchers. There is too much enclosed area in the
tunnel and as a woman I would not feel safe walking or bicycling in that dark tunnel with no one else
around.
•Can you come up with a better plan?
•Underground is good, but currently it is too dark and scarey [sic] and unsafe.
•Remove multiple access points on Lucille and keep only one at Blaney overpass and one at Apple
parking lot corner (possibly open on both Apple and Lucille sides)
•Negotiate with Apple to add a spur along edge of parking lot adjacent to homes on Larry Way to
provide off street parking access to Lawson Middle School and Apple employees
•Homelessness concern: What mitigations will be taken if homelessness does
become a problem after the trail is built?
•Connections Map: Show access points to trail!
Trail Enlargements/Sections
Trail Enlargements and Sections were placed at each of the three trail segment stations. Participants
were invited to draw and write on each plan to provide feedback for each trail segment.
Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue
•Apple access is very important
•Would rather have parking
•Flashing beacon
•Can a flashing sign be put here to alert cars of peds?
•Trash concerns
•Keep existing redwoods and water valve & existing boxes
•New landscape
•Informal trail
•Lots of litter
Stelling Rd Under Crossing:
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 141Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 7 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
•More solid @ bottom of fence
•Deterrent to potential homeless camp
•Close
•Signage for cyclists
Community E-mails
Some community members who were not able to attend the community meeting sent Jennifer comments
about the project via e-mail.
E-mail #1:
Jennifer,
It was good meeting with you during last meeting in this topic. I won't be in town to participate in
person.
As expressed during our meeting I am reiterating my points,
1. Our primary stance is "complete No- No for this initiative."
The reason is we are very seriously concerned with Security, privacy as well
Our safety. In addition, unknown people hanging around and noise are concerns as well.
I had expressed similar concerns during Mary avenue bridge. City officials were deaf to our concerns.
We continue to suffer from late night noise, some illegal acts, unknowns hanging around in the area
between our backyard and empty area off Bridge.
2. However if city officials still continue to take same stance ( as in the past )and build a trail, here are
options,
1. Trail will be used only for walking/ Jogging.
2. No bike access / Skate boarders.
3. Strict access control to Homestead high students.
4. City officials Meeting with neighbors every quarter for any concerns.
I also insist on following,
1. We need 10 feet solid wood fence to be built. This will be maintained and managed by city.
2. No access to trail after 7 pm till 7 am.
3. More cops and police to monitor trail access and faster response in case of any issues or concerns.
4. 24x7, monitoring Cameras to be installed at the trail entrance. Alarms in case of access after 7 PM
till 7 AM.
5. Strict control policy on noise level. Currently we have several days the year people hanging around
bridge area making loud noises, chatting which goes on till late night.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study142Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 8 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Lastly, we need guarantee from city on our safety, security concerns are, if not a firm commitment
from city and owning responsibility for any issues / concerns arising from such incidences as well
being legally liable.
Please ensure our concerns and voice is heard clear and loud in any further planning.
Thank you,
”Name Omitted for Privacy”
E-mail #2:
Dear Jennifer,
As 20+ year residents of Cupertino, we would like to voice our support for the Junipero Serra bike
trail.
”Name Omitted for Privacy”
-END-
The information above is Callander Associates’ understanding of items discussed and decisions reached at the
meeting. Callander Associates is proceeding with the project based on this understanding. If you have any
questions, additions, or corrections to this memo, please contact this office in writing within three days.
Submitted by:
Dave Rubin, Project Manager, Callander Associates
cc: File
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 143Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 9 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Pictures of Community Meeting #3
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study144Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 11 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Door Hanger:
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 145Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 12 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Door Hanger for Residents Around Portal Avenue:
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study146Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Meeting Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
RE: Community Meetings #3
June 6, 2018
Page 13 of 13
17056_SUM_CommMtg#3_180606.docx
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Meeting Postcard:
(Front of Postcard)
(Back of Postcard)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 147Appendix
Community Meeting #3 Summary
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study148Appendix
12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 149Appendix
12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study150Appendix
12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 151Appendix
12/19/18 BPC Meeting Minutes
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study152Appendix
Outreach Materials - City Flier
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 153Appendix
Outreach Materials - City Postcard
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study154Appendix
Outreach Materials - City Door Hanger
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 155Appendix
Outreach Materials - City Door Hanger for Portal Ave Residents
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study156Appendix
Outreach Materials - Hand Out
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 157
Apple R.O.W. Aquisition Exhibit
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study158
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 159Appendix
Sandis - Box Culvert E-mail
Jana Schwartz <j.schwartz@callanderassociates.com>
Box Culvert Information - Junipero Serra Trail
1 message
David Rubin <drubin@callanderassociates.com>Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:07 PM
To: Jennifer Chu <JenniferC@cupertino.org>, David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org>
Cc: Jana Schwartz <jschwartz@callanderassociates.com>, Brian Fletcher <bfletcher@callanderassociates.com>
Jenn/David,
I wanted to follow up on your questions yesterday regarding the box culvert. I was able to connect with Sandis and get
some additional information. Below is the email from Jenner Phillips at Sandis regarding sizing of the culvert. Also,
attached to this email are Caltrans details for box culverts, similar to what we'd propose here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect the channel was designed for the full build-out condition as well as to accommodate the 100-yr storm. Assuming
everything from Stevens Creek Blvd flows north into the channel, I roughly calculate a 100-yr flow rate of 1329 cu-ft/sec.
This is based on a composite run-off coefficient of 0.64 for a drainage area of 940 acres.
I then compared that to the flow capacities of different parts of the channel. The box culvert (10ft wide x 6ft tall) just before
the naturalized channel at Wolfe has a roughly calculated capacity of approximately 1340 cu-ft/sec.
Based on our conversations to cover the culvert to gain more space for the path, I think a good option might be to replace
the trapezoidal channel with a box culvert where the top of the culvert could be the top of the path (or at least a part of the
path) with direct manhole access for maintenance personnel.
The following segments of could be changed per the following:
Mary to Stelling – 4’x4’ Box Culvert;
Stelling to De Anza – 8’x5’ Box Culvert;
De Anza to Wolfe – 10’x6’ Box Culvert;
Wolfe to Calabazas Creek – Remain Unlined Trapezoidal.
The unlined channel will very likely have to remain unlined. I doubt the Waterboards will allow a naturalized channel to be
paved. They actively try to do the reverse.
Drain inlets should be installed along the length to allow surface water to flow in and culvert water to flow out if the channel
floods.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information regarding access and maintenance:
Q: How is culvert accessed and how far apart are access points?
A: Can cast the manhole access flush with the top of the culvert or add a riser if there is fill above. Typically manholes are
either 300 or 400 ft apart. It depends on maintenance preferences and costs. Either end of the culvert will need bars or
something to restrict access.
Q: How big are the access locations?
A: Typical 2' manhole access.
Q: What kind of equipment is needed to maintain culvert?
A: Smaller sections probably need to be flushed clean similar to circular pipe sections, larger sections could allow a crew
inside with equipment (power washers, brooms, shovels, etc…). The box culverts are designed to handle H-20 loading
Lastly, alternative #2 means converting 10,100 linear feet of ditch from Mary Ave. to Wolfe Rd to box culvert (or about
1.91 miles). The last section east of Wolfe would remain unlined as it is today.
I hope this helps and please let me know if you need anything else regarding the culverts. Thanks,
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study160Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 161
Sandis - CalTrans Box Culvert Notes
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study162
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 163
Sandis - CalTrans Box Culvert Notes
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study164
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 165
Sandis - De Anza Blvd Overhead Wires Survey
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study166
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 167Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet
17056_CommunityMeeting#1CommentHandout.indd
December 6, 2017
• Travel to each of the stations
and provide your input
• Enjoy the refreshments
• Ask us lots of questions
Junipero Serra Trail
December 6, 2017
How would you use this trail?
Circle all that apply.
Walking/Jogging/Biking
Commuting to Work
Taking children to school
None of the above
1.
2.
3.
4.
How often do you currently
use a trail system elsewhere?
Circle one.
Never
Once a year
Once a month
Once a week
More than once a week
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Regarding trail development, what’s
most important to you?
Circle all that apply.
Safety and security
Trail access
Trail amenities
Connections to other bike and pedestrian facilities
Other:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Community Meeting #1
Welcome!
How to get started
Tell us what you think
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study168Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet
December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1
Available Width, less than 14’-0”
(does not meet class 1 multi-use standards)
City Limits
Available Width, 14’-0” minimum
(meets class 1 multi-use standards)
Trail Connection Point
Existing Conditions
Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area
Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
Public Building (BA)
Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor
General Commercial (CG)
Office/Planned Office (OA/OP)
Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor
Agricultural Residential (A1)
Regional Shopping / Hotel
HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element)
(BA)
(CG, ML)
(BA)
(BQ,
Mini-Stor)
*residential zoning is not shown
Bike Lanes on Street
Existing Connections
Bike Route
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Overhead Utilities
Gateway
Class 1 Bike Path
Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial
Zone (MP)
(BA)
(BQ)
THE LOOPCupertino
0 50 100 200
17056_SiteAnalysis.indd
Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis
HOMESTEAD
HIGH SCHOOL
GARDEN GATE
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Mary Avenue Bridge
MARY AVENUESTELLING ROADI-280
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
STATION #3 - Mary Ave to De Anza Blvd
What do you like about this segment
of the trail?
What can be improved in this segment
of the trail?
Please rate this segment’s overall desirability:
Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities:
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Commuting to work
Walking/Jogging/Biking
Going to school
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 169Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet
December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1 B(CG, ML, OA)(BQ)
(R2, Mini-Stor)
(A1)
Available Width, less than 14’-0”
(does not meet class 1 multi-use standards)
City Limits
Available Width, 14’-0” minimum
(meets class 1 multi-use standards)
Trail Connection Point
Existing Conditions
Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area
Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
Public Building (BA)
Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor
General Commercial (CG)
Office/Planned Office (OA/OP)
Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor
Agricultural Residential (A1)
Regional Shopping / Hotel
HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element)
*residential zoning is not shown
Bike Lanes on Street
Bike Route
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Overhead Utilities
Gateway
0 50 100 200
Existing Connections
Class 1 Bike Path
Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP)
(BQ)
17056_SiteAnalysis.indd
THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis
APPLE
LAWSON
MIDDLE
SCHOOL BLANEY AVENUEDE ANZA BOULEVARDI-280
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
12 13
14 15 16 17 18
19
20
21
22
STATION #4 - De Anza Blvd to Vallco Center
What do you like about this segment
of the trail?
What can be improved in this segment
of the trail?
Please rate this segment’s overall desirability:
Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities:
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Commuting to work
Walking/Jogging/Biking
Going to school
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study170Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #1 Input Packet
December 6, 2017Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #1
HE
HE
(Regional
Shopping)
(Heart of the City
Specific Plan Area)
HE
Enlargement Area - Hyatt House Hotel Bike/Ped Path Connection
Available Width, less than 14’-0”
(does not meet class 1 multi-use standards)
City Limits
Available Width, 14’-0” minimum
(meets class 1 multi-use standards)
Trail Connection Point
Existing Conditions
Land Uses Near Proposed Trail Area
Heart of the City Specific Plan Area
Public Building (BA)
Quasi-Public Building (BQ) / Mini Stor
General Commercial (CG)
Light Industrial (ML) / Planned Industrial Zone (MP)
Office/Planned Office (OA/OP)
Residential Duplex (R2) / Mini-Stor
Agricultural Residential (A1)
Regional Shopping / Hotel
HE Priority Housing Sites (Housing Element)
*residential zoning is not shown
Bike Lanes on Street
Bike Route
Class 1 Bike Path
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Overhead Utilities
Gateway
0 50 100 200
Existing Connections
(Hotel)
17056_SiteAnalysis.indd
THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Creek Trail - Site Analysis
HYATT HOUSE HOTEL - CUPERTINO, CA
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN - AUGUST 13, 2014AADROP-OFF / ENTRY PLAZA
PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
OUTDOOR DINING
POOL
EXISTING TREE
SHADE TREE
FLOWERING / SEASONAL TREE IN GRATE
UPRIGHT EVERGREEN TREE
STREET TREE IN GRATE
PUBLIC ART
DECORATIVE PAVING BANDS (GRAVEL OR CONCRETE)
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
TRASH/RECYCLING BIN
STORMWATER PLANTING
ADA ACCESSAIBLE RAMP
SCREENED TRANSFORMER
LEGEND
NORTH SCALE:1” = 20’-0”
L-1
12
12
13 13
8
1
3 4
6
7
2
2
2
7
7 10
11
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
16
15
14
13
8
0’ 5’20’10’10’Aproposed calss IV separated bike
lane as part of I-280/Wolfe Road
interchange improvments
green-backed bike
lanes along N Tantau
Ave. and Vallco Pkwy.
see enlargement
area
connection to proposed trail
hotel bicycle/pedestrian path
CALABAZAS CREEKN TAN
TAU
AVENUE
VALLC
O
P
A
R
K
W
A
YN WO
L
FE
ROAD
I-280
Vallco marquee sign
P(MP)
APPLE
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
33
32
3130292827
26
25
24
23
STATION #5 - Vallco Center to Vallco Pkwy
What do you like about this segment
of the trail?
What can be improved in this segment
of the trail?
Please rate this segment’s overall desirability:
Please rate this segment’s suitability for the following activities:
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Low High
0 1 2 3 4 5
Commuting to work
Walking/Jogging/Biking
Going to school
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 171Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
17056_CommunityMeeting#2CommentHandout.indd
February 20 and 26, 2018
• Travel to each of the stations
and provide your input
• Enjoy the refreshments
• Ask us lots of questions
Junipero Serra Trail
February 20 and 26, 2018
1. Did you attend
Community Meeting #1?
Circle one.
Yes
No
A.
B.
3. How would you
use the trail?
Circle all that apply.
Biking
Jogging
Walking
Commuting
Other:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
4. Do you live or
work in Cupertino?
Circle one.
I live in Cupertino
I work in Cupertino
I live and work in Cupertino
I do not live or work in Cupertino
A.
B.
C.
D.
Community Meeting #2
Welcome!
How to get started
I. General Background
2. Do you support a
trail at this location?
Circle one.
Yes
No
A.
B.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study172Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
II. Trail Design
1. Which alternative do you prefer?
Circle one.
Alternative #1
Alternative #2
Neither
A.
B.
C.
2. What factors impact your decision in
selecting a trail alternative?
Please provide your response below.
3. Do you live next to the trail?
Circle one.
Yes
No
A.
B.
