Loading...
Written Communications (updated 9-19-19)CC 9-17-19 Item #9 Regnart Creek Trail Written Communications Updated attachments for agenda item #9 Regnart Creek Trail : •Updated Staff Report with redlines •G - Updated Alternative Scenario Cost Comparison •H - Updated Draft Resolution with redlines •I – Updated Items that Remain in Progress with Valley Water PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT  Meeting: September 17, 2019  Subject  Receive information report and presentation on Regnart Creek Trail 65% design and  revised estimated costs; consideration of various trail improvement options (some of  which also include on‐street bicycle improvements) and alternative trail alignments to  the proposed trail (on‐street Alternatives 4 and 5); and, if design of the proposed trail  continues, consider an increase to the design and environmental budget.  Recommended Actions  Receive information report and presentation on Regnart Creek Trail 65% design and  revised estimated costs; trail improvement options, and Alternatives 4 and 5 to the  proposed trail; and if Council continues to move forward with design of the proposed  trail:  1.Provide direction to staff regarding completion of design with a preferred trail improvement option A, B, C, D, or E, or F; and 2.Adopt draft Resolution 19‐XXX amending the FY 2019/20 Capital Improvement Program budget to increase the budget to perform design and environmental clearance services from $538,000 to $813,000. Background  The Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan (Bike Plan) was adopted by the City Council  in 2016. Similarly, the Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Ped Plan) was  adopted by City Council in 2018. Within these Plans the Regnart Creek Trail (Project),  which is ranked as a Tier 2 priority project in the Bike Plan and a Tier 1 project in the  Ped Plan, was identified as a vital connector of the neighborhood to local destinations in  the vicinity of the creek, including the Cupertino Library and Civic Center, Wilson Park,  and Creekside Park. The Project was also recognized in the Plans as a critical link for  schoolchildren on their route to school and to access the above destinations. The City  Council authorized the funding of the Regnart Creek Trail feasibility study during the  FY16/17 budget process with the feasibility study commencing in September 2017 and  adopted by City Council in August 2018.  Included in the action of the City Council in  August 2018 was the authorization to proceed with design and environmental  clearance. The below flowchart illustrates the timeline for the Project.   (this area intentional left blank)  Current Status of Project  As the Project has progressed through the design phase, additional information has  been collected from resident input, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water),  and physical inspections at the site. As a result, City staff’s understanding of Project  attributes and constraints has grown. During this process, it has remained feasible to  build the Project as a multi‐use path. Attachment A is letter from Valley Water dated  September 6, 2019 indicating that the Project meets their standards. Attachment I  documents the items that remain in progress with Valley Water. Estimated costs have  also increased, and the reasons are described in detail within the Discussion section,  below.   City staff, with the assistance of the consulting engineer (HMH Engineers) have reached  an approximate 65% design level for the Project. Reaching this 65% design milestone  has been the result of a focused effort of working through design challenges, as well as  ongoing community and stakeholder engagement. Reporting to the City Council the  status of a project at 65% is not typical, as design normally proceeds to 100% prior to  reporting to Council. The purpose in bringing forward a 65% project design is to detail:  Proposed trail improvements with additional specificity in order to provide more information for residents concerned with the Project. How Valley Water requirements are being incorporated into the Project. How resident requests for privacy considerations are being incorporated into the Project. The City has offered to meet individually with all 84 affected property owners and has  conducted 42 such meetings to date. Many property owners have declined to meet with  staff to discuss how the City may mediate and incorporate privacy concerns into the  Project. Instead, some property owners have demonstrated interest in stopping the  Project in lieu of discussion with the City. This has prevented the City staff from being  able to detail how privacy considerations are being incorporated into the Project for all  adjacent properties.  In April 2019, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) passed a motion to oppose the  on‐street improvement Alternate 4.  The context of this action was that the Regnart  Creek Trail Alignment was preferred over Alternate 4 in the feasibility study. The BPC  did not separately consider Alternative 5. Alternate 4 proposes to use Pacifica Drive,  Blaney Avenue, and La Mar Drive as a bikeway connection between the Civic Center  area and Creekside Park. In June 2019, the BPC passed a motion that the BPC wanted to  see the 65% design before it went to City Council. Staff did attempt to call a special  meeting of the BPC last week for this purpose. Neither the chair nor a majority of the  BPC Commissioners wanted a special meeting. Consequently, the BPC has not  reviewed or made any additional recommendations regarding the design options being  considered in this report.   Community Outreach and Engagement  The City has engaged in a robust community outreach and engagement during the  initial design phase of the Project. This included community meetings on:  December 20, 2018 April 24, 2019 March 30, 2019. (“Walkshop” along the trail and along Alternative 4) In order to reach as many residents and community members as possible, outreach  events were announced through several channels online and through postcard  mailings. Information about the events was shared through social media on NextDoor,  Twitter, and Facebook. Additional outreach included emails to subscribers of the City’s  “Regnart Creek Trail” e‐notifications, emails to participants from previous outreach  events, flyer postings, notifications from Cupertino Safe Routes to Schools group, and  the posting of door hangers on residences adjacent to the proposed trail. Staff  maintained an active online presence by posting outreach materials, meeting  presentations, and outreach summaries following each event on the City’s Project  website.  As described above, the City attempted to meet with all households adjacent to the trail  alignment and was successful in meeting with half of these households between March  18 and April 12, 2019. During these meetings, residents were able to express their  individual concerns, and to ask questions about the Project. Feedback received at the  meetings was documented and used to inform many design decisions made to date.  