THE LOOPCupertinoTrail Sections
17056_TrailSections.indd
Public Service
Easement
City of Cupertino
Width Varies
75’- 0”
Existing Trail
ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-Stor
Slope Easement
Cupertino Loc-N-StorPublic Service
Easement
City of Cupertino
Width Varies
75’- 0”Slope Easement
Existing Trail
Residential
12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ.
2’-0”2’-0”
Pedestrian Trail
Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ.
10’-0”
Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor
Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside
Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull
Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree
Removal and Grading Will Be Required.
Existing
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0”
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
Shoulder,
Typ.
Asphalt Trail
35’- 0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Existing
Proposed
Pedestrian Trail
+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
35’- 0”
9’- 0”
2’-0”
Shoulder
Public
Storage
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
11’- 6”+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees
35- 0”
PG&E Transmission Poll
Existing Concrete Lined
Drainage Ditch
Existing Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B
+-
+-
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Sections
17056_TrailSections.indd
Public Service EasementCity of CupertinoWidth Varies 75’- 0”Existing Trail ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-StorSlope Easement
Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Public Service
Easement
City of Cupertino
Width Varies
75’- 0”
Slope Easement
Existing Trail
Residential
12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt TrailShoulder, Typ.
2’-0”2’-0”
Pedestrian Trail
Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ.
10’-0”
Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor
Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside
Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull
Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree
Removal and Grading Will Be Required.
Existing
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
12’-0”2’-0”2’-0”
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
Shoulder,
Typ.
Asphalt Trail
35’- 0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Existing
Proposed
Pedestrian Trail
+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
35’- 0”
9’- 0”
2’-0” ShoulderPublic Storage Caltrans R.O.W.I-28011’- 6”+-SCVWD R.O.W.Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees35- 0”PG&E Transmission PollExisting Concrete Lined Drainage DitchExisting Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B+-
+-
Alternative #1
Open Drainage Ditch, Pedestrian Trail
Alternative #2
Covered Drainage Ditch, Class 1
Multi-UseTrail
4. Do you have children that would use this trail?
Circle one.
Yes
No
Possibly in the future
A.
B.
C.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 173Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
STATION #3 - Mary Avenue Trail Access
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Sections
17056_TrailSections.indd
Public Service
Easement
City of Cupertino
Width Varies
75’- 0”Existing Trail
ResidentialCupertino Loc-N-Stor
Slope Easement
Cupertino Loc-N-Stor Public Service
Easement
City of Cupertino
Width Varies
75’- 0”
Slope Easement
Existing Trail
Residential
12’-0”2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ.
2’-0”2’-0”
Pedestrian Trail
Asphalt Trail Shoulder, Typ.
10’-0”
Alternative 2: Multi-Use Trail Along Loc-N-Stor
Property With Minimal Grading To Adjacent Hillside
Alternative 1: Pedestrian Trail With Reduced Trail Width To Pull
Trail Away From Adjacent Residential Property. Significant Tree
Removal and Grading Will Be Required.
Existing
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0”
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
Shoulder,
Typ.
Asphalt Trail
35’- 0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Existing
Proposed
Pedestrian Trail
+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
+-
Public
Storage
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
35’- 0”
9’- 0”
2’-0”
Shoulder
Public Storage Caltrans R.O.W.I-28011’- 6”+-SCVWD R.O.W.Width Varies PG&E Transmission Lines Existing Trees35- 0”PG&E Transmission PollExisting Concrete Lined Drainage DitchExisting Chainlink FenceASECTION A B SECTION B+-
+-
Alternative #1
Pedestrian Trail
Alternative #2
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
III. Mary Avenue
1. Which alternative do you prefer?
Circle one.
Alternative #1
Alternative #2
Neither
A.
B.
C.
2. What factors impact your decision in
selecting a trail alternative?
Please provide your response below
3. Would you use Mary Avenue Bridge to
connect to this trail system?
Circle one.
Yes
No
Maybe
A.
B.
C.
4. Do you have any additional comments about
the Mary Avenue Trail access point?
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study174Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
STATION #3 - Stelling RoadTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Auzerais Ave
Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’
Wide Over Covered Ditch
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk
Open Ditch
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide
Undercrossing Example
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
HWY
85
Stevens Cree
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
1. What crossing type do you prefer? Circle one.
A grade-separated crossing under Stelling Road with spur trail access and no crosswalk across Stelling Road
A crosswalk across Stelling Road with no grade-separated crossing under Stelling Road or spur trail access
Both a grade-separated crossing and crosswalk across Stelling Road with spur trail access
A.
B.
C.
Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail segment?
Stelling Road
Crossing Options
IV. Stelling Road Crossing
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Auzerais Ave
Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’
Wide Over Covered Ditch
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk
Open Ditch
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide
Undercrossing Example
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
HWY
85
Stevens Cree
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 175Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
STATION #4 - De Anza BoulevardTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Bicycle / Pedestrian Bridge Over-Crossing Examples
De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement
Bridge Over-CrossingDe Anza BoulevardInterstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Existing Caltrans
Fence To Remain
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 16’ Wide
PG&E Tower To
Remain
Stairs to Bridge
Over-Crossing, Typ.
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Trailhead Plaza, Typ.
Bridge
Over-Crossing
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Relocated PG&E
Tower
PG&E Tower To
Be Removed
Existing Property
Fence, Apple
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
40
MPH
1. What crossing type do you prefer?
Circle one.
Bridge over-crossing with crosswalk
across De Anza Boulevard
Tunnel under-crossing with crosswalk
across De Anza Boulevard
No grade-separated crossing and
maintain existing crosswalk across
De Anza Boulevard
A.
B.
C.
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Bicycle / Pedestrian Under-Crossing Examples
Stevens Creek Trail
Local Example: Stevens Creek Trail, Mountain View
Under-Crossing Below El Camino Real With Center Skylight And LightingDe Anza BoulevardDe Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement
Tunnel Under-Crossing
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Interstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
PG&E Tower To Be
Removed
Tunnel Under-Crossing
With Skylight For Natural
Lighting
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
Tunnel Approach
Ramp
Tunnel Approach
Ramp
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 16’ Wide
East Trail Spur, 10’
Wide
40
MPH
Reocated PG&E Tower
on Caltrans R.O.W.
Existing Property
Fence, Apple
Stairs to Tunnel
Under-Crossing, Typ.
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
De Anza Boulevard Bridge Over-Crossing
De Anza Boulevard Tunnel Under-Crossing
V. De Anza Boulevard Crossing
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Auzerais Ave
Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’
Wide Over Covered Ditch
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk
Open Ditch
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide
Undercrossing Example
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
HWY
85
Stevens Cree
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Auzerais Ave
Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’
Wide Over Covered Ditch
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk
Open Ditch
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide
Undercrossing Example
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
HWY
85
Stevens Cree
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
2. Would you support removal of the existing
crosswalk across De Anza Boulevard if the bridge
or tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided?
Circle one.
Yes
No
Maybe
A.
B.
C.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study176Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
STATION #4 - Blaney RoadTHE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements / Sections
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
C
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Interstate 280
Blaney AvenueRandy LaneVilla De Anza AvenueProposed Sidewalk To Meet Existing Sidewalk
at Olivewood StreetMetal Beam Guardrail
At Curve
Existing Edge Of Street
Proposed Curb Shift, 2’-0” approximately
10’ Width At
Pinch Point
Blaney Avenue
Intersection Enlargement
Alternative #1Existing
SECTION C
Alternative #2
City R.O.W.Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
18’- 6”+-
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
40’- 0”
Existing Tree
Existing Tree
Existing Sound Wall
PG&E Transmission
Pole
Lucille Avenue
Existing Chainlink Fence
Existing Concrete Lined
Drainage Ditch
PG&E Transmission
Lines
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
40’- 0”
Varies,
12’-0” Max.2’-0”2’-0”
Pedestrian or Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt Trail Shoulder,
Typ.
City R.O.W.
Existing Tree
To Remain
Sound Wall To Remain
Guardrail, 4’-6” Tall, Only
Where Drop-Off Slope
Exceeds 3:1
Concrete Lined Drainage
Ditch To RemainLucille Avenue
Existing Tree
To Remain
3:1
Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0”
Tall, With Openings
Along Lucille Avenue
For Trail Access
PG&E Transmission
Lines To Remain
PG&E Transmission
Pole To Remain
Caltrans R.O.W.
I-280
SCVWD R.O.W.
Width Varies
40’- 0”
12’-0” 2’-0”2’-0”
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail
Asphalt Trail Shoulder,
Typ.
City R.O.W.
Existing Tree
To Remain
Sound Wall To Remain
Lucille Avenue
Existing Tree
To Remain
Split-Rail Fence, 3’-0”
Tall, With Openings
Along Lucille Avenue
For Trail Access
Concrete Box Culvert
PG&E Transmission
Lines To Remain
PG&E Transmission
Pole To Remain
Planted Stormwater
Treatment Area
Paved Trail Access Point
Guy Anchor To Be Modified, Maintain
Min. 10’ Vertical Clearance Over Trail
Access manhole
at 400’- 0”, typ.
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 16’ Wide Over
Covered Ditch
Trailhead
Existing Tree To
Remain, Typ.Landscaping, Typ.
Existing On-street
Parking
Seatwall, Typ.
Low Split Rail Fence,
Typ.
Wires Overhead,
Typ.
D.G. Path
Connection, Typ.
PG&E Tower,
Typ.
Proposed Crosswalk
and Sidewalk With
Ramps
25
MPH
Lucille Avenue CEnlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
Do you have any comments about the Station #4 trail segment?
VI. Blaney Avenue / Lucille Avenue
Blaney Avenue with Trail
Access on Lucille Avenue
THE LOOPCupertino Trail Enlargements
17056_TrailEnlargements_V2.indd
February 20/26, 2018
Auzerais Ave
Stelling Road Intersection EnlargementStelling RoadInterstate 280
Existing Caltrans Fence To Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered Ditch
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’
Wide Over Covered Ditch
Barrier Railing,
Typ.
At-grade Higher
Visibility Crosswalk
Open Ditch
Access Control Fence At Trail Edge Sloped Trail Undercrossing, <5%
Running Slope, Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, Cross Sections = 16’ Wide
Undercrossing Example
Trailhead Plaza With
Seating, Typ.
HWY
85
Stevens Cree
k
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefield
Overhead
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Higher Visibility Crosswalk Example
30
MPH
Enlargement Legend
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Ditch (When Covered)
1. Regarding trail access and amenities, which of the following do you support? Circle one.
Informal trail access and no trailhead or trail amenities at this location
Single trail access point and trailhead with limited trail amenities at this location
Multiple trail access points and a trailhead with greater level of amenities at this location
A.
B.
C.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 177Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
0 50 100 200
City Limits
Trail Connection Point / Enlargement Area
Existing Conditions
Trail Types
Bike Lanes on Street
Existing Connections
Bike Route
Crosswalk
Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Gateway
Class 1 Bike Path
Covered Ditch, Class 1 Multi-Use Trail,
16’-0” minimum
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’-0” minimum
Pedestrian Trail, less than 16’-0”
Alternative #2
Alternative #1
Standard
17056_AlternativeAlignmentPlan.indd
THE LOOPCupertino Junipero Serra Trail - Alternative Alignment Plan
CALABAZAS CREEK
TAN
TAU
AV
ENUE
VALLC
O
P
A
R
K
W
A
YWOL
F
E
ROAD
I-280
Vallco marquee sign
APPLE
See Hyatt House
Hotel Enlargement
Vallco / I-280
Interchange Projects
Class 1 Multi-
Use Trail, 20’
Wide Public Trail
Easement
Potential
Trailhead and
Connection
to Signalized
Intersection DE
STATION #5 - Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway
Do you have any comments about the Station #5 trail segment?
VII. Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway
THE LOO
P
Cupertino
Trail Enl
a
r
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
17056_Tra
il
E
n
l
a
r
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
_
V
2
.
i
n
d
d
February
2
0
/
2
6
,
2
0
1
8
Auzerais
A
v
e
Stelling
R
o
a
d I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
ti
o
n
E
nl
a
r
g
e
m
e
n
tStelling RoadInterstate
2
8
0
Existing C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
F
e
n
c
e
T
o
R
e
m
ai
n
Class 1 M
ul
ti
-
U
s
e
T
r
ail,
1
6’
Wi
d
e
Over Cov
e
r
e
d
Di
t
c
h
West Trail
S
p
u
r
,
10’ Wide
East Trail
S
p
u
r,
10’ Wide
Class 1 M
ul
ti
-
U
s
e
T
r
ail,
1
6’
Wide Ove
r
C
o
v
e
r
e
d
Di
t
c
h
Barrier Rai
li
n
g,
Typ.
At-grade
Hi
g
h
e
r
Visibility
C
r
o
s
s
w
al
k
Open Dit
c
h
Access C
o
n
t
r
o
l
F
e
n
c
e
A
t
T
r
ail
E
d
g
e
Sloped T
r
ail
U
n
d
e
r
c
r
o
s
si
n
g,
<
5
%
Running
Sl
o
p
e,
Cl
a
s
s
1
M
ul
t
i
-
U
s
e
Trail, Cro
s
s
S
e
c
ti
o
n
s
=
1
6’
Wi
d
e
Undercro
s
si
n
g
E
x
a
m
pl
e
Trailhead
Pl
a
z
a
Wi
t
h
Seating,
T
y
p.HWY85Stevens Creek
T
r
a
i
l
Middlefie
l
d
Overhead
0
1
5’
3
0’
6
0’
Higher Vi
si
bili
t
y
C
r
o
s
s
w
al
k
E
x
a
m
pl
e
30
MPH
Enlargem
e
n
t
L
e
g
e
n
d
Primary V
ol
t
a
g
e
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
Seconda
r
y
V
ol
t
a
g
e
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
Drainage
Di
t
c
h (
W
h
e
n
C
o
v
e
r
e
d)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study178Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #2 Input Packet
February 20 and 26, 2018Junipero Serra Trail | Community Meeting #2
Please return your packet to
the sign-in table
Thank you for your participation! Please join us again for:
Community Meeting #3
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
6:00pm – 8:00pm
Cupertino Community Hall
10350 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014
Do you have any other comments about the project?
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 179Appendix
Input Handout - Community Meeting #3 Questionnaire
17056_CommMtg#3_Questionnaire.indd
June 6, 2018
• Travel to each of the stations
• Provide Input
• Enjoy the refreshments
• Ask us lots of questions
Junipero Serra Trail
1. Did you attend Community
Meeting #1 or Community
Meeting #2? Circle one.
Only, Community Meeting #1
Only, Community Meeting #2
Both, Community Meeting
#1 and #2
Neither
A.
B.
C.
D.
3. How would you
use the trail?
Circle all that apply.
Biking
Jogging
Walking
Commuting
Other:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
4. Do you live or
work in Cupertino?
Circle one.
I live in Cupertino
I work in Cupertino
I live and workin Cupertino
I do not live orwork in Cupertino
A.
B.
C.
D.
Community Meeting #3 - Questionnaire
How to get started
I. General Background
II. Input
2. Do you support a
trail at this location?
Circle one.
Yes
No
A.
B.
1. What aspects of the trail design do you like?
What do you like about the proposed trail?
2. How can the proposed trail be improved?
3. Do you have any other comments about the project?
Please return this questionaire to the sign-in station.
Thank you for your participation!
June 6, 2018
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study180Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 181
Input Board for Diwali Festival Pop-Up Booth
THE LOOPCupertino Share Your Thoughts!
17056_AlternativesInputQuestions.indd
April 21, 2018
Do you support
a trail at this
location?
1 Yes
How would you
use the trail?
3 Biking Jogging Walking Commuting Other
No Do you live next
to the trail?
2 Yes No
Which trail
alternative do
you prefer?
4 Alternative #1 Alternative #2
At Stelling Road,
what type of
crossing do you
prefer?
5
Crosswalk On
Stelling Rd.
At De Anza
Boulevard, what
type of crossing
do you prefer?
6
Both Crossing
Options
Grade-Separated Crossing
Under Stelling Rd.
Bridge Crossing Over
De Anza Blvd.
Existing Crosswalk
Across De Anza Blvd.
Tunnel Crossing Under
De Anza Blvd.
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study182
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 183Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
• Cost: significantly more for alternative #2. Use: Alternative #1 will be used multi-use anyway.
• Wider, multi-purpose, dream big - one time cost
• Wider trail, safety that someone not going to fall in ditch.
• Safety
• Multi Use - Bike and Pedestrian
• Safety, traffic, parking, noise, lack of privacy, Increase of strangers in the area
• No bikes, lighting, noise, less privacy, security
• Open Space. It would provide a better experience.
• Impact of people and traffic
• Aesthetics, Width-allows easier bike + pedestrian traffic
• Separation from traffic
• Allowing bicycles on the trail is vital in order for the trail to provide a good commuting alternative
• Potential users; impact on privacy, security of residents along trail; reversibility; potential impact to water authority activities
• More room for ped and bike
• Trail width
• I like the extra width provided by Alt #2, but I think Alt #1 would be much simpler and less expensive which will help it happen!
Would particularly be concerned about limiting water flow or complicating maintenance when covering the ditch. Alt#2 also adds
some additional green buffer to neighbors, but I don’t think this will be a problem after it is constructed
• Safety, security, noise impact, privacy for those houses impacted
• This is the “aging of America” (I don’t think this is being considered). The aged are not going to be riding bicycles (nor walking
over bridges/trails) to get to their medical appointments or bring home groceries, etc. We have enough bicycle/access infiltrating our
area, bringing in outsiders. These “designs” will impact the quiet enjoyment of our homes even more!!
• Walking along a trail built right next to a major highway is not something of great appeal; physical and environmental safety
concerns (i.e. fumes from many motor vehicles, noise) will not be great appeal; Building and maintaining such a trail, built next to a
major highway will be much more expensive? What is the projected cost?
• The proposed trail would run directly behind my house, it would impact my privacy as well as increase the noise level
• Safety of existing redwood trees along 280; presence of bikes and pedestrians on same trail - how safe?
• For the second alternative, there is more space for people to commute to work, or go on a family walk. For people going to work,
it is a longer commute by bike without the trail
• It would be cosmetically nicer and it might keep out any random undesirable smells
• I am concerned about security for property owners next to the trail. As is, there is graffiti on I-280 sound wall
• Multi-use trail more useful than narrow pedestrian only trail
• It is wider, it looks nicer, there is more greenery
• This is for Apple-only and don’t care about us who live next to the trail
• Consistent width, avoids falling in ditches, more visually appealing, avoids conflict with location on PG&E poles, especially in
Station #4 area
• Width! The wider trail is safer to allow pedestrians, bikes, skateboards, etc.
What factors impact your decision selecting a trail alternative?
16%
55%
29%
#1
#2
Neither
Which alternative do you prefer?
Do you live next to the trail?
Do you have children that
would use the trail?
16%
55%
29%
#1
#2
Neither
62%
38%
Yes
No
19%
72%
9%
Possibly in
the Future
Community Meeting #1 Overall Input
Community Meeting #2 Overall Input
26%
35%4%
35%
0%
1. Safety and security
2. Trail access
3. Trail amenities
4. Connections to other bike
and pedestrian facilities
5. Other
26%
35%4%
35%
0%
1. Safety and security
2. Trail access
3. Trail amenities
4. Connections to other bike
and pedestrian facilities
5. Other
8%
17%
0%
50%
25%1. Never
2. Once a year
3. Once a month
4. Once a week
5. More than once a week
8%
17%
0%
50%
25%1. Never
2. Once a year
3. Once a month
4. Once a week
5. More than once a week
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6
Suitability for Commuting
to Work
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6
Overall Desirablility
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6
Suitability for Going to School
Suitability Going To SchoolSuitability For Commuting To WorkOverall Desirability
TRAIL SEGMENT 1 TRAIL SEGMENT 2 TRAIL SEGMENT 3 0 1 2 3 4 5LOW HIGH
How would you use this trail?
72%
14%
7%
7%
1. Walking/Jogging/Biking
2. Commuting to work
3. Taking children to school
4. None of the above
72%
14%
7%
7%
1. Walking/Jogging/Biking
2. Commuting to work
3. Taking children to school
4. None of the above
How often do you currently use
a trail system elsewhere?
Regarding trail development, what’s most
important to you? Circle all that apply.
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5# OF RESPONDENTS58%
42%
Yes
No
Input Packet
Yes
No
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study184Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
General Project Comments
• Great handout! Do this again.
• Make it a world class trail. Heart of Silicon Valley must look good. Plant new trees.
• Should be trail that represents Cupertino. Home of Apple. Best of best shall be created.
• My property backs up to the trail between Mary and Stelling. I currently see the trail used by PG&E. My concerns are: 1. liability - I have tall
trees that have dropped branches on the trail. 2. Safety - giving easier access to my back yard. 3. Privacy - I have no fence (just chain link). I am not
against the bike/ped path, just want my concerns addressed.
• This part of Cupertino has been impacted enough by the freeway, the schools, Apple and it’s employees.
• We are very worried about safety, security, privacy. Homestead high school kids jumping the fence (which they do), homeless, smokers, drugs and
nuisance.
• It’s a shame that Apple can cause such a project to be contemplated that would impact the residents of this area.
• I support alternate #2 for Mary to De Anza Blvd.
• Very supportive. Good luck!
• Please, please build it! This trail would remove a lot of local commuting traffic off the roads (Apple employees between campuses, students to
De Anza college…) and provide a great off-street recreational alternative within the city (jogger, dog walkers...). Provide trash cans along trail : dog
walkers; drinking fountains at trail ends would be great bonus
• Consider if paving is necessary. No lights - encourage dawn to dusk use; Consider Alternative #1 as a pilot which could be expanded if use of
trail becomes high.
• Seems like there needs to be more thought about intermediate access points. The major points are too far apart. While I favor choices that
reduce cost and complexity, I would encourage setting standards for trail width - there are too many narrow pinch points identified already. Please
spend the money to widen where needed.
• I am extremely concerned about safety, privacy, and noise issues. Currently, we have a lot of people hanging out at 2am during summer nights at
the Mary Avenue Bridge trail head, located directly behind my house. 1) I am extremely concerned this trail will add to the noise we experience. 2)
Make sure security is enforced after dusk (when officers are not busy with school patrolling). We already clean up broken glass bottles in our yards.
3) We are concerned about any trash, debris items that can be thrown over the fence into our backyards. 4) Can existing bike bridge be used to
access 280 per alternative #2 near Mary Avenue? This would perhaps reduce capital costs.
• All-in-all, do not think this to be a very worthwhile project. Probably very expensive and lacking in widespread appeal. Walkers, joggers, or
cycling along trail next to major highway not very appealing, especially at times of rush-hour traffic.
• I am totally opposed to the construction of the trail
• Super
• Very good graphics and presentation of trail options. Please keep the redwood trees along 280
• Really make sure Apple campus 1 and 2 have good connection to path
• Please think about possibly separating bikers and pedestrians if the trail becomes crowded, in the future
• Why do I and my neighbors have to suffer because the city can’t say no to Apple
• Mile Markers (1/4 mile markers), security cameras in key areas and convex mirrors for blind corners, all for safety. Please make an effort to tie
into the new signage style proposed for the City’s Bike Boulevards, including “destination” signs indicating what is near the access points. Post a
25 mph speed limit (or less). Allow E-bikes with 25 mph max speed. Prohibit other motorized vehicles (gas, diesel, etc.). I LIKE HAVING A CROSS-
TOWN CONNECTION OFF OF THE BUSY STREET LIKE STEVENS CREEK
• When it opens, safety & security has to be very good to “set the tone” of the project. If people think it is not safe they won’t use it or let their
kids use it. Prevent Apple bikes from riding 2-3-4 across & taking over the path like we currently see them, do on our neighborhood streets like
Vista Drive.
(Comments provided via email after both community meetings)
• After briefly reviewing the online story boards, I believe that accompanying trail construction, permit parking must be extended to the entirety of
Lucille between Blaney and Apple. Lucille already has the occasional Apple employee parking and is used daily for Employees to smoke at the cul
de sac at Apple. The neighborhood is permit parking because of the Apple overflow, and active vehicle commuters on Lucille is inconsistent with
the trail’s use for the three schools nearby. Also, if smoking is not allowed on the trail, then it somehow should be restricted in the neighborhood.
Apple doesn’t allow smoking on their campus, and if they think the trail bordering their property is also non-smoking, they will be driving smokers
into the neighborhood which is unacceptable. We already have employees parking on Lucille then coming back to the area to smoke during
breaks.
• I just learned about a potential bike path along the Junipero Serra Channel. This is exciting, as it would give bicycles a protected way to get from
Mary to Tantau. Currently, if you’re near 280, you need to go to Homestead or Stevens Creek to go between Blaney and Wolfe. This change would
encourage more bicycling, getting even more cars off the roadways. Hope you find some common ground with the water district and Caltrans to
get this done. Of course, it would be great if the road crossings weren’t at grade, but I’ll leave that to the experts.
Project Background, Goals and Objectives
• Goal 4 - Have the trail access along I-280 be strictly for bike traffic. That way bike riders can travel at a faster speed. This would be good for people commuting on bikes between Apple
Campus (Sunnyvale) and Apple Campus 2 (Tantau).
• If pedestrian and bikes are on the same trial, the bikes need to go slower and pedestrians need to understand how to go on a trail with bikes
Flip Chart
Input Packet
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 185Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
• Wider, bike friendly
• Do the right thing. If trail is not proper and wide it won’t be usable and people won’t use it. Having wider trail is right idea.
• Safety
• Multi Use, wider trail
• Security, noise, lighting, privacy
• Terrible proposal
• Width of the trail being better for multiple uses - pedestrian and bicycles; plant a new tree or bush to replace tree removed.
• Maintain trees along residences
• Slope is more natural and pleasing. In an emergency, trail users can leave the trail by climbing the slope; sharp easement feels
walled in.
• Security underpass area
• Pleasant landscaping
• Easier, cheaper, better
• Again, making a choice for a simpler solution has a better chance of getting approved and built; I would encourage you to
maintain as much natural screening as possible and NOT excavate more to create neighbor isolation; the perception of the
negative is greater than the reality
• Why can’t the existing Mary Ave. bridge on-ramp be used to access trail? That will reduce the project costs. Alternative 2 is my
second choice, do not support Alternative 1
• See former page [Trail Design]
• Concerns over expense of such a project versus the benefit to public. Do not believe this project will have a great deal of
appeal to most people
• I am not in favor of either alternative especially because it will be right behind our house/property. This trail would be an
invasion of my privacy. The foot and bike traffic would result in noise and debris left on the trail
• Amount of water flowing in ditch
• Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have parkour skills, which most
people don’t). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and next to a hillside, it would be nicer
• It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :)
• Multi-use of bicycles
• Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail
• Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic
• Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area.
• Restroom, Water station, bench, camera, lighting, mile marker, safety patrol, website to promote
• Putting water, parking spaces, lighting, maybe restrooms near parks is a good idea.
• You should plan trail on ‘storage’ side at pedestrian bridge
• Consider collaborating with residences to improve robustness of fences along trail
• Amenities for bikers and walkers here please! Benches and congregating spaces here would be great (mini-park). Keep those
away from the neighbors though
• Concerns over effects and disruption to the local residents, especially over Alternative #1
• Have police on bike patrol at the Stelling undercrossing to deter loitering and theft and graffiti
• Concerned w/ safety for trail users, particularly with potentially being in a secluded area out of plain sight, by the Loc-N-Stor
• Safety - it seems secluded. Add mirrors for blind spots.
• Amount of water flowing in ditch
• Alternative #2 is safer in certain situations since you can escape up the hillside (unless you have parkour skills, which most
people don’t). Also, if you are walking along the trail, if it is wider and next to a hillside, it would be nicer
• It would be better for any animals living there, would look nicer and possibly cost less :)
• Multi-use of bicycles
• Wider, I ride my bike long distance, bike riders need a wider trail
• Alleviates concerns with adjacent homes seems more scenic
• Width to allow safer multi-use and to get it away from the residential area.
What factors impact your decision in selecting
a trail alternative (Mary Ave Alternative)?
Do you have any additional comments about the Mary Ave Trail access point?
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
6%
65%
29%
#1
#2
Neither
At Mary Ave., which
alternative do you prefer?
Would you use Mary Avenue
Bridge to connect to
his trail system?
16%
55%
29%
#1
#2
Neither
35%
21%
44%#1
#2
Maybe
Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard)
Input Packet
• Pedestrian Trail: concern about buffering
Comments on Mary Avenue Bridge Enlargement
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study186Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
• Safety, security #1 issue. Graffiti already there. Had a burglary.
• Connect to Stevens Creek Trail to the west?
• Trail on north side of 280
• No monitoring of ex. Plaza. Needs monitoring. Use cameras.
• Concern about beacon crossing stopping traffic on Stelling. Concern about safety. Low
visibility southbound.
• Do a soundwall for safety and privacy.