This feedback is included as Attachment B.   Discussion  If constructed, the Project would begin on the north side of Pacifica Drive from Torre  Avenue and then proceed east to Regnart Creek. From this point the trail would follow  the existing creek alignment between Pacifica Drive and E. Estates Drive, where it  would connect to the existing Creekside Trail into Creekside Park. See Attachment C for  trail alignment. Near Pacifica Drive, a separate and fully‐funded McClellan Road  Separated Bike Lane project terminates near Torre Avenue on the east and Monta Vista  High School to the west. This McClellan Road Separated Bike Lane project is currently  under construction and is scheduled for completion by the summer of 2022.     The Project would include two roadway crossings, at S. Blaney Avenue and at E. Estates  Drive. The alignment is primarily within the Valley Water right‐of‐way and would use  the existing Valley Water maintenance/access road along most of its length. The 65%  design plans are included as Attachment C.    The feasibility study and community outreach efforts identified many key issues and  concerns to be further worked out during completion of Project design. These issues  include:     Concerns from adjacent property owners regarding privacy, security and noise   Maintaining Valley Water access requirements for creek maintenance and  erosion control   Trail user safety, both along the trail and at the street crossings   Construction and ongoing maintenance costs   Liability, for the City and for adjacent property owners   Adherence to published guidelines and standards for trail design    Each of these issues will be discussed further in turn, below.    Privacy, Security and Noise  The City has been working closely with the property owners adjacent to the creek in  order to understand and attempt to address concerns regarding privacy, security and  noise. The concerns primarily include vandalism, burglary, disturbing of peace,  personal safety, and damage to property (fencing). While experience countywide with  properties adjacent to trails indicates that these properties are no more susceptible to  these problems than properties not adjacent to trails, City staff acknowledges the  concerns and have proposed measures to help address them. These include replacement  of backyard fencing with more robust or taller wooden fencing, replacement of  backyard fencing with a concrete block wall, installation of security cameras, sheriff  monitoring, and closure of the trail at night.  In discussions with property owners, the reactions to these measures have varied.  While several property owners have expressed interest in new fencing, many have not  and would prefer no changes to their backyard setting. To accommodate these  differences, staff recommends that existing wood fences be replaced when requested by  the property owner. The cost to replace existing 7’ tall fencing is approximately  $50/linear foot for wooden fencing and $500/linear foot for a concrete block wall. It is  staff’s opinion that wooden fencing is sufficient and provides for a more context‐ sensitive solution than a concrete block wall; additionally, a concrete block wall would  likely encroach further into private property due to its increased thickness. However,  either solution is feasible. An approximate upper limit to the cost to replace fencing is  $130,000 for wooden fencing and $1,300,000 for a concrete block wall, if all fencing  abutting the trail is replaced. These costs would be substantially higher if all fences  along both sides of the creek are replaced. For the construction cost estimate  accompanying the 65% design, it was assumed that 2,600 linear feet of wood fence  would be replaced at a cost of $130,000. All options presented in Attachment G assume  that 2,600 linear feet of fencing will be replaced.   The 400‐foot‐long segment of existing public‐use trail fronting properties along Lozano  Lane and De Palma Lane within Valley Water property presents a unique situation (see  below photo). Along this segment, the trail runs in very close proximity to the front  yards and front doors of several private residences, with no screening currently  separating the two.     Options for screening along this segment are limited due to Valley Water requirements  that no permanent structures, trees, or other plantings be placed within their property.  City staff has attempted to work closely with the residents along this segment to  address concerns of privacy and security, and has a goal in having solutions identified  prior to 100% design completion. Some solutions for the Lozano Lane properties  potentially include removal and replacement of existing fencing with fencing that  provides more privacy and/or removable privacy fencing, street furniture or planter  boxes on Valley Water property. For the trail segment fronting properties along De  Palma Lane, where there is the additional consideration of the shared space between the  trail and the private driveway, potential solutions include separating the trail from the  private driveway with raised pavement markers, and/or reconstructing the driveway  and replacing it with a textured pavement shared space area (similar to the “Woonerf”  concept in Europe) where bicyclists and vehicles are encouraged to proceed cautiously.  All options presented in Attachment G provide up to $40,000 for these potential  improvements.    With respect to security along the trail, experience countywide with trails has not  shown the need for security cameras. However, cameras could be wired closed‐circuit  to an archived recording system that could be accessed in the event of an incident. With  the installation of security cameras, signs indicating the presence of cameras would also  be placed at trail entrances. The cost to install a network of security cameras depends  heavily upon many factors, including the source of power, ability or desirability to  transmit wirelessly, and number of cameras. A very approximate cost estimate for  installation of a complete system is $300,000. Installation of cameras is not  recommended and no costs for cameras has been included in the cost of any options  shown in Attachment G. The Sheriff’s Department has indicated that they would patrol  the trail regularly, including during the night hours. They also have bicycle patrols that  would be used for this purpose.    Public trails in the region are typically closed from dusk to dawn, through signage and  monitoring. Gates at trail entrances are generally not closed and locked nightly. Doing  so is resource‐intensive, as the trail would need to be surveyed each evening prior to  closure to ensure that no trail users would be inadvertently trapped behind the closure.  In the event that City Council desires to have trail gates locked at night, the ongoing  operational cost to lock gates at the trail entrances each evening is approximately  $54,000 annually. Closure of gates at trail entrances is not recommended due to the  additional operational cost.    