• Light for night use.
• Amenities, drinking fountains, seating, “dream big”
• Security cameras at problem/key areas.
• Traffic stacks at Stelling.
• Concern over liability of trees dropping branches
• Graffiti
• Privacy & security
• Stats on crime - how will police monitor
• Parking will be issue
• Leave redwoods
• Why paved? Leave gravel
• No lights
• Homeless, privacy, security
• Alt 2 viable?
• Do we need a trail? Is demand there? For Apple employees?
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
Trail Segment #1 (Mary Avenue to De Anza Boulevard)
Input Packet (cont.)
Flip Chart
Comments on Trail Segment 1 Plan
• This is heavy traffic area, option C is better. Least preferred choice is A.
• Stelling is extremely busy at rush hour in morning and evening. A surface crosswalk would be a disaster
• Not option B: will cause traffic backups on Stelling. Will cause safety issues. Also the bridge railing when traveling south
on Stelling blocks sight line to the trail toward the west making it much less safe.
• For biking on busy streets, like Stelling, separation is very important to induce casual/weekend bicyclists
• Crosswalk good for pedestrian access and in case of flooding (?)
• Traffic on Stelling is heavy and depends on events at De Anza College. A crosswalk is likely to be overlooked (note
crosswalk near Quinlan); A Stelling Road entrance to the bike path is likely to influence and impact traffic on Stelling
• Very noisy
• Very clever solution, if possible and affordable
• Both please! Don’t know if Stelling will be a big turning point, the underpass path would obstruct people wanting to
get on Stelling. The crosswalk support will be nominal in cost for the benefit
• Apple employees have access to trail from campus and not on streets!!!
• Security of undercrossing
• A crosswalk across Stelling Road will make traffic on Stelling much worse than now. The traffic is bad enough now with
traffic from Gardena Dr., Greenleaf, and the apartment complex feeding into Stelling. During peak hours, traffic can back
into Hollenbeck in the north and all the way to Stevens Creek Blvd to the south
• Both would be great, but any of the options seems workable
• For long distance bike riders, it is much faster to have a grade-separated crossing, it is also safer
• Very concerned about a crosswalk and the interaction with traffic - especially during school drop-off/pick-up and
during rush hour
• If you can’t do #1C then do #1A. Do not do just 1B! Add mirrors for blind spots.
Do you have any additional comments about the Station #3 trail seg-
ment (Stelling Road Crossing)?
36%
8%
56%
Grade-separated Crossing
Crosswalk
Both
36%
8%
56%
Grade-separated Crossing
Crosswalk
Both
At Stelling Rd., what crossing
type do you prefer?
Comments on Stelling Road Crossing Enlargement
• Concerns at Lucille Trailhead:
• Safety
• Parking (unwanted!)
• Traffic
• Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime)
• Apple employees (this project is for Apple only)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 187Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
Trail Segment #2 (De Anza Boulevard to Vallco Center)
Input Packet
43%
50%
7%
Bridge
Tunnel
Existing
At De Anza Blvd., what crossing
type do you prefer?
Would you support removal of the existing
crosswalk across De Anza Blvd, if a bridge or
tunnel grade-separated crossing was provided?
Regarding trail access and amenities,
which of the following do you support?
43%
50%
7%
Bridge
Tunnel
Existing
21%
31%
48%
Yes
No
Maybe
39%
32%
29%
Do you have any additional comments abou the Station #4 trail segment?
Flip Chart
• Concerns at Lucille Trailhead:
• Safety
• Parking (unwanted!)
• Traffic
• Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime)
• Apple employees (this project is for Apple only)
Comments on Trail Segment 2 Plan
• Blaney avenue: don’t block
• Blaney impacted by traffic
• Concern bringing kids through an already congested area.
• Keep fence to prohibit access from Lucille
• Drive kids to school due to speeding cars
• One access point may be ok
• No sidewalk
• Lucille not under some parking permit. Needs to be included in permit program
• Will trail encourage parking on Lucille?
• Lots of Apple bikes
• Can you provide access here? For Lawson & Apple
• Need access to Apple to Trail
• Two access points
• Speeding traffic to school
• Use mirrors for blind spots
• Call boxes along trail. Emergency.
• Bike runnels at stairs?
• Can we have police cameras on the trail
• Consider security of users in tunnel crossing
• Access for Apple employees to trail & the streets
• Would not preclude Alt 2 in the future
• Look @ stair channels
• Must have direct Apple access (infinite loop) to trail, to reduce bikes on Randy Ln/Larry Way. Limit access
points to two: One east of Randy, (just far enough away from Apple to discourage parking) and one at Blaney.
This grade-level proposal for crossing at Blaney is great.
• Right next to my house. Privacy concerns. Live on Larry/Lucille.
• Privacy, parking, traffic are concerns for residents of Lucille, Larry and Randy. 1: Consider wall to help with
privacy. 2: Big no to any access points on Lucille Ave.
• Not familiar with this section so no comment.
• No trail access on Blaney/Lucille
• Maintain fence - ideally make opaque for privacy. Make Lucille permitted parking M-F like Randy and Larry.
Need frequent garbage clean up. Limited access - far from apple side to prevent parking problems. Maintain
access under bridge for car traffic. Need police patrol for safety.
• I support none of these. I live here and would be impacted.
• Maintenance of trash can emptying would be very important
• Multiple access points make the trail more usable for people living in the neighborhood, and would provide
trail users route options
• Informal trail access could serve as a pilot and could be upgraded if the trail use supports expansion
• Some convenience but less cost
• I prefer tunnel over bridge at De Anza mainly because of reduced elevation gain/loss; Use box culvert only
when needed for trail width
• Mostly just need trailhead here; benches would be the only amenities needed
• How is security mentioned? Security patrol? How about people using trail for “hanging out”?
• Don’t care…
• As shown
• Get Apple off the streets; safer alternatives for walkers/bikers; be mindful of neighborhood
• Section east of Blaney - no soundwall; trail users protection form vehicles leaving the road
• Provide access to Portal Ave. through CalWater site
• I live next to the trail on Randy Lane; trail would cause such a problem for traffic and people, let alone
criminal activity
• Consider adding Trailhead/access point at the end of Lucille adjacent to the Apple campus. Work with Apple
to create a linkage to Lawson Middle School along the edge of the Apple property, parallel to Larry Way, It
would be nice to have some way to go directly from the trail up to the Blaney overpass.
• Do not put the additional access points in the middle of Lucille. Trail amenities needed: a map of trail, a
beach, mile markers, lighting. Extra security around the main entrance & under the bridge. There has been
tagging & dumping (mattresses, etc) in this area. Keep the road (Lucille) open under the bridge. Do not close it.
The neighborhood relies on it to get to Homestead without having to cross Blaney. Critical to AM/PM traffic flow
& school traffic.
Comments on Blaney Ave/
Lucille Ave Crossing Enlargement
• Concerns at Lucille Trailhead:
• Safety
• Parking (unwanted!)
• Traffic
• Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime)
• Apple employees (this project is for Apple only)
Multiple Trail Access
Pointsand Trailhead
withGreater Levels
of Amenities
Single Trail Access
Point and Trailhead
with Limited
Trail Amenities
Informal Trail Access
and No Trailheads
or Trail Amenities
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study188Appendix
Communtiy Meeting #3 Material - What we Heard Boards
THE LOOPCupertino What We Heard
17056_WhatWeHeard_Comments.indd
General Station #5 Question: Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 trail segment?
• Keep Crossing at Wolfe not competing with cross traffic
• This trail is for apple only. What a shame.
• Be sure the contractor of Vallco includes space for bikeway
• Perhaps stipulate that a proper multi-use trail along the south and east edges of hotel development be included in future development
there.
• The proposed path behind the new hotel is bad! It’s still under construction - is there a way to create a path (or alternative path) that passes
in front of hotel tracing Perimeter Road.
• Nice
• Have Vallco future pay for access to trail and out of neighborhood!!! Access to trail from Vallco itself not in neighborhood at all!
• It is important to keep redwoods along 280 intact behind Hyatt House and property behind the old Macys. Will there be public creek trail
along Calabazas Creek from 280 and Calabazas intersection to the Calabazas and Vallco Parkway intersection? One portion of the creek trail
mentioned above along the small portion of Calabazas Creek should be both pedestrian and bike.
• Provide easy access to hotel for residents and guests. Use CalWater area for access to Portal Ave.
• East-west connectivity for bikes between Blaney and Tantau is important, especially with Pruneridge gone
• Underpass is good
• Make all sections of it as wide as possible to allow lots of multi-uses & improve safety. Add mirrors for blind spots & destination signs.
Trail Segment #3 (Vallco Center to Vallco Parkway)
Do you have any additional comments about the Station #5 Trail Segment?
Input Gathered From Community Meeting #2
Input was gathered through the input packet, comments written directly onto the plans, and comments written on large flip charts
Input Packet
Comments on Trail Segment 3 Plan
Flip Chart
Comments on Stelling Road Crossing Enlargement
• Access for Guests & Visitors
• No e-bikes (more than 25 mph)
• No motorized
• Allow e-bikes, speed < 25 mph
• Concerns at Lucille Trailhead:
• Safety
• Parking (unwanted!)
• Traffic
• Increase of activity (peds/bikes/crime)
• Apple employees (this project is for Apple only)
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 189Appendix
Document Review
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email
February 26, 2018
MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu
FROM: Jana Schwartz, Designer
Dave Rubin, Project Manager
Callander Associates
RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo
The Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study is evaluating the feasibility of a trail segment that supports a
bicycle and pedestrian connection south of and roughly parallel to Interstate 280 between Mary Avenue
and Tantau Avenue. This trail segment is a part of a larger vision plan, called the “Loop”, for a bicycle
and pedestrian network within the City of Cupertino, as well as a greater regional planning effort. The
study includes providing background on the project history, goals, and relationship to existing plans and
other relevant documents. This memo provides a summary of relevance to other planning efforts and
describes how the Junipero Serra Trail aligns with previous planning efforts and standards, as well as
any additional findings that would affect trail development.
Documents Reviewed Standards Reviewed
Local
Planning
Efforts
Cupertino General Plan (2015) Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD)
2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan (2016) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
South Vallco Connectivity Plan (2014) Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Regional
Planning
Efforts
Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study
(2015)
Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (1995)
Countywide Trails Prioritization and Gaps Analysis (2015)
VTA Bikeways Map D (Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos)
(2016)
Santa Clara County I-280 Corridor Study (2017)
The trail is envisioned as a 2.88 mile-long off-street, multi-use trail and serve as the City of Cupertino’s
first east/west off-street transportation corridor. The City views this trail project as a high-priority and
would like to see the trail allow for the shared use of bicycle and pedestrian users. A majority of the
trail runs adjacent to a drainage ditch, owned by SCVWD. The proposed trail has a limited number of
street crossings, located at Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Wolfe Road. There are underground
and overhead utilities, identified by partnering agencies PG&E and CalWater. Overhead transmission
lines run roughly parallel to the proposed trail west of Blaney Avenue. Underground utilities, such as
water and gas mains have been identified and planned for in the development of the preferred trail
alignment.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study190Appendix
Document Review
Memo
RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo
February 26, 2018
Page 2 of 4
17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Local planning efforts that correlate with this study include the Cupertino General Plan (Land Use and
Community Design, Mobility, Parks and Open Space), City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation
Plan, Santa Clara County I-280 Corridor Study, and the South Vallco Connectivity Plan. Each of these
plans encompasses the geographical study area and includes goals and objectives that have been
reviewed and complimented by the study. Each of these plans has overarching goals that hit on two
main ideas:
1.Improving connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians by creating a multi-modal transportation
network.
2.Enhancing accessibility and safety for bicycles and pedestrians through trail design and
maintenance.
Each of these plans provides a framework for the trail to align with and contribute towards the City-
wide goal of elevating bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The South Vallco Connectivity Plan focuses on a
specific section of the study area and provides information about the Vallco redevelopment project. The
timeline of this effort coincides with this study and a final decision on the outcome of the Vallco project
is unknown. Thus, the study will need to work in parallel with the final plan for the Vallco development
to include a trail system as contemplated in this study.
Regional planning efforts have created plans that work together to strengthen the regional bicycle and
pedestrian network. Documents that were reviewed include the Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek
Trail Feasibility Study, Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan Update, Countywide Trails
Prioritization and Gaps Analysis, and VTA Bikeways Map D (Cupertino, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos).
To balance the identity and goals of each jurisdiction, many of the regional plans relied on a city’s
general plan for city-specific information. The Joint Cities Coordinated Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility
Study referenced the City of Cupertino General Plan from 2000. Information about City facilities and
demographic information has been updated in the recent General Plan from 2015. The other regional
plans take a similar snapshot of the Santa Clara County region and highlight bicycle and pedestrian
facilities and opportunities to connect and expand the network. Countywide Trails Prioritization and
Gaps Analysis summarizes the existing and potential trail reaches. This document, as well as the VTA
Bikeways Map D, do not include the study area and only identify the Stevens Creek Trail and on-street
connections as major bicycle and pedestrian projects for the City. More recent planning efforts, like the
Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan (to be released spring 2018) and VTA’s Santa Clara Countywide Bike Plan
(in-progress) have been asked to include the study area in textual and graphic depictions of trail
opportunities.
Standards that were reviewed are also across jurisdictions and not specific to the City of Cupertino. The
review of standards ensures the safety of trail users and compliance with related entities. Since the trail
is located in SCVWD right-of-way and includes PG&E facilities, standards related to maintenance and
access were reviewed before proposing design alternatives.
PG&E Standards
4.4.4 Vertical Clearance
Table 4-3, “Vertical Clearance From the Ground on Nonresidential Property,” located below, provides
the minimum vertical distance (in feet) from the ground on nonresidential property.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 191Appendix
Document Review
Memo
RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo
February 26, 2018
Page 3 of 4
17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
Table 4-3 Vertical Clearance From the Ground on Nonresidential Property1
Description Minimum Vertical Distance
(In Feet)
Over private driveways, lanes, and other areas
(e.g., alleys and parking lots) accessible to vehicles.
16
Over areas accessible to pedestrians only. 12
Over buildings and bridges, or over structures (attached or unattached) that
do not ordinarily support conductors and on which people can walk.8
1 Clearance requirements may be different than local electrical codes.
−4.4.4A-1: Normal radial clearance: a minimum of 24 inches.
−4.4.4A-2: Within 15 feet of the point of attachment on a building or structure: the normal radial
clearances may be reduced to a minimum of 12 inches.