Installation of security cameras and the addition of an activity to close gates could be  implemented following opening of the trail if the need or desire surfaces, however,  some disruption to trail use would occur due to the need to install conduits for video  cable.     Valley Water Access and Maintenance  City staff has had several meetings with Valley Water staff in order to understand their  requirements for creek access for the purposes of regular maintenance and erosion  control. Valley Water’s general requirements are:     Maintain 12‐foot clear width everywhere for maintenance vehicle access;   Any railing must be removable in order to allow easy access to creek banks;    Maintenance vehicles must be able to access the creek bed throughout;    Valley Water reserves the right to close the trail at any time for maintenance or  other needs: and    A Joint Use Agreement must be executed between Valley Water and the City in  order to clearly delineate respective responsibilities.   The 65% design includes a design for a removable railing between the creek and the  trail at the top of bank that maintains the required 12‐foot clearance throughout the  trail. The railing is proposed to consist of wooden split rails supported by steel posts  which are inserted into steel sleeves imbedded in the ground near the top of bank. In  addition, the proposed bridge between the trail and Wilson Park will be removable, so  that Valley Water trucks will be able to drive unimpeded along the creek bed during the  infrequent times that this is necessary. The bridge will consist of prefabricated steel and  have a 12‐foot clear width. The Joint Use Agreement that will be negotiated with Valley  Water and considered for authorization by the City Council will clearly delineate the  City’s and Valley Water’s responsibilities relating to trail closures, and a detour plan  would be worked out in advance to ensure trail users have sufficient notice (unless the  trail is closed for emergency purposes) and alternate routes available to them.   Given that Valley Water’s requirements have been met, they have no opposition to the  Project and will enter into a Joint Use Agreement with the City, to be executed at a later  date prior to construction.  Trail User Safety  Creekside trails throughout the region are varied with respect to the inclusion of railing  separating the trail from the creek bank. While Valley Water would generally prefer  that railing not be installed due to the potential impact on maintenance operations, as  stated previously they will accept railing if it can be removed and if it does not restrict  access. During community outreach events, there was nearly unanimous support for  railing in order to enhance trail user safety. As a result, options A ‐E & B design (as  shown in Attachment G) includes the provision for removable railing, meeting Valley  Water’s requirements, throughout the extent of the trail. Option C & D includes the  provision for removable railings at trailheads and along the top of bank from Blaney  Avenue to E. Estates DriveF. Option E, which is not recommended by staff, only  provides railings at trail head locations.   The trail street crossings at Blaney Avenue and E. Estates Drive are being designed for  pedestrian crossing safety using best current design practices. At Blaney Avenue, the  crossing will consist of three‐foot‐wide bulb‐outs on each side of the street, reducing the  total crossing distance to 30 feet, along with pedestrian‐actuated rectangular rapid  flashing beacons (RRFB’s) to warn drivers. Where trail users exit onto Blaney Avenue, a  mild chicane treatment will be included in order to discourage bicyclists from riding  directly into the street. The trail crossing at E. Estates Drive will also consist of bulb‐outs  and RRFB’s; and since E. Estates Drive is a lower‐volume residential street, a raised  crosswalk will also be provided. All options presented in Attachment G provide these  street crossing treatments. Attachment D provides a drawing of a proposed intersection  crossing.  For option A & B, the multi‐use trail will be, at a minimum, eight‐foot paved with two‐ foot earth shoulders on each side. For options C ‐ FE, the trail footpath will be, at a  minimum, eight‐foot decomposed granite with two‐foot earth shoulders on each side.  Where width allows, most notably along the reach between Pacifica Drive and  Rodrigues Avenue, a 10‐foot paved width will be provided with two‐foot earth  shoulders on each side (option A & B) or a 10‐foot decomposed granite path with two‐ foot earth shoulders (option C ‐ FE). Some members of the community have expressed  concern about the perceived narrowness of the trail. However, although not required,  the trail meets Caltrans Class I standards, and it is consistent with (and even wider than  some) successful and popular shared‐use trails countywide. Exhibit F highlights the  widths of several existing popular bicycle/pedestrian trails throughout the County. The  exception to this is the segment fronting properties along De Palma Lane and Lozano  Lane, where a utility pole creates a pinch point, reducing the width to 10.5 feet. This  area will be highlighted with warning signs and striping. Emergency vehicles will be  able to access all points along the trail.    Construction and Ongoing Maintenance Costs  The current construction estimate for the trail including contingencies is:     Option A ‐ $5,000,0004,800,000   Option B ‐ $3,400,0003,200,000   Option C ‐ $2,800,000   Option D ‐ $2,200,0002,100,000   Option E ‐ $2,000,0001,800,000  Option F ‐ $1,600,000    See Attachment G for options A ‐ F E construction cost estimates. The cost increase of  $2.9M 7M or 138% from the previous estimate of $2.1M for option A are as a result of  several factors:     Trench drain and drainage items (=$250,000): A trench drain was added along  the entirety of the creekside portions of the corridor to address Valley Water’s  concerns of capturing additional runoff in the event the porous pavement  becomes clogged.   Removable split rail fence with steel posts (=$300,000): With the results of the  geotechnical report, detailed topographic survey, and clear guidance regarding  maintenance widths, it has been determined that in order to meet various  requirements and achieve a sufficient soil passive pressure for horizontal railing  loading, a narrow and deep foundation concept is necessary. This feature is more  costly than traditional railing foundations. Additionally, a greater length of  railings has been assumed for the 65% plans   Water pollution control (=$150,000): This is an additional item in anticipation of  additional requirements from Valley Water regarding protection of the creek  during construction.   Valley Water ramp relocation (=$370,000): Relocation of Valley Water  maintenance ramps to the north side of the creek, and associated environmental  permitting, to avoid Wilson Park baseball field impacts resulting from the  originally proposed western bridge location.  Additional required detailing of bridge abutments due to constrained condition (=$120,000) Roadway improvement additional required detailing (=$100,000) General escalation of costs over the past couple years (=$1,4610,000) Opportunities to value engineer the project between 65% design and 100% design to  reduce costs include:  Reduction in width of bridge from 12’ to 10’. Estimated savings $20,000 Elimination of trench drain. Estimated savings: $250,000 Conversion of trench drain to valley gutter. Estimated savings: $100,000 Reduction in extent of top‐of‐bank railing. Estimated savings: $100/linear foot Reduction in privacy fence replacement. Estimated savings: $50/linear foot Additionally, staff considered several reduced‐scope options. A summary table of these  alternative options is shown in Exhibit G and summarized below:  Option A: This is a highest‐cost scenario option and consists of full grading and drainage improvements along with an aggregate base and asphalt pavement for the entire trail surface. Railings would be provided along the top‐of‐bank throughout. 2,600 linear feet of concrete block wall privacy fencing replacement is assumed. Option B: This is similar to Option A, except 2,600 linear feet of wooden fencing, rather than concrete block wall fencing, is assumed. Option C: This option would construct full grading and drainage improvements along with an aggregate base for the trail surface to allow for possible future asphalt improvements. The final surface would be decomposed granite. Railings would be provided along the top‐of‐bank at trailheads and along the segment between Blaney Avenue and E. Estates Drive. 2,600 linear feet of wooden privacy fencing replacement is assumed. “Alternate 4” on‐street bikeway improvements would also be constructed. Option D: This option would consist of only minor grading and drainage improvements, along with an aggregate base for the trail surface to allow for possible future asphalt improvements. The final surface would be decomposed granite. Railings would be provided along the top‐of‐bank at trailheads and along the segment between Blaney Avenue and E. Estates Drive. 2,600 linear feet of wooden privacy fencing replacement is assumed. “Alternate 4” on‐street bikeway improvements would also be constructed. Option E: This option would consist of only minor grading and drainage improvements, along with an aggregate base for the trail surface to allow for possible future asphalt improvements. The final surface would be decomposed granite. Railings would be provided along the top‐of‐bank at trailheads and along the segment between Blaney Avenue and E. Estates Drive. 2,600 linear feet of wooden privacy fencing replacement is assumed. “Alternate 4” on‐street  bikeway improvements would also be constructed.  Option FE: This option would consist of only minor grading and drainage improvements, along with an aggregate base for the trail surface to allow for possible future asphalt improvements. The final surface would be decomposed granite. Railings would be provided only at trailheads. 2,600 linear feet of wooden privacy fencing replacement is assumed. “Alternate 4” on‐street bikeway improvements would not be constructed. This option is not recommended by staff. All options include full pedestrian crossing safety improvements at Blaney Avenue and  E.Estates Drive and assume that Valley Water access ramps across from Wilson Park will be relocated to the north side of the creek. No new staff is required, however ongoing maintenance is expected to cost  approximately $15,000 to $20,000 annually for a decomposed granite trail surface,  $10,000 to $15,000 for an asphalt trail surface, and $20,000 every three years for railing  removal and re‐installation to accommodate Valley Water maintenance activities if  railing is provided along the entire trail.  Liability  Government Code § 831.4 provides that public entities are not responsible for injuries  caused by a condition of any unpaved road which provides access to fishing, hunting,  camping, hiking, riding (animal and vehicular), watersports, recreational or scenic areas  or any trail (paved or unpaved) used for these purposes. The law also protects private  property owners who deed public easements (access rights) to municipalities for those  same recreational purposes. California courts interpret the immunity provided by  Section 831.4 broadly, encompassing paved and unpaved trails and roads, even  sidewalks and paths that are used for a recreational purpose, including hiking, biking,  skating, etc., or used for providing access to another recreational area. The immunity  applies to negligent maintenance, design or the location of trails.  A policy will be written by Public Works to document the responsibilities of the City  regarding the preservation of private fences immediately adjacent to public trails. In  this policy it will state that the City will be responsible for the timely abatement of  graffiti and that the City will make timely repairs to private fencing if the fencing is  damaged by the public or the City. The City will only make repairs if it receives  property owner permission.  Homeowners will be responsible to replace their fences  when they reach end of life.   Adherence to Published Standards and Guidelines  Standards and guidelines covering trail design are addressed in a wide variety of  documents, including the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM), the AASHTO  Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, and the Uniform Interjurisdictional  Trail Design, Use and Management Guidelines (UD) prepared by the Santa Clara  County Parks and Recreation Commission. These documents differ somewhat in their  recommendations, and ultimately it is the project engineer’s discretion to design a safe  and functional facility based upon these recommendations, the current state of the  practice, and the site‐specific conditions.    The two most important design considerations relate to the provision of railing along  the top of the creek bank and the width of the trail. Railing is being proposed along the  entire length of the trail (options A‐E & B) conforming to or exceeding requirements of  all standards and guidelines. For options C & D, railings are proposed along the top‐of‐ bank at trailheads and along the segment between Blaney Avenue and E. Estates Drive.  For option E, railings are proposed only at trailheads A minimum eight‐foot paved trail  with two‐foot earth shoulders (options A & B) or a minimum eight‐foot de‐composed  granite trail with two‐foot earth shoulders (options C ‐ E) is being provided  everywhere, and more where space is available. Although some guidelines, such as the  UD, recommend an optimum width of 12 feet with two‐foot shoulders, the HDM  requires a minimum paved width of eight feet with two‐foot earth shoulders, with  which the Regnart Creek Trail would conform. Additionally, shared‐use trails across  the County frequently have widths that do not meet one or more of these standards,  including the Saratoga Creek Trail, San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, and the Los Gatos  Creek Trail, and all function satisfactorily.    