4.10 Required Vegetation Clearances
−4.10.1 General Requirements: For electric distribution, high-voltage lines rated up to 60,000
volts, applicants must establish a 15-foot “low-growth” zone on both sides of all new lines. Also
applicants must not plant trees that exceed 25 feet in height at maturity under or within 15 feet
of distribution power poles.
SCVWD Standards
Most of the guidelines and details, which are specifically related to streams, grading and riparian
resources, have been excerpted from the document, Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use and
Management Guidelines (UD) (April 15, 1999), which was prepared by the Santa Clara County Parks and
Recreation Department.
−To control trail use and prevent environmental damage, the design should include barriers such
as fences, vegetation, stiles and fallen trees. (UD – 1.3.1.3)
−Use existing maintenance trails, access route and levees wherever possible to minimize impacts
of new construction in riparian zones (UD – 1.3.2.3)
−Trail use will generally be limited to the hours between dawn and dusk to minimize impacts to
wildlife.
−Lighting of trails should be avoided. Exceptions include security lighting in downtown
commercial and entertainment areas where lighting should be minimized.
−Surface water shall be diverted from trails by cross sloping the trail tread between 2 and 3%.
(UD – 3.5.4)
−Do not locate irrigation systems within 2 feet of the edge of the trail. Irrigation for turf areas
around a trail should use only a pop-up variety of irrigation head. To avoid erosion and
undercutting of the trail, the irrigation system should be controlled so that only incidental spray
might reach the trail surface and edge. (UD – 3.5.6)
−Select plants for streamside areas that do not require irrigation beyond an establishment
period.
−Use permeable pavements where possible.
−Where overland direction of drainage away from the creek is constrained, provide positive
drainage.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study192Appendix
Document Review
Memo
RE: JUNIPERO SERRA TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY / Document Review Summary Memo
February 26, 2018
Page 4 of 4
17056_MEM_DocumentReview.doc
© copyrighted 2018 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.
The study area is almost entirely within the City of Cupertino but would have regional and local benefits
as a transportation and recreational corridor. Due to the location of the study area, the local planning
efforts and the standards provide the most guidance for implementing a trail at this location. The
regional planning efforts should include this study area to best illustrate the collective bicycle and
pedestrian network. The trail study area does not connect directly with any other regional trail system,
but there are potential future connections that may be captured in future development plans.
- END -
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 193Appendix
Public Outreach Outline
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email
September 15, 2017
MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu
FROM: Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
RE: I-280 CHANNEL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY/ Public Outreach Outline
Below is an outline of all outreach events, as listed in the project scope. Details for each event are
described to help anticipate the necessary materials and preparation. Details with “TBD” shall be
discussed and decided on between the City of Cupertino (City) and Callander Associates (CA).
Community Events (2)
When: 9/17 – 4/18
Where: Pop-up style at City events
•Diwali Festival – September 30, 2017
•Earth Day – April 2018
Who: CA, City, Community
What: Outreach materials, table banner, map of site/specific sections, meeting newsletter, pop-up tent,
link to on-line resources, on-line survey link (?), balloons/eye catcher
Why: Generate project interest, publicize upcoming meetings, and discuss project objectives
TAC Meeting #1
When: Wednesday Nov. 29, 2017, 630pm to 8pm (scope: 11/27-12/1)
Where: Working meeting; City Hall – Conference Room C
Who: CA, City, TAC Members
What: Review project purpose, background, and Public Meeting #1 materials
Why: Gather input and apply edits to materials prior to public meeting, discuss next steps
Public Meeting #1
When: Wednesday Dec. 6, 2017, 6pm to 8pm (scope: 12/4-12/8)
Where: Quinlan Community Center – Cupertino Room
Who: CA, City, Community, Commission and Council Members
What: Existing conditions, local/regional context, goals and objectives, opportunity and constraints,
initial public reactions, refreshments, on-line survey link
Why: Listen to public input, discuss project objectives (short and long term), next steps
TAC Meeting #2
When: Monday Feb. 12, 2017, 630pm to 8pm (scope: 2/12-2/16)
Where: Working meeting; City Hall – Conference Room C
Who: CA, City, TAC Members
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study194Appendix
Public Outreach Plan
BURLINGAME SAN JOSE GOLD RIVER Recreate
1633 Bayshore Highway, Suite 133 300 South First Street, Suite 232 12150 Tributary Point Drive, Suite 140 Educate
Burlingame, CA 94010 San Jose, CA 95113 Gold River, CA 95670 Live+Work
T 650.375.1313 T 408.275.0565 T 916.985.4366 Connect
F 650.344.3290 F 408.275.8047 F 916.985.4391 Sustain
www.callanderassociates.com
Via Email
August 22, 2017
MEMO TO: Jennifer Chu
FROM: Dave Rubin
Callander Associates
RE: I-280 CHANNEL TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY/ Public Outreach Plan
Below is the language to be used on promotional materials for upcoming meetings. Items include, but
are not limited to, meeting newsletter, meeting postcard, social media, utility mailer, and NextDoor
postings. Dates for these events shall be confirmed by 9/15.
Document Text:
Large Text: We want to hear from you! Come share your thoughts!
Sub Text: Please join us to review trail alignment plans to help build connections in Cupertino. A series
of community meetings have been planned for you to provide input on a proposed trail system near I-
280 and participate in improving the pedestrian and bicycle network near you!
Upcoming events:
Pop-Up Events
•West Coast Farmers’ Market | Cupertino Oaks Shopping Center, October 15, 2017 9am to 1 pm
•Silicon Valley Fall Festival | Memorial Park in Cupertino, September 9, 2017 from 10am to 5pm
Public Meeting #1
•Cupertino Public Library (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|December 5, 2017, 6pm to
8pm
Public Meeting #2a
•Homestead High School (21370 Homestead Rd, Cupertino, CA 95014)|February 20, 2017, 4pm
to 8pm
Public Meeting #2b
City Hall (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|March 1, 2018, 4pm to 8pm
Bike and Pedestrian Commission Meeting #1
City Council Meeting #1
Public Meeting #3
•Cupertino Public Library (10800 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014)|June 6, 2017, 4pm to 8pm
Bike and Pedestrian Commission Meeting #2
Park and Recreation Commission
Planning Commission
City Council Meeting #2
Thank you.
- END -
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 195Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study196Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
160 W. Santa Clara Street | Suite 675 | San José, CA 95113 | (408) 278-1700 | Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 3, 2018
To: David Rubin, Callander Associates Landscape Architects
From: Steve Davis, PE, Fehr & Peers
Subject: Alternatives Evaluation for Junipero Serra Trail Crossing at De Anza Boulevard
Cupertino, California
SJ17-1771
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of a traffic operational analysis
conducted to evaluate alternatives for an at-grade crossing of De Anza Boulevard for the proposed
Junipero Serra Trail in Cupertino, California. It is our understanding that the City of Cupertino prefers
a grade-separated crossing for the Junipero Serra Trail at De Anza Boulevard. However, due to
construction and logistical challenges, a grade-separated alternative may not be feasible. The
potential at-grade crossing would be provided at the location of the existing crosswalk on the south
leg of the intersection of De Anza Boulevard with the Southbound Interstate 280 (I-280) Ramps.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The intersection of De Anza Boulevard, which is oriented north-south, and the Southbound I-280
Ramps, which are oriented one-way eastbound, is signalized with crosswalks provided on the east,
west, and south legs. The existing lane configuration and turning movement volumes from counts
collected in December 2017 during the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours are shown in
Figure 1.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 197Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 2 of 6
Figure 1: Existing Traffic Volumes and Lane Configuration
Fehr & Peers conducted field reconnaissance at this location to identify signal timing and phasing
as well as overall traffic operational characteristics during the AM and PM peak periods as part of
the Vallco Specific Plan EIR project. The eastbound approach of the Southbound I-280 Off-ramp
operates concurrently with the parallel pedestrian crossing across De Anza Boulevard as depicted
in Figure 2. This arrangement is most efficient for vehicle operations given the existing geometry,
but results in a high potential for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles since eastbound right
turns from two lanes occur during the pedestrian “walk” signal phase. These concurrent movements
increase the risk for collisions involving pedestrians as well as rear-end crashes resulting from
vehicles unexpectedly stopping to wait for pedestrians.
Figure 2: Existing Signal Phase Sequence
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study198Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin
October 3, 2018
Page 3 of 6
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Due to the potential for collisions, high level of pedestrian exposure, and anticipated increase in
usage of the at-grade crossing with the completion of the Junipero Serra Trail, it is desirable to
modify the intersection to minimize interactions between modes. As such, two project alternatives
have been developed for consideration:
Alternative 1 – No physical improvements would be constructed, but signal phasing would be
modified such that the eastbound right-turn movement and pedestrian crossings would not be in
conflict. As the eastbound approach has a shared left/through/right-turn lane, all movements on
this approach would continue to operate together as a standalone phase and pedestrian crossings
of De Anza Boulevard would operate concurrently wit h the southbound left turn as shown in Figure
3.
Figure 3: Proposed Alternative 1 Signal Phase Sequence
Alternative 2 – An additional lane would be constructed on the Southbound I-280 Off-ramp, as
shown in Attachment A, to provide a left-turn lane, shared left-turn/through lane, and two
dedicated right-turn lanes. This change would allow separate signal phases for the right-turn
movement and the shared left-turn/through movement, making it possible for the crosswalk phase
to operate concurrently with the eastbound left-turn/through movement as shown in Figure 4.
Eastbound right turns and southbound left turns would operate concurrently in this alternative.
Figure 4: Proposed Alternative 2 Signal Phase Sequence
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 199Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 4 of 6
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic operations were evaluated for the existing (no-
build) conditions and two project alternatives using the HCM 2000 methodology included in
Synchro 10 software.
Level of Service
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of Service
(LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay,
and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, the best operating conditions, to LOS
F, the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents “at-capacity” operations. When traffic volumes
exceed the intersection capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated as
LOS F.
The method described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Special Report
209, Transportation Research Board) was used to prepare the level of service calculations for the
subject intersection. This level of service method, which is approved by the City of Cupertino and
VTA, analyzes a signalized intersection’s operation based on average control delay per vehicle.
Control delay includes the initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final
acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections is correlated to a LOS
designation as shown in Table 1.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study200Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 5 of 6
TABLE 1: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
USING AVERAGE CONTROL VEHICULAR DELAY
Level of Service Description Average Control Delay
Per Vehicle (Seconds)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable
progression and/or short cycle lengths. ≤ 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0
E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 55.1 to 80.0
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0
Source: Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, October 2014; VTA Congestion Management Program, June 2003; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000.
Analysis Results
The Existing operating conditions as well as anticipated operated conditions for Alternatives 1 and
2 are presented in Table 2. HCM 2000 capacity analysis outputs can be found in Attachment B.
As can be seen, the intersection generally operates acceptably in the Existing condition with LOS D
or better during both peak periods. Operations would degrade with the implementation of
Alternative 1 due to less efficient signal timing constraining overall intersection capacity.
Overall delay would remain relatively consistent compared to Existing Conditions with the
implementation of Alternative 2 as the reduction in efficiency caused by modified traffic signal
phasing is largely offset by the increase in physical capacity associated with ramp widening.
Additionally, the separation of left-turn/through and right-turn traffic signal phases in Alternative
2 would allow more efficient signal phasing than proposed in Alternative 1.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 201Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin October 3, 2018 Page 6 of 6
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Alternative AM PM
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Existing 38.7 D 34.3 C
Alternative 1 78.5 E 48.9 D
Alternative 2 38.2 D 35.4 D
Source: Fehr & Peers (2018)
FINDINGS
Based on the analysis the following can be concluded:
• This existing intersection configuration at De Anza Boulevard and the Southbound I-280
Ramps, while most efficient for vehicle operations, results in a high potential for conflicts
between pedestrians and vehicles since eastbound right turns from two lanes occur during
the parallel pedestrian “walk” signal phase.
• Alternative 1 would not include any physical improvements, but signal phasing would be
modified such that the eastbound right turn and pedestrian crossings would not be in
conflict. It is anticipated this would result in a degradation of traffic operations at the
intersection.
• Alternative 2 would include the construction of an additional lane on the Southbound I-
280 Off-ramp, resulting in a left-turn lane, shared left-turn/through lane, and two dedicated
right-turn lanes. This change would allow separate signal phases for the right-turn
movement and the shared left-turn/through movement, making it possible for the
crosswalk phase to operate concurrently with the eastbound left-turn/through movement.
Overall intersection delay would remain relatively consistent with Existing Conditions in this
scenario.
• As a result of the above, Fehr & Peers recommends Alternative 2 should an at-grade
crossing be pursued for the Junipero Serra Trail at De Anza Boulevard.
Attachment A – Proposed Alternative 2 Concept
Attachment B – HCM 2000 Capacity Analysis Outputs
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study202Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin
October 2, 2018
Attachment A
Proposed Alternative 2 Concept
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 203
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study204
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 205Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
David Rubin
October 2, 2018
Attachment B
HCM 2000 Capacity Analysis Outputs
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study206Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing Configuration
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1452 1448 7471 1443 3400 5036
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1452 1448 7471 1443 3400 5036
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 26 0 0 0 0 0 282 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 517 477 447 0 0 0 0 1636 142 619 1554 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 6 52
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 48.4 48.4 48.4 43.6 43.6 26.0 73.6
Effective Green, g (s) 48.4 48.4 48.4 43.6 43.6 26.0 73.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.34 0.20 0.57
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 619 540 539 2505 483 680 2851
v/s Ratio Prot 0.31 c0.33 c0.22 c0.18 0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.31 0.10
v/c Ratio 0.84 0.88 0.83 0.65 0.29 0.91 0.55
Uniform Delay, d1 37.2 38.2 37.0 36.8 31.9 50.9 17.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 9.5 15.7 10.2 1.3 1.5 18.4 0.8
Delay (s)46.7 53.8 47.2 38.1 33.4 69.3 18.4
Level of Service D D D DCEB
Approach Delay (s)49.2 0.0 37.1 32.9
Approach LOS D A D C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.8% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 207Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Existing PM Exisiting Configuration
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.96 0.94 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1430 1413 7544 1514 3433 5085
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1430 1413 7544 1514 3433 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 303 270 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 6 52
Permitted Phases 8 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 54.0 54.0 36.0 94.0
Effective Green, g (s) 38.0 38.0 38.0 54.0 54.0 36.0 94.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.39 0.39 0.26 0.67
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 456 388 383 2909 583 882 3414
v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.21 0.26 0.13 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 c0.35
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.78 0.70 0.68 0.92 0.50 0.63
Uniform Delay, d1 46.0 47.2 45.9 35.9 40.9 44.3 13.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 9.8 5.8 1.3 21.7 2.0 0.9
Delay (s)51.0 57.0 51.7 37.2 62.6 46.4 14.1
Level of Service D E D DEDB
Approach Delay (s)53.2 0.0 42.6 19.5
Approach LOS D A D B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.80
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Existing Conditions
PM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study208Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Existing AM Option 1 Configuration
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1443 1435 7471 1443 3400 5036
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1443 1435 7471 1443 3400 5036
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 64 371 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 517 426 102 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 6 5 8 2
Permitted Phases 3 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 28.0 28.0 28.0 41.7 41.7 48.3 50.7
Effective Green, g (s) 28.0 28.0 28.0 41.7 41.7 48.3 50.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.39
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 358 310 309 2396 462 1263 1964
v/s Ratio Prot c0.31 0.29 0.22 c0.18 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.29
v/c Ratio 1.44 1.37 0.33 0.68 0.92 0.49 0.79
Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 51.0 43.1 38.4 42.5 31.4 35.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 215.1 187.1 0.6 1.6 25.7 0.3 3.4
Delay (s)266.1 238.1 43.7 40.0 68.2 31.7 38.3
Level of Service F F D DECD
Approach Delay (s)185.7 0.0 45.8 36.4
Approach LOS F A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 78.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service E
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.91
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.0% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Alternative 1
AM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 209Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Existing PM Option 1 with Extended Cycle Length
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.93 0.90 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1388 1355 7544 1514 3433 5085
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1388 1355 7544 1514 3433 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 69 247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 240 51 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12
Turn Type Split NA Perm NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 3 3 6 5 8 2
Permitted Phases 3 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 57.6 57.6 46.4 66.6
Effective Green, g (s) 24.0 24.0 24.0 57.6 57.6 46.4 66.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.33 0.48
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 288 237 232 3103 622 1137 2419
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.17 0.26 c0.13 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.35
v/c Ratio 1.12 1.01 0.22 0.64 0.86 0.39 0.90
Uniform Delay, d1 58.0 58.0 49.9 32.9 37.5 35.9 33.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 89.8 62.0 0.5 1.0 14.5 0.2 5.7
Delay (s)147.8 120.0 50.4 34.0 52.0 36.1 39.2
Level of Service F F D CDDD
Approach Delay (s)107.4 0.0 37.8 38.7
Approach LOS F A D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)16.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.7% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Alternative 1
PM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study210Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Option 2 Existing AM
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Future Volume (vph) 636 2 782 0 0 0 0 1571 407 594 1492 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1665 1669 2760 7471 1443 3400 5036
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1665 1669 2760 7471 1443 3400 5036
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96
Adj. Flow (vph)662 2 815 0 0 0 0 1636 424 619 1554 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 652 0 0 0 0 0 241 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 331 334 163 0 0 0 0 1636 183 619 1554 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)18 18 23 23 14
Heavy Vehicles (%)3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Split NA custom NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1!6!5! 2!
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 36.0 36.0 26.0 56.0 56.0 26.0 56.0
Effective Green, g (s) 36.0 36.0 26.0 56.0 56.0 26.0 56.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.43 0.43 0.20 0.43
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 461 462 552 3218 621 680 2169
v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.20 0.06 0.22 c0.18 c0.31
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.72 0.30 0.51 0.29 0.91 0.72
Uniform Delay, d1 42.4 42.5 44.2 27.0 24.1 50.9 30.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 5.3 5.5 1.4 0.6 1.2 18.4 2.1
Delay (s)47.7 48.0 45.6 27.5 25.3 69.3 32.5
Level of Service D D D CCEC
Approach Delay (s)46.6 0.0 27.1 43.0
Approach LOS D A C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 38.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min)15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Alternative 2
AM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 211Appendix
De Anza Boulevard At-Grade Crossing Traffic Impacts Memo
Existing PM Option 2
1: De Anza Blvd & I-280 EB Off-Ramp/I-280 EB On-Ramp
Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Future Volume (vph) 369 26 507 0 0 0 0 1930 519 428 2102 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl)1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.88 0.81 1.00 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00
Flt Protected 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot)1681 1696 2787 7544 1514 3433 5085
Flt Permitted 0.95 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm)1681 1696 2787 7544 1514 3433 5085
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph)380 27 523 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 201 206 97 0 0 0 0 1990 535 441 2167 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr)51 51 12 10 10 12
Turn Type Split NA custom NA Perm Prot NA
Protected Phases 8 8 1!6!5! 2!
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 32.6 32.6 26.0 69.4 69.4 26.0 69.4
Effective Green, g (s) 32.6 32.6 26.0 69.4 69.4 26.0 69.4
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.50
Clearance Time (s)4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 391 394 517 3739 750 637 2520
v/s Ratio Prot 0.12 c0.12 0.03 0.26 c0.13 c0.43
v/s Ratio Perm 0.35
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.52 0.19 0.53 0.71 0.69 0.86
Uniform Delay, d1 46.8 46.9 48.1 24.2 27.5 53.3 31.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.5 5.7 6.1 4.1
Delay (s)47.9 48.2 48.9 24.7 33.3 59.4 35.1
Level of Service D D D CCED
Approach Delay (s)48.5 0.0 26.5 39.2
Approach LOS D A C D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 35.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.74
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s)12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.0% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min)15
! Phase conflict between lane groups.
c Critical Lane Group
HCM 2000 Intersection Capacity Analysis
De Anza Boulevard & I-280 Southbound Ramps
Alternative 2
PM Peak Hour
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study212Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 213
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
A Pr o j ec t St ar t -Up
1.Bonding and mobilization 8% LS Allow $118,452 Allow $121,184 Allow $76,128
2.Construction staking $10,000.00 LS Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000
3.Temporary construction fencing $5.00 LF 200 $1,000 460 $2,300 1,440 $7,200
4.Traffic control $20,000.00 LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000
5.Tree protection and pruning Allow LS Allow $5,000 Allow $5,000 Allow $2,500
$154,450 $158,480 $115,830 $428,760
B Dem o l i t io n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 70,000 $52,500 70,400 $52,800 68,800 $51,600
2.Chain link fence $10.00 LF 35 $350 1,050 $10,500 20 $200
3.Wood fence at Mary Ave $10.00 LF 490 $4,900 0 $0 0 $0
4.Chain link gate $500.00 EA 3 $1,500 4 $2,000 2 $1,000
5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 7 $5,250 0 $0 0 $0
$64,500 $65,300 $52,800 $182,600
C Gr ad i n g & Dr ai n ag e
1.Rough grading, 8" depth $30.00 CY 1,730 $51,900 1,750 $52,500 1,670 $50,100
2.Adjust manholes and vaults to grade $25,000.00 LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000
3.Soil off haul, 8" depth min.$50.00 CY 1,730 $86,500 1,750 $87,500 1,670 $83,500
$163,400 $165,000 $158,600 $487,000
D Er o s i o n Co n t r o l
1.Temporary construction entrance $3,000.00 LS Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000
2.Fiber rolls $4.00 LF 5,100 $20,400 4,000 $16,000 3,500 $14,000
3.SWPPP maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000
$48,400 $44,000 $42,000 $134,400
E Tr ai l & Sit e Fu r n i s h i n g s
1.Asphalt path including base rock, 10' average
width
$5.00 SF 52,230 $261,150 52,860 $264,300 51,600 $258,000
2.Asphalt shoulder, 2' wide both sides $5.00 LF 6,200 $31,000 4,400 $22,000 7,000 $35,000
3.Striping, on-trail $2.00 LF 5,600 $11,200 4,400 $8,800 4,300 $8,600
4.Decorative concrete pavement at trailhead $30.00 SF 480 $14,400 2,700 $81,000 2,300 $69,000
5.Retaining curb $50.00 LF 5,100 $255,000 4,400 $220,000 4,000 $200,000
6.Retaining wall (height varies, see plan)$200.00 LF 375 $75,000 0 $0 0 $0
7.Concrete seatwall at trailhead $300.00 LF 30 $9,000 120 $36,000 70 $21,000
8.Signal timing upgrades at De Anza (base project)Allow LS 0 $0 1 $30,000 0 $0
9.Flashing beacon and crosswalk at Stelling (base
project)
$50,000.00 EA 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0
10.Intersection modifications at Vallco Parkway
trailhead
Allow LS 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000
11.Curb and gutter $45.00 LF 0 $0 400 $18,000 160 $7,200
12.Curb ramp $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 1 $3,500
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #1
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y
17056_CE_Alt#1.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.1 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study214
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 215
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #1
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y
13.Interpretive sign $6,000.00 EA 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 1 $6,000
14.Dog waste bag dispenser $1,200.00 EA 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 2 $2,400
15.Trash receptacle $1,500.00 EA 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 3 $4,500
16.Trail directional signage $500.00 EA 2 $1,000 2 $1,000 2 $1,000
17.Security and privacy wood fence, 8'$100,000.00 LS Allow $100,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $0
18.Barrier railing, 4'$60.00 LF 5,600 $336,000 5,400 $324,000 0 $0
19.Chainlink fence, 6'$60.00 LF 70 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0
20.Vehicular crash barrier $100.00 LF 0 $0 75 $7,500 0 $0
21.Trail map sign $2,000.00 EA 2 $4,000 2 $4,000 2 $4,000
22.Collapsible bollard $1,000.00 EA 3 $3,000 4 $4,000 3 $3,000
$1,174,850 $1,140,500 $673,200 $2,988,550
F Pl an t i n g & Ir r i g at io n
1.Soil preparation, irrigation, planting, maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $25,000
2.Tree, 24" box $500.00 EA 9 $4,500 0 $0 0 $0
$29,500 $100,000 $25,000 $154,500
G Co n s t r u c t i o n Su b -To t al , B as e Pr o j ec t $1,635,100 $1,673,280 $1,067,430 $4,375,810
H Des i g n Co n t i n g en c y 15%LS Allow $245,265 Allow $250,992 Allow $160,115
$245,270 $250,990 $160,110 $656,370
I ANTICIPATED L OW B ID, B as e Pr o j ec t $1,880,370 $1,924,270 $1,227,540 $5,032,180
J Co n s t r u c t i o n Co n t i n g en c y 10%LS Allow $188,037 Allow $192,427 Allow $122,754
$188,040 $192,430 $122,750 $503,220
K Es c al at io n (3% p er yr f o r 3 y ear s )9%LS Allow $169,233 Allow $173,184 Allow $110,479
$169,230 $173,180 $110,480 $452,890
L TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS,
B ASE PROJ ECT
$2,237,640 $2,289,880 $1,460,770 $5,988,290
M Pr o f es s i o n al Ser v ic es , B as e Pr o j ec t
1.Topographic survey Allow LS Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000
2.Geotechnical services Allow LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000
3.Design development 3% LS Allow $67,129 Allow $68,696 Allow $43,823
17056_CE_Alt#1.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.2 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study216
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 217
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un it Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #1
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
4.Construction documents and permitting 8% LS Allow $179,011 Allow $183,190 Allow $116,862
5.Bidding and construction administration 3% LS Allow $67,129 Allow $68,696 Allow $43,823
6.Testing and special inspection 1% LS Allow $22,376 Allow $22,899 Allow $14,608
7.Environmental documentation (MND), assumes
no NEPA
Allow LS Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000
$405,650 $413,480 $289,120 $1,108,250
N TOTAL B ASE PROJ ECT COSTS $2,643,290 $2,703,360 $1,749,890 $7,096,540
O St el l i n g Un d er c r o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 13,380 $10,035 0 $0 0 $0
2.Chain link fence removal $50.00 LF 30 $1,500 0 $0 0 $0
3.Tree removal $750.00 EA 10 $7,500 0 $0 0 $0
4.Rough grading, 8" depth $50.00 CY 250 $12,500 0 $0 0 $0
5.Soil off-haul, 8" depth $100.00 CY 250 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0
6.Barrier fence $100.00 LF 460 $46,000 0 $0 0 $0
7.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 4,600 $115,000 0 $0 0 $0
8.Retaining wall $400.00 LF 840 $336,000 0 $0 0 $0
9.Striping, on-trail $5.00 LF 840 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0
10.Security lighting $40,000.00 LS Allow $40,000 0 $0 0 $0
11.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0
12.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $59,774 Allow $0 Allow $0
13.Inflation 9% LS Allow $53,796 Allow $0 Allow $0
14.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0
$890,630 $0 $0 $890,630
P De An za Ped es t r i an B r i d g e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 19,700 $14,775 0 $0
2.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 12 $9,000 0 $0
3.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0
4.Pedestrian bridge, approaches, stairs, support
columns and railing
$8,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $8,000,000 0 $0
5.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 730 $912,500 0 $0
17056_CE_Alt#1.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.3 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study218
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 219
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #1
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y
6.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10'
wide
$5.25 SF 0 $0 7,300 $38,325 0 $0
7.Security lighting $60,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $60,000 0 $0
8.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0
9.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,003,460 Allow $0
10.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $903,114 Allow $0
11.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0
$0 $14,951,550 $0 $14,951,550
Q DeAn za Tu n n el Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 16,900 $12,675 0 $0
2.Chain link fence removal $10.00 LF 0 $0 170 $1,700 0 $0
3.Underground utility relocation $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0
4.Tunnel drainage $150,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $150,000 Allow $0
5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0
6.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0
7.Tunnel, stairs, approaches, railings $12,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $12,000,000 0 $0
8.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 450 $562,500 0 $0
9.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10'
wide
$5.25 SF 0 $0 4,500 $23,625 0 $0
10.Skylight $10,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $10,000 0 $0
11.Chain link fence $60.00 LF 0 $0 200 $12,000 0 $0
12.Property acquisition costs $8,000,000.00 Acre 0 $0 0.05 $400,000 0 $0
13.Security lighting $200,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $200,000 0 $0
14.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0
15.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,487,400 Allow $0
16.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,338,660 Allow $0
17.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0
$0 $22,162,260 $0 $22,162,260
R DeAn za At -g r ad e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 6,550 $4,913 0 $0
2.Curb removal $15.00 LF 0 $0 220 $3,300 0 $0
3.Concrete removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 1,500 $4,500 0 $0
4.Asphalt removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 480 $1,440 0 $0
5.Sawcut $5.00 LF 0 $0 280 $1,400 0 $0
17056_CE_Alt#1.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.4 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study220
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 221
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #1
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val lc o Pk w y
6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0
7.Traffic signal modification $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0
8.Traffic sign relocation $7,500.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $7,500 0 $0
9.Asphalt pavement $5.00 SF 0 $0 5,200 $26,000 0 $0
10.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 0 $0 3,400 $85,000 0 $0
11.Concrete ramp $2,500.00 EA 0 $0 4 $10,000 0 $0
12.Concrete curb and gutter $70.00 LF 0 $0 200 $14,000 0 $0
13.Retaining wall, max. 4'$500.00 LF 0 $0 360 $180,000 0 $0
14.Traffic striping $5,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $5,000 0 $0
15.Relocate irrigation $25,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $25,000 0 $0
16.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0
17.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $86,955 Allow $0
18.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $78,260 Allow $0
19.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0
$0 $1,295,630 $0 $1,295,630
The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates
has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and
actual construction prices.