Bridges and Impacts to Wilson Park Baseball Field  The current 65% design plans for the trail includes two bridges between the trail and  Wilson Park. The purpose of the bridges is to provide trailhead access from Wilson Park  and to provide access around an existing concrete Valley Water maintenance access  ramp on the south side of the creek immediately adjacent to Wilson Park. Staff is now  proposing that the existing ramp be moved to the north side of the creek. Relocation of  the ramp does require environmental regulatory permits. The estimated additional cost  in relocating the ramp, engineering, and the additional environmental compliance is  $370,000, with a 12‐18‐month project delay. The bridge will be removable in order to  allow Valley Water access to the creek bed with their maintenance vehicles.     There are several long‐term advantages to this approach, which include eliminating the  cost and impacts of a second bridge, facilitating Valley Water creek access and  maintenance, maintaining a trail alignment along the creek without the need to detour  through Wilson Park, reducing the frequency of bridge removal for Valley Water  maintenance, and eliminating the need to close the trail when the bridge is removed.  Cost estimates for all options (as shown in Attachment G) being currently considered by  City Council assume this approach is taken. Moving forward to 100% design plans, the  65% design will be modified to incorporate this change.     Alternatives to the Proposed Regnart Creek Trail  The Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study identified four alternatives to the creekside  trail alignment. The most popular of these among residents adjacent to the Project,  identified as “Alternative 4”, is an exclusively on‐street alternative that proposes to use  Pacifica Drive, Blaney Avenue, and La Mar Drive as a bikeway connection between the  Civic Center area and Creekside Park. These streets were chosen as an alternate to the  trail without regard to whether they had been identified for improvement within the  Bicycle Transportation Plan, rather they were chosen for their roughly parallel  alignment to the trail and their ability to provide a similar connection. Other  alternatives include a mix of on‐ and off‐street alignments which use portions of Wilson  Park and the creek maintenance road.  Alternative 4 proposes a Class III bikeway (bicycle boulevard) along La Mar Drive, and  a Class III or Class II (striped bike lane) treatment along Pacifica Drive, subject to  further analysis. There would also be an enhanced crossing of Blaney Avenue at  Pacifica Drive (for eastbound bicyclists) and at La Mar Drive (for westbound bicyclists).  There would be no direct access to Wilson Park.  As the most popular of the non‐creekside trail alternatives, staff reviewed the  advantages and disadvantages of Alternative 4. The advantages include (1) lower cost;  (2)potentially lower impact to adjacent residences; and (3) quicker implementation. The disadvantages include (1) decreased level of safety and encouragement for bicyclists; (2) little advantage for pedestrians; (3) one additional crossing of Blaney Avenue; and (4) inconsistency with goals of the Bicycle Transportation Plan. It should be noted that this inconsistency exists only if Alternative 4 is improved in lieu of the creekside trail, since Policy 2.A.2 of the Bicycle Transportation Plan states, “Identify opportunities to reduce bicyclist exposure by …providing dedicated and separated facilities where feasible,” and a creekside trail is feasible in this case.  Improvements to the streets identified with Alternative 4, if done in conjunction with a creekside trail, would not violate Bicycle Transportation Plan goals.  Based on an initial concept design, the estimated cost to design and construct Alternative 4 is $530,000, including contingencies. This could be constructed for significantly less cost if pop‐up‐type bollards are used to delineate the bulb‐outs, rather than reconstructing the curb with permanent concrete improvements. In this case, the work could be completed for an estimated $175,000. Similarly, there was some interest expressed for “Alternative 5” from the feasibility  study. Alternative 5 proposes to use the existing Class II bike lanes on Rodrigues  Avenue, and on‐street bike route along Parkside Lane and Vicksburg Drive, and a path  through Wilson Park to connect Parkside Lane with Vicksburg Drive. Similar to  Alternative 4, these streets were also chosen for their ability to provide a similar  connection as the trail and without regard to their inclusion within the Bicycle  Transportation Plan.  The advantages of Alternative 5 include (1) lower cost; (2)  potentially lower impact to adjacent residences; and (3) faster implementation. The  disadvantages include (1) decreased level of safety and encouragement for bicyclists; (2)  no advantage for pedestrians; (3) inconsistency with the goals of the Bicycle  Transportation Plan (if improved without creekside trail improvements, similar to the  Alternative 4 discussion above); and (4) difficulty safely navigating bicyclists through  the often‐crowded Wilson Park parking lot and along the Wilson Park trails. Of these  disadvantages, the first and fourth are of particularly significant concern. Rodrigues  Avenue is a curving, two‐lane roadway with high‐turnover on‐street parking, many  high‐use driveways and only part‐time bike lanes along the eastern segment on the  south side. Additionally, the Wilson Park parking lot and Parkside Lane area become  very congested during scheduled sporting events at the park, making navigating the  area on bike very challenging. For these reasons, staff does not recommend any further  consideration of Alternative 5. The estimated cost to design and construct Alternative 5  is $50,000‐$250,000. The wide range in costs is due largely to the uncertainty regarding  whether the existing paths through Wilson Park will be widened to Class I standards in  order to accommodate the increased shared bicycle‐pedestrian use. The existing path is  approximately 7.5’ wide with no shoulders and is likely inadequate for this increased  usage.  Attachment E shows the potential alignment for both Alternates 4 & 5. Staff  recommends that, if the City Council recommends movingproceeds forward with  Option C, D ‐E or DE, that the improvements associated with Alternative 4 be  constructed in addition to the trail improvements. Because Options C, ‐E & D & E  would construct a decomposed granite rather than asphalt trail, it is not intended for  regular bicycle use and a complimentary on‐street facility should be provided for that  purpose.  Similarly, as the proposed trail is closed during night hours, there are merits  to including Alternate 4 improvements to any of the options.    Next Steps  As staff has previous City Council authority to proceed to 100% design, it is staff’s  intention to take input received by the City Council at this meeting to progress towards  a 100% design of the desired option A, B, C, D, or E, or F selected. Although moving the  design to the 100% level could be accomplished within a few months, the regulatory  agency review, approval and mitigation process will likely take anywhere between 9  and 15 months in order to receive final permits. As a result, a return to Council for  approval of 100% design will likely occur Summer or Fall 2020. During this time, staff  will continue to work closely with residents regarding their ongoing concerns and with  Valley Water to draft a Joint Use Agreement, which will be presented to the Valley  Water Board and to the City Council with the 100% design. When the 100% plans are  complete, staff will agendize the item with Council for authority to advertise for a  construction contract and to review required CEQA documents. At this time, staff will  provide an update of estimated costs.   Sustainability Impact  Construction of the Regnart Creek Trail will encourage bicycling and reduce reliance on  the single‐occupancy vehicle and will therefore have a positive impact on sustainability.  The trail is consistent with General Plan: Community Vision 2015‐2040 Policy M‐1.3:  Regional Trail Development, Policy M‐2.3: Connectivity, and Policy M‐5.3: Connections  to Trails.  An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, conforming to the requirements of the  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will be completed. Staff anticipates  commencing the 30‐day public review period after the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative  Declaration is filed with the County Recorder’s Office.  Fiscal Impact  Total budget for Regnart Creek Trail is $538,000 and is included as part of the 2016 Bike  Plan Implementation Project.  Staff is requesting a $275,000 increase in the budget to  $813,000 to complete the design and environmental review of the project.  These  additional dollars are due to many unforeseen complications to this project related to  existing conditions, Valley Water requirements and preparation of engineering  materials to support this 65% design check‐in. To date, $357,790 has been expended on  this project for feasibility and design (excluding staff time). The authorized budget for  feasibility and design was $158,000 and $380,000, respectively. Previously approved but  unspent budget have been carried forward to FY 2019‐20.  No new dollars have been  allocated for this project in the FY19/20 Capital Improvement Budget. If a budget  adjustment is approved it will be funded from the Capital Reserve projected fund  balance for the reserve.  As of FY 2018‐19 the Capital Reserve is estimated to begin the  year with $13.6M in fund balance. In FY 2019‐20 it is estimated based on the amended  budget the reserve will end the year with $12.9M. The $12.9M also includes an  estimated $15M transfer in from the General fund excess unassigned fund balance.  It is  anticipated this transfer would occur as part of the Mid‐Year Financial Report in March  of 2020.  With this adjustment the estimated year end fund balance for the Capital  Reserve would be $12.24625M.  If Council approves continuing with the design of any of the options for this Project,  $1,600800,000 to $5,000,0004,800,000 in additional dollars will be requested and required  in the future to complete construction. This request may be made as early as mid‐year  19/20 or for FY20/21. This request would further deplete the Capital Reserve to between  $10.82564M and $7.82524M.  Grant funding opportunities are available for this project, including through Santa  Clara County’s 2016 Measure B program which allocates $250 million in funding for  bicycle and pedestrian projects through a competitive program countywide.  Staff is  also researching other potential grant funding programs.  If the project does not proceed beyond the 65% design, no additional funding is needed.  _____________________________________  Prepared by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager  Reviewed by: Roger Lee, Director of Public Works  Approved for Submission by: Deborah Feng, City Manager  Attachments:   A – Valley Water letter dated September 6, 2019  B – Community Outreach & Engagement  C – 65% Plans  D – Drawing of a proposed intersection crossing.  E – Alternate 4 and 5 Alignments  F – Popular Trail Widths  G – Alternative Options Cost Comparison  H – Resolution   I – Items that Remain in Progress with Valley Water  Regnart Creek Trail Cost Comparison of Options *All options assume that Valley Water maintenance ramps are relocated to north side of creek and no impact to Wilson Park ballfields **Wood privacy fencing estimated $50/LF. Concrete block wall privacy fencing estimated $500/LF. 2600 linear feet is the approximate length of private fencing adjacent to trail. ***Improvements to home frontages along Lozano Lane and De Palma Lane to be determined through cooperative discussions with affected property owners to replace or alter existing private fencing, estimated cost $40,000. ****On-street bikeway improvements per “Alternative 4” along Pacifica Drive, Blaney Ave and La Mar Drive estimated cost $175,000. Pop-up bollards at crossings. *****Costs include 20% soft cost and 15% contingency allowance Option* A B C D E Multi-use Path Yes Yes No, footpath. AC paving only to make multi-use No, footpath. AC paving, grading and underdrain to make multi-use No, footpath. AC paving, grading and underdrain to make multi-use Roadway Crossings Full Improvement (High-vis X-walk, Bulb-outs, RRFB's) Full Improvement (High-vis X- walk, Bulb-outs, RRFB's) Full Improvement (High-vis X-walk, Bulb-outs, RRFB's) Full Improvement (High-vis X- walk, Bulb-outs, RRFB's) Full Improvement (High-vis X- walk, Bulb-outs, RRFB's) Surface AC pavement on aggregate base, 8’ w/2’ shoulders AC pavement on aggregate base, 8’ w/2’ shoulders 8’ wide decomposed granite w/binder on aggregate base 8’ wide decomposed granite w/binder on aggregate base 8’ wide decomposed granite w/binder on aggregate base Railings Throughout Throughout At trailheads and at Top of Bank from Blaney to East Estates At trailheads and at Top of Bank from Blaney to East Estates Only at trailheads Grading Full Improvement (Graded throughout) Full Improvement (Graded throughout) Full Improvement (Graded throughout) Minor to address localized drainage issues (no underdrain) Minor to address localized drainage issues (no underdrain) Drainage Improvements Full Improvement (Underdrain throughout) Full Improvement (Underdrain throughout) Full Improvement (Underdrain throughout) Minor Minor Privacy Fencing** 2,600’ concrete 2,600’ wood 2,600’ wood 2,600’ wood 2,600’ wood ADA Compliant Yes Yes No No No Lozano/De Palma Area Improvement*** Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes On-street Bikeway Improvements (“Alt. 4”)**** No No Yes Yes No Cost***** $4,800,000 $3,200,000 $2,800,000 $2,100,000 $1,800,000 Attachment G RESOLUTION NO. 19‐XXX  A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE  CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019‐  20 BY APPROPRIATING, TRANSFERRING, AND UNAPPROPRIATING  MONIES FOR SPECIFIC FUNDS  WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government depends  on a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures within  anticipated revenues and available monies; and  WHEREAS, accomplishing City Council directives, projects and programs,  and performing staff duties and responsibilities likewise depends on the monies  available for that purpose; and  WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the balances from the funds  specified in this resolution are adequate to cover the proposed amended  appropriations, and therefore recommends the fund reallocations described herein.  