B as ed o n d r aw i n g s en t it l ed "Al t er n at i v e Al i g n m en t Pl an ", d at ed "2/20/2018"
17056_CE_Alt#1.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.5 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #1
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study222
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 223
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
A Pr o j ec t St ar t -Up
1.Bonding and mobilization 8% LS Allow $471,460 Allow $817,824 Allow $77,536
2.Construction staking $10,000.00 LS Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000 Allow $10,000
3.Temporary construction fencing $5.00 LF 200 $1,000 460 $2,300 1,440 $7,200
4.Traffic control $20,000.00 LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000
5.Tree protection and pruning Allow LS Allow $5,000 Allow $5,000 Allow $2,500
$507,460 $855,120 $117,240 $1,479,820
B Dem o l i t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 67,800 $50,850 70,400 $52,800 68,800 $51,600
2.Concrete lined ditch $30.00 LF 5,260 $157,800 5,030 $150,900 0 $0
3.Chain link fence $10.00 LF 35 $350 1,050 $10,500 20 $200
4.Wood fence at Mary Ave $10.00 LF 490 $4,900 0 $0 0 $0
5.Chain link gate $500.00 EA 3 $1,500 4 $2,000 2 $1,000
6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 7 $5,250 0 $0 0 $0
$220,650 $216,200 $52,800 $489,650
C Gr ad i n g & Dr ai n ag e
1.Rough grading, 8" depth $30.00 CY 1,680 $50,400 1,750 $52,500 1,670 $50,100
2.Adjust manholes and vaults to grade $25,000.00 LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000
3.Earthwork at box culvert Allow LS Allow $50,000 Allow $50,000 Allow $0
4.Drainage re-connections to box culvert Allow LS Allow $50,000 Allow $50,000 Allow $0
5.Soil off haul, 8" depth min.$50.00 CY 1,680 $84,000 1,750 $87,500 1,670 $83,500
$259,400 $265,000 $158,600 $683,000
D Er o s i o n Co n t r o l
1.Temporary construction entrance $3,000.00 LS Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000 Allow $3,000
2.Fiber rolls $4.00 LF 5,100 $20,400 4,000 $16,000 3,500 $14,000
3.SWPPP maintenance Allow LS Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000 Allow $25,000
$48,400 $44,000 $42,000 $134,400
E Tr ai l & Si t e Fu r n i s h i n g s
1.Asphalt lift over box culvert, 4" deep $2.50 SF 62,940 $157,350 52,800 $132,000 8,400 $21,000
2.Asphalt pavement over agg base $5.00 SF 4,230 $21,150 8,800 $44,000 43,800 $219,000
3.DG shoulder, 2' wide both sides $4.00 LF 22,400 $89,600 17,600 $70,400 17,200 $68,800
4.4'x4' box culvert $500.00 LF 2,710 $1,355,000 0 $0 0 $0
5.5'x8' box culvert $1,250.00 LF 2,550 $3,187,500 0 $0 0 $0
6.6'x10' box culvert $1,750.00 LF 0 $0 5,030 $8,802,500 0 $0
7.Striping, on-trail $2.00 LF 5,600 $11,200 4,400 $8,800 4,300 $8,600
8.Decorative concrete pavement at trailhead $30.00 SF 480 $14,400 2,700 $81,000 2,300 $69,000
9.Retaining curb $50.00 LF 5,100 $255,000 4,400 $220,000 4,000 $200,000
10.Retaining wall (height varies)$200.00 LF 220 $44,000 0 $0 0 $0
11.Concrete seatwall at trailhead $300.00 LF 30 $9,000 120 $36,000 70 $21,000
12.Signal timing upgrades at De Anza (base project)Allow LS 0 $0 1 $30,000 0 $0
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #2
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B lv d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
17056_CE_Alt#2.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.1 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study224
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 225
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #2
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
13.Flashing beacon and crosswalk at Stelling (base
project)
$50,000.00 EA 1 $50,000 0 $0 0 $0
14.Intersection modifications at Vallco Parkway
trailhead
Allow LS 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000
15.Curb and gutter $45.00 LF 0 $0 400 $18,000 0 $0
16.Curb ramp $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 1 $3,500
17.Interpretive sign $6,000.00 EA 1 $6,000 1 $6,000 1 $6,000
18.Dog waste bag dispenser $1,200.00 EA 2 $2,400 2 $2,400 2 $2,400
19.Trash receptacle $1,500.00 EA 3 $4,500 3 $4,500 3 $4,500
20.Trail directional signage $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 2 $7,000
21.Security and privacy wood fence, 8' tall $100,000.00 LS Allow $100,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $0
22.Chainlink fence, 6'$60.00 LF 70 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0
23.Vehicular crash barrier $200.00 LF 0 $0 75 $15,000 0 $0
24.Trail map sign $3,500.00 EA 2 $7,000 2 $7,000 2 $7,000
25.Collapsible bollard $1,000.00 EA 3 $3,000 6 $6,000 3 $3,000
$5,335,300 $9,597,600 $690,800 $15,623,700
F Pl an t i n g & Ir r i g at i o n
1.Soil preparation, irrigation, planting, maintenance Allow LS 25,000 $25,000 Allow $100,000 Allow $25,000
2.Tree, 24" box $500.00 EA 9 $4,500 0 $0 0 $0
$29,500 $100,000 $25,000 $154,500
G Co n s t r u c t i o n Su b -To t al , B as e Pr o j ec t $6,400,710 $11,077,920 $1,086,440 $18,565,070
H Des i g n Co n t i n g en c y 15%LS Allow $960,107 Allow $1,661,688 Allow $162,966
$960,110 $1,661,690 $162,970 $2,784,770
I ANTICIPATED L OW B ID, B as e Pr o j ec t $7,360,820 $12,739,610 $1,249,410 $21,349,840
J Co n s t r u c t i o n Co n t i n g en c y 10%LS Allow $736,082 Allow $1,273,961 Allow $124,941
$736,080 $1,273,960 $124,940 $2,134,980
K Es c al at i o n (3% p er y r f o r 3 y ear s )9%LS Allow $662,474 Allow $1,146,565 Allow $112,447
$662,470 $1,146,560 $112,450 $1,921,480
L TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS,
B ASE PROJ ECT
$8,759,370 $15,160,130 $1,486,800 $25,406,300
M Pr o f es s i o n al Ser v i c es , B as e Pr o j ec t
17056_CE_Alt#2.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.2 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study226
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 227
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #2
Mar y Av e t o De An za B lv d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
1.Topographic survey Allow LS Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000 Allow $15,000
2.Geotechnical services Allow LS Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000 Allow $20,000
3.Design development 3% LS Allow $262,781 Allow $454,804 Allow $44,604
4.Construction documents and permitting 8% LS Allow $700,750 Allow $1,212,810 Allow $118,944
5.Bidding and construction administration 3% LS Allow $262,781 Allow $454,804 Allow $44,604
6.Testing and special inspection 1% LS Allow $87,594 Allow $151,601 Allow $14,868
7.Environmental documentation (MND), assumes
no NEPA
Allow LS Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000 Allow $35,000
$1,383,910 $2,344,020 $293,020 $4,020,950
N TOTAL B ASE PROJ ECT COSTS $10,143,280 $17,504,150 $1,779,820 $29,427,250
O St el l i n g Un d er c r o s s in g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 13,380 $10,035 0 $0 0 $0
2.Chain link fence removal $50.00 LF 30 $1,500 0 $0 0 $0
3.Tree removal $750.00 EA 10 $7,500 0 $0 0 $0
4.Rough grading, 8" depth $50.00 CY 250 $12,500 0 $0 0 $0
5.Soil off-haul, 8" depth $100.00 CY 250 $25,000 0 $0 0 $0
6.Barrier fence $100.00 LF 460 $46,000 0 $0 0 $0
7.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 4,600 $115,000 0 $0 0 $0
8.Retaining wall $400.00 LF 840 $336,000 0 $0 0 $0
9.Striping, on-trail $5.00 LF 840 $4,200 0 $0 0 $0
10.Security lighting $40,000.00 LS Allow $40,000 0 $0 0 $0
11.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0
12.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $59,774 Allow $0 Allow $0
13.Inflation 9% LS Allow $53,796 Allow $0 Allow $0
14.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $89,660 Allow $0 Allow $0
$890,630 $0 $0 $890,630
P De An za Ped es t r i an B r i d g e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 19,700 $14,775 0 $0
2.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 12 $9,000 0 $0
3.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0
4.Pedestrian bridge, approaches, stairs, support
columns and railing
$8,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $8,000,000 0 $0
17056_CE_Alt#2.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.3 of 5
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study228
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 229
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #2
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
5.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 $0 730 $912,500 0 $0
6.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10'
wide
$5.25 SF 0 $0 7,300 $38,325 0 $0
7.Security lighting $60,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $60,000 0 $0
8.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0
9.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,003,460 Allow $0
10.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $903,114 Allow $0
11.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,505,190 Allow $0
$0 $14,951,550 $0 $14,951,550
Q DeAn za Tu n n el Cr o s s i n g Op t io n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 16,900 $12,675 0 $0
2.Chain link fence removal $10.00 LF 0 $0 170 $1,700 0 $0
3.Underground utility relocation $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0
4.Tunnel drainage $150,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $150,000 Allow $0
5.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0
6.Steel utility pole relocation (PG&E)$1,000,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $1,000,000 0 $0
7.Tunnel, stairs, approaches, railings $12,000,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $12,000,000 0 $0
8.Box culvert, 5'x8'$1,250.00 LF 0 450 $562,500 0 $0
9.Asphalt path spur trail including base rock, 10'
wide
$5.25 SF 0 $0 4,500 $23,625 0 $0
10.Skylight $10,000.00 EA 0 $0 1 $10,000 0 $0
11.Chain link fence $60.00 LF 0 $0 200 $12,000 0 $0
12.Property acquisition costs $8,000,000.00 Acre 0 $0 0.05 $400,000 0 $0
12.Security lighting $200,000.00 LS Allow $0 0 $200,000 0 $0
13.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0
14.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,487,400 Allow $0
15.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $1,338,660 Allow $0
16.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $2,231,100 Allow $0
$0 $22,162,260 $0 $22,162,260
R DeAn za At -g r ad e Cr o s s i n g Op t i o n
1.Clear and grub $0.75 SF 0 $0 6,550 $4,913 0 $0
2.Curb removal $15.00 LF 0 $0 220 $3,300 0 $0
3.Concrete removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 1,500 $4,500 0 $0
17056_CE_Alt#2.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.4 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study230
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 231
Estimate of Probable Construction Costs
prepared for the
City of Cupertino
prepared on: 5/17/18
prepared by: LC
checked by: DR
Seg m en t s
It em #Des c r i p t i o n Co s t Un i t Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Qt y It em To t al Su b t o t al Su b t o t al
Tr ai l Seg m en t #1 Tr ai l Seg m en t #2 Tr ai l Seg m en t #3
Junipero Serra Trail
Alternative #2
Mar y Av e t o De An za B l v d De An za B l v d t o Val l c o (w es t ex t en t )Val l c o (w es t ex t en t ) t o Val l c o Pk w y
4.Asphalt removal $3.00 SF 0 $0 480 $1,440 0 $0
5.Sawcut $5.00 LF 0 $0 280 $1,400 0 $0
6.Tree removal $750.00 EA 0 $0 2 $1,500 0 $0
7.Traffic signal modification $500,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $500,000 0 $0
8.Traffic sign relocation $7,500.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $7,500 0 $0
9.Asphalt pavement $5.00 SF 0 $0 5,200 $26,000 0 $0
10.Concrete pavement $25.00 SF 0 $0 3,400 $85,000 0 $0
11.Concrete ramp $2,500.00 EA 0 $0 4 $10,000 0 $0
12.Concrete curb and gutter $70.00 LF 0 $0 200 $14,000 0 $0
13.Retaining wall, max. 4'$500.00 LF 0 $0 360 $180,000 0 $0
14.Traffic striping $5,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $5,000 0 $0
15.Relocate irrigation $25,000.00 LS Allow $0 Allow $25,000 0 $0
16.Design contingency 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0
17.Construction contingency 10% LS Allow $0 Allow $86,955 Allow $0
18.Inflation 9% LS Allow $0 Allow $78,260 Allow $0
19.Professional Services 15% LS Allow $0 Allow $130,433 Allow $0
$0 $1,295,630 $0 $1,295,630
The above items, amounts, quantities, and related information are based on Callander Associates' judgment at this level of document preparation and is offered only as reference data. Callander Associates
has no control over construction quantities, costs and related factors affecting costs, and advises the client that significant variation may occur between this estimate of probable construction costs and
actual construction prices.
B as ed o n d r aw i n g s en t i t l ed "Al t er n at i v e Al i g n m en t Pl an ", d at ed "2/20/2018"
17056_CE_Alt#2.xls
© copyrighted 2016 Callander Associates
Landscape Architecture, Inc.5 of 5
Cost Estimate for Alternate #2
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study232
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 233Appendix
Engineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for Box Culvert for Alternative #2
Date:24-Apr-18
Project #:617052
Project:I-280 Channel trail
Prepared By:DPH
Engineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount
1 Earthwork (subgrade prep)SF 53240 $0.50 $26,620
TOTAL $26,620
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount
2 4'x4' Box Culvert LF 2686 $500.00 $1,343,000
3 8'x5' Box Culvert LF 2532 $1,250.00 $3,165,000
4 10'x6' Box Culvert LF 2224 $1,750.00 $3,892,000
TOTAL $8,400,000
Notes:
EARTHWORK
STORM DRAINAGE
1. This Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs should be used only as a guide. There is no responsibility assumed for
fluctuations in cost or quantity of material, labor or components.
1 of 1
X:\P\617052\(4) ENGINEERING\(1) DOCUMENTS\STUDIES & REPORTS\2018-04-24 I280 Cost Estimate.xlsx
Date:24-Apr-18Project #:617052Project:I-280 Channel trailPrepared By:DPHEngineering Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount
1 Earthwork (subgrade prep)SF 53240 $0.50 $26,620
TOTAL $26,620
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Bid Amount
2 4'x4' Box Culvert LF 2686 $500.00 $1,343,000
3 8'x5' Box Culvert LF 2532 $1,250.00 $3,165,000
4 10'x6' Box Culvert LF 2224 $1,750.00 $3,892,000
TOTAL $8,400,000
Notes:
EARTHWORK
STORM DRAINAGE
1. This Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs should be used only as a guide. There is no responsibility assumed for
fluctuations in cost or quantity of material, labor or components.
1 of 1
X:\P\617052\(4) ENGINEERING\(1) DOCUMENTS\STUDIES & REPORTS\2018-04-24 I280 Cost Estimate.xlsx
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study234Appendix
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 235
Enlargement LegendDe Anza BoulevardInterstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Existing Caltrans
Fence To Remain
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
PG&E Tower To
Remain
PG&E Tower To
Remain
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 14’ Wide
Caltrans Easement
Stairs to Bridge
Over-Crossing, Typ.
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Trailhead Plaza, Typ.
Bridge
Over-Crossing
Traffic Light to
be Relocated
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 14’ Wide
Over Covered Channel
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Utility Box to
be Relocated
Pull Out to
be Removed
Cobra Light
to be
Relocated
Existing Property
Fence, Apple
40
MPH
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Centerline
Culvert
Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to Remain
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study236
this page intentionally left blank
AppendixJunipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 237
Enlargement Legend
0 15’ 30’ 60’
Primary Voltage Overhead
Secondary Voltage Overhead
Drainage Centerline
Culvert
Draft - De Anza Boulevard Intersection Enlargement - Bridge Over-Crossing - PG&E Tower to be Removed
De Anza BoulevardInterstate 2
8
0
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
Intersta
t
e
2
8
0
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Existing Caltrans
Fence To Remain
East Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Class 1 Multi-Use
Trail, 14’ Wide
PG&E Tower To
Remain
Stairs to Bridge
Over-Crossing, Typ.
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Trailhead Plaza, Typ.
Bridge
Over-Crossing
Class 1 Multi-Use Trail, 16’ Wide
Over Covered
Existing SCVWD Fence To
Remain
West Trail Spur,
10’ Wide
Bridge Approach
Ramp, <5%
Relocated PG&E
Tower
PG&E Tower To
Be Removed
Existing Property
Fence, Apple
40
MPH
Appendix Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study238
this page intentionally left blank
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 239Appendix
City of Sunnyvale Comments
November 12, 2018
Jennifer Chu, Associate Civil Engineer
City of Cupertino
Public Works
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Comments for the Draft Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
Dear Jennifer:
Thank you for allowing the City of Sunnyvale to review and provide comments for
the Draft Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study in the City of Cupertino. Comments
concerning the draft feasibility study are as follows:
1. On pages 15 and 17, the City Limits symbol shown on the legend do not
match the City Limits show on the figures.
We truly appreciate your consideration of our comments in this matter. Please
keep us up-to-date on any trail development. You can reach me by email at
ltsang@sunnyvale.ca.gov or by phone at 408-730-7556.
Sincerely,
Lillian Tsang, P.E.
Principal Transportation Engineer
Division of Transportation and Traffic
Department of Public Work
Cc: Shahid Abbas, Transportation and Traffic Manager
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study240Appendix
Caltrans Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 241Appendix
Caltrans Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study242Appendix
Caltrans Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 243Appendix
Caltrans Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study244Appendix
SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 245Appendix
SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study246Appendix
SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 247Appendix
SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study248Appendix
December 18, 2018
Ms. Lillian Tsang, P.E.
Principal Transportation Engineer
City of Sunnyvale, Public Works
456 W Olive Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
Response Letter to City of Sunnyvale 11/12/18 Comments
Dear Ms. Tsang,
The City of Cupertino would like to thank City of Sunnyvale staff for their participation
in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and guidance provided
throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. We look forward
to continuing to work with Sunnyvale as this project moves forward.
Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address Sunnyvale
comments which were received on November 12, 2018. The City has provided the
following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made.
Sunnyvale comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics.
1)On Pages 15 and 17, the City Limits symbol shown on the legend do not match the
City Limits shown on the figures.
The City Limits have been revised to match.
Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chu, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
Reponse to City of Sunnyvale Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 249Appendix
Reponse to City of Sunnyvale Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 2
cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman
City of Sunnyvale – Shahid Abbas
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study250Appendix
Reponse to Caltrans Comments
December 18, 2018
Mr. Sergio Ruiz
Pedestrian & Bicycle Coordinator, Branch Chief
Caltrans District 4
111 Grand Ave
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
Response Letter to Caltrans 11/13/18 Comments
Dear Mr. Ruiz,
The City of Cupertino would like to thank Caltrans District 4 staff for their participation
in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and guidance provided
throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study. We look forward
to continuing to work with Caltrans as this project moves forward.
Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address Caltrans
comments which were received on November 13, 2018. The City has provided the
following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made.
Caltrans comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics.
1)What signal timing and phasing was set up in the model? Were demand volumes
inputted into the traffic operations analysis model or are intersection output counts
being used only? Traffic models require demand volumes as input. This area looks
pretty congested so intersection output counts may not give you the true demand that
is trying to use this intersection and the delay and LOS could be worse than what is
being stated here. In addition, include the 95th percentile queuing results for existing
and with project conditions in the report. If adjacent intersection operations or ramp
meters are affecting the traffic flow at this intersection, then this would also need to
be captured as a system analysis using the SimTraffic software model in order to
reflect the true operations of this intersection.
The preliminary traffic evaluation referenced in the feasibility study was performed
utilizing traffic signal timing measured during on-site observations during the
morning and afternoon peak periods. Volumes utilized for this effort were
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 251Appendix
Reponse to Caltrans Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 2
intersection output counts and only the study intersection was included for the
purpose of evaluating high-level feasibility for an at-grade crossing solution where
the proposed trail intersects De Anza Blvd.
City staff is anticipating to seek City Council approval of the study in February 2019.
Should City Council decide to approve the study and fund the engineering design of
the trail to include an at-grade crossing solution at De Anza Blvd, then the City
understands that design, and ultimately implementation, of geometric modifications
would require the completion of traffic operations analyses scoped in coordination
with Caltrans staff.
Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chu, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study252Appendix
Reponse to SCVWD Comments
December 18, 2018
Ms. Yvonne Arroyo
Associate Engineer, Community Projects Review Unit
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Re: Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
Response Letter to SCVWD 11/26/18 Comments
Dear Ms. Arroyo,
The City of Cupertino would like to thank Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) staff
for their participation in the project’s Technical Advisory Committee and the time and
guidance provided throughout the preparation of the Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility
Study. We look forward to continuing to work with the District as this project moves
forward.
Prior to final adoption of the study, the City understands we need to address the District
comments which were received on November 26, 2018. The City has provided the
following responses to these comments noting where revisions to the study will be made.
District comments are reiterated below followed by City responses in bold italics.
1)Page 1, “Executive Summary”: The executive summary states that Alternative #2 is the
preferred alternative. Alternative #2 would enclose Junipero Serra Channel in a box
culvert. District staff has preliminarily agreed to this concept if the City accepts all
right of way and maintenance of the facility as part of the City storm drain system
prior to construction of any improvements, subject to approval from the District's
Board of Directors.
This section has been revised as noted.
2)Page 22, "Trail Access": This section states "Direct access to the trail may be desired by
Apple for its employees." For the portion of the trail along Calabazas Creek, public
access should be limited to the trailhead at Vallco Parkway (Figure 3-15) in order that
the District may control public access to the creek during operation and maintenance
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 253Appendix
Reponse to SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 2
activities. Additionally, if Alternative 2 is not chosen, then similar controlled public
access points should be provided along the Junipero Serra Channel.
This section has been revised as noted.
3)Page 23, "CalTrans": This section should also mention that Caltrans reserved ingress-
egress rights over the District's fee title right of way for Junipero Serra Channel when
they transferred the right of way to the District. Caltrans may need to also review and
approve any plans that could affect their ingress-egress rights.
This section has been revised as noted.
4)Page 26, "Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD):" This section should reflect that
the proposed guard rail barrier or fencing along Junipero Serra Channel in Alternative
#1 is not acceptable to the District due to the significant adverse effects on maintenance
operations, rather than just a concern. Other alternatives to address any safety
concerns should be explored.
This section has been revised as noted. City staff is anticipating to seek City Council
approval of the study in February 2019. Should City Council decide to approve the
study and fund the engineering design phase of the trail to include Alternative #1, then
City staff will continue to work with SCVWD staff for alternative edge treatments
for pedestrian protection. For this reason, the guard rails are still shown in all
Alternative #1 graphics.
The discussion on alternative #2 should be revised to reflect that SCVWD staff has
preliminarily agreed to alternative #2 upon the condition that the City of Cupertino
(City) assume full ownership and maintenance of Junipero Serra Channel as part of
the city storm drain system prior to any modifications being implemented. The
transfer of the District's right of way and Junipero Serra Channel to the city is subject
to prior approval by the District's Board of Directors. Additionally, regulatory
approval will be needed from regulatory agencies, including US Army Corps of
Engineers, California State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
This section has been revised as noted.
5)Page 28, "Santa Clara Valley Water District": Please revise the second bullet point to
reflect that the District will not approve physical barriers along Junipero Serra
Channel, rather than it being a preference.
This section has been revised as noted.
6)Page 29, "CalTrans": Caltrans approval may also be required for any changes to the
District's fee title right of way for Junipero Serra Channel where they reserved ingress-
egress easement.
This section has been revised as noted.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study254Appendix
Reponse to SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 3
7)Page 30, Trail Criteria and Standards: This section should include the trail design
standards contained in the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and
the District's Water Resources Protection Manual for portions of the trail on District
right of way.
This section has been revised as noted.
8)Page 40, Pedestrian Trail Alternative #1: Please see comment 4, above, for comments
on Alternative #1.
See response to Comment #4.
9) Page 40, Class I Multi-Use Trail Alternative #2: The text states "SCVWD has indicated
that they do not maintain box culverts and that the City would need to assume
maintenance and responsibility." This sentence should be revised to state
"Maintenance of enclosed culverts or channels is not the District's expertise. If
Alternative #2 is pursued by the city, the District will request that the city accept
ownership and maintenance responsibility prior to project construction." The District
suggests that the text and/or figures include the sizing of the box culvert and describe
the maintenance activities that will be needed.
This section has been revised as noted.
10)Page 40, Figure 4-3: On the portion of Junipero Serra Channel, generally east of Wolfe
Road, where the channel is not proposed to be enclosed as part of Alternative #2, the
District may still not allow guard railing or fencing along the top of bank where it
would reduce the width of our maintenance road unacceptably or inhibit access to the
channel for maintenance operations.
Understood. The proposed guard rails are removed along the trail segment east of
Wolfe Rd.
11) Page 41, Figure 4-4: Please see comment 4, above, for comments on Alternative #1.
See response to Comment #4.
12)Page 51, Figure 4-9: The figure shows a proposed trail connection to the Junipero Serra
Channel "within existing roadway easement." The alignment of the trail connection
appears to be very similar to the alignment of a road easement the District previously
quitclaimed in 1975 in exchange for a new ingress-egress easement through assessor
parcel number 326-06-050. If the City has its own road easement at this location, then
there is no issue. However, if the roadway easement is referring to our prior easement,
then the trail connection will need to be redesigned or new right of way will need to
be acquired by the City.
Cupertino Loc-N-Stor (APN 326-06-050) is proposing to improve their property and
has submitted preliminary plans for City review. This section has been revised to
clarify that any improvements made to the Cupertino Loc-N-Stor property will not
preclude trail development.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 255Appendix
Reponse to SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 4
13)Page 72, Figure 4-29, Alternative 1: Please see comment 4, above, for comments on
Alternative #1.
See response to Comment #4.
14)Page 77, Segment 3-Vallco to Vallco Parkway: This section runs along Junipero Serra
Channel from Wolfe Road to the Calabazas Creek confluence and then along the west
bank of Calabazas Creek to Vallco Parkway. There is only one proposed alternative in
this section due to the maintenance access road width of 14 feet or greater. The
proposed channel and creek are to remain as is, but there are still fences or guard rails
proposed along the bank in areas where the bank is steeper than 3:1 slope. Comment
4, above, is still applicable for the area along Junipero Serra Channel. The District's as-
builts for Calabazas Creek show the bank was constructed at 3:1 between Highway
280 and Vallco Parkway, so the study should be revised to reflect this condition and
remove reference to fencing. Additionally, District studies indicate the maintenance
road along Calabazas Creek is below top of bank of the creek and subject to inundation
approximately during 10-year storm events and greater. Improvements to the
Calabazas Creek maintenance road will require approvals from regulatory agencies,
including California State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
This section has been revised as noted and the proposed guard rails are removed from
the graphics shown along the trail segment east of Wolfe Rd.
15)Page 84, Guard Rail Adjacent to Open Ditch: Again, please see comment 4 and 14 for
comments regarding fencing and/or guard rails adjacent to Junipero Serra Channel or
Calabazas Creek.
See response to Comment #4 and #14.
16)Page 87, Summary Recommendations: This section states that a joint use agreement is
only necessary if SCVWD retains ownership. This appears to be a reference to
Alternative 2. However, even Alternative 2 includes a portion of Junipero Serra
Channel and Calabazas Creek which will not be placed in a culvert and is assumed to
be retained by the District (please clarify if that is not the City's understanding).
Therefore, in any alternative, a joint use agreement with the District will be necessary.
The City is in agreement with this understanding. This section has been revised to
specify a joint use agreement with the District will be necessary in any alternative.
17)Page 97, TAC Meeting #1 Summary, Item 5: The District would like to clarify that the
loss of access at Wolfe Road was due to the installation of a concrete guard rail, not a
fallen tree.
The meeting summary has been revised as noted.
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study256Appendix
Reponse to SCVWD Comments
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study
December 18, 2018
Page 5
Thank you again for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please feel free
to contact me directly at (408) 777-3237.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chu, P.E.
Associate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
cc: City of Cupertino – Timm Borden, David Stillman
SCVWD – Usha Chatwani, Devin Mody, Cody Houston, Jennifer Codianne,
Chad Grande
Junipero Serra Trail Feasibility Study 257Appendix
this page intentionally left blank