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby  approve the recommended fund reallocations and ratifies the attached amended  appropriations.  PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of  Cupertino this 17th day of September 2019, by the following vote:  Members of the City Council  AYES:  NOES:  ABSENT:  ABSTAIN:  SIGNED:  ________  Steven Scharf, Mayor   City of Cupertino   ________________________   Date  ATTEST: ________________________   Grace Schmidt, City Clerk   ________________________   Date  Resolution No.    Project Original  Budget  Estimated  New  Budget  Increase /  <Decrease>  Outside  Funding  Additional  Required  Regnart Creek  Trail Design and  Environmental  Clearance  $380538,00 0  $813,000 $433275,000 0 $275433,000  Attachment I - Items that Remain in Progress with Valley Water 1)Proposed retaining curb along South Blaney to East Estates Drive recommended to be built along the property line. 2)Valley Water prefers drainage to be sloped away from the creek. 3)A portion of the existing chain link fence along Cupertino Civic Center to Rodrigues Avenue resides within a Valley Water easement. 4)Trailhead features should be designed to accommodate and not impede maintenance vehicle access. 5)Proposed water pollution control measures. 6)Location and structural aspects of the bridge. 7)Bridge replacement and removal plan. 8)Land swap locations to be determined based on the City’s calculation of impacted Valley Water right-of-way area. 9)Proposed improvements if the unpaved trail is implemented. 10)Details of the proposed/relocation of maintenance ramp. 11)Joint use agreement. 12)Potential improvements within Valley Water land at De Palma/Lozano to address impacts to adjacent property owners concerns regarding privacy and security August 19, 2019 Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council Members, The undersigned local environmental organizations have long been concerned about the development of trails along Santa Clara County creeks. Our concerns stem from the inherent conflict between providing access to nature and the intrusion into riparian zones that provide remnant habitat and movement linkages for wildlife. More recently, the use of creekside trails as commute corridors exacerbated the impact on animals, including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, and on native riparian vegetation. In 2017 we sent the attached letter to Valley Water explaining our concerns protecting wildlife habitat and migration corridors as creek-side trails are developed. While we are supportive of providing access for passive recreation in nature, our letter highlighted that not all creek segments are created equal, and some areas must be protected. We requested that Valley Water protect creeks and riparian habitats from excessive trail development and to consider trail connections along streets where such delineation is safe, especially when delineation along streets can also facilitate green infrastructure improvements. Many of the recommendations we provided to the Valley Water are relevant to Cupertino’s Regnart Creek Trail project as follows. •Distance trails development from creek corridors The creek and its setback area are narrow and constricted between fences. Creek corridors like this one, even when degraded, provide connectivity and refuge for wildlife without conflict with human activities. Current maintenance activities are not frequent, but the proposed Regnart Creek Trail would be constructed directly at the top of the bank and impact the habitat that currently provides some value to wildlife, especially for movement through the developed landscape. CC 9/12/19, #9 • Place new trail connections away from narrow and sensitive creek corridors, using city streets instead. Facilitate the enhancement of green storm water infrastructure and urban forest along the streets. There is a feasible, safe and preferable on-street alternative for trail connectivity for this narrow segment of the creek corridor. There is ample room for safe bike routes on surface streets in this area. La Mar Drive, S. Blaney Ave, and Rodrigues Ave can provide a convenient trail connection parallel to Regnart Creek along this segment for a fraction of the cost of the proposed trail on creek bank. These streets are wide enough to incorporate enhanced bike lanes and are already designated as a Safe Route to Schools. Benefits such as traffic calming, carbon capture, stormwater quality improvements, groundwater recharge, and beautifying of streets can be achieved by incorporating green stormwater infrastructure into the design for bike lanes, and including shade trees in the plans. • Minimize the number of new bridges The construction and use of bridges increase the impact of trails on riparian corridor habitat and the need for disruptive maintenance activities. The Regnart Creek Trail project requires two bridges. • Use riparian corridors to enhance riparian forests, wildlife linkages and pollinator corridors This would be a step forward towards the implementation of the Draft Park Master Plan Goal 1, Conservation: o MP1 Protect nature, trees and natural areas in parks and throughout the city to support wildlife, ecological functions and a stronger connection to Cupertino’s natural environment. § 1.B Manage meadows, natural areas, wildlife habitat and creeks within City jurisdiction to maintain and restore ecological health and function. • Foster natural systems by creating pollinator pathways through the city, taking advantage of rights-of-way to create a gridded network of habitat within the urban core of Cupertino. § 1.B Manage meadows, natural areas, wildlife habitat and creeks within City jurisdiction to maintain and restore ecological health and function. • Implement or support work by others to remove invasive species, address bank erosion, enhance habitat value, and improve water quality and flood capacity to enhance the ecological function along Regnart, Calabazas, Heney, Stevens, Permanente and Saratoga Creeks, Junipero Serra Channel, and open space parcels (emphasis added). We understand that City planners are preparing a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. We believe that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared if the City chooses to persist in pursuing efforts to develop the trail, if only for the level of controversy and the many concerns brought up by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (see attached). An EIR would allow analytical consideration of alternatives (including a street delineation) and a complete assessment of the impacts of the design and the activities in and near Regnart creek, by the public and by Valley Water. It would also allow much needed review by pertinent regulatory agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. We strongly urge you to pursue an alternative outside of the creek corridor and, to the largest extent possible, restore the creek riparian ecosystem instead. This would allow Cupertino to provide the community with a sustainable, safe, biologically sensitive and fiscally responsible trail connection. Katja Irvin Conservation Committee Co-Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Shani Kleinhaus Environmental Advocate, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Alice Kaufman Legislative Advocacy Director, Committee for Green Foothills Trish Mulvey Cofounder, CLEAN South Bay Attachments: • Letter from Environmental Groups to the Valley Water, January 2017 • Valley Water letter to the City of Cupertino, August 2018 Santa Clara Valley Chapter January 9, 2017 To: Honorable Chair Barbara Keegan and Santa Clara Valley Water District Directors cc: Sue Tippets, Norma Camacho Re: Item 6.2: Balancing Trails and Recreational Uses of District Creek Side Property with Stream Stewardship and Flood Protection Missions. 16-0877 Overview As human population in Santa Clara Valley has increased, greenways and natural habitats for wildlife have substantially decreased. Desire for recreational access to remaining greenways and open spaces has caused further stress on the diminishing quantity and quality of wildlife habitats and animal corridors. Creek side trails pose an especially strong threat to local wildlife because they degrade vital, rare habitat. Community members are, by and large, unaware that their presence in riparian habitats degrades the very asset they value - nature. Riparian wildlife corridors are becoming bike commuter corridors. Furthermore, trail users feed wildlife and feral animals along creeks, exacerbating the conflicts with native wildlife. With an extensive trail system already in place along most Valley creeks, there is now intense pressure to connect trail segments by installing trails where the remaining riparian space is too narrow to allow sensible development. Trail installation in these areas could require paving the creek bank, squeezing a trail at the top of the bank or even cantilevering the trail over the creek. We are concerned about biological impacts from these projects. As specified in Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, "a biological resource assessment will be required for trail routes along streams or creeks." We ask for a public comment period and biological assessments on all new trail proposals along creeks. Building trails along every reach of our county creeks is not compatible with the District's stream stewardship goal to maintain and improve riparian habitats. We support Staff recommendations and urge District leadership to:  Uphold the District's responsibility for stream stewardship as higher priority when considering new trail projects  Protect creeks and riparian habitats from excessive trail development  Minimize the number of new bridges ▪ Advocate for trail alignment outside riparian corridors, not below the top-of-the banks, and not cantilevered over creeks ▪ Limit trails and other development to only one side of a creek ▪ Identify and designate “no trail” habitats as vital refugia ▪ Prohibit lighting of trails along creek corridors ▪ Prohibit night use of trails along creek corridors ▪ Work with municipalities to prevent feeding of wildlife and feral animals along creek corridors ▪ Encourage municipalities to place new trail connectivity away from narrow and highly sensitive creek corridors, using city streets instead ▪ Continue to educate creek trail users and municipalities on the impacts of human activity on biodiversity and species survival ▪ Provide biological assessments to the public before planning and construction of trails and bridges, as required in Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams ▪ Develop and promote clear policy for trail connectivity based on staff recommendations and inputs from stakeholders Discussion & Conclusions Numerous studies document the negative impacts from the presence and activities of humans on riparian and upland habitats – species abundance, diversity, foraging and nesting opportunities, and predation patterns are all adversely affected. Lighting, commuter cyclists, and increased human presence all negatively impact the ecological value in riparian zones. Climate change ecologists emphasize the importance of maintaining functional habitat linkages for species survival; in Santa Clara Valley these linkages occur primarily along riparian corridors.  Riparian systems are one of the rarest habitat types in North America. About 80% of all animals use riparian resources and habitats at some life stage, and more than 50% of breeding birds nest chiefly in riparian habitats (Krueper 1992).  Riparian systems, because they provide connectivity between habitats and across elevational zones, will be especially important to allow species to respond and adapt to climate change (Seavy et al. 2009).  Hiking and bicycling trails correlated with a five-fold decline in the density of native carnivores and a substantial increase in nonnative carnivore species (Reed & Merenlender, 2008).  A related study suggested that bobcats, in particular, were displaced by the disturbance caused by bikers and hikers (George & Crooks, 2006).  In a survey of birds in the riparian woodlands of Santa Clara County, it was determined that the number of bird species in a riparian area increased with the distance to the nearest buildings and with the width of undisturbed riparian habitat (Rottenborn, 1995).  Additional studies provided on request (over 25 studies available) In the past decades, creek side trails were built in riparian habitats along and over almost every creek in the county. Federally endangered steelhead trout, shy bird species, plants and other animals are at increased risk due to human activity in riparian open space. Standard mitigation measures, such as installation of permeable concrete trails, strategic fencing, and planting native plants, have not adequately compensated for the devastating influence of human activity on wildlife. To truly balance access to trails with wildlife and nature, we must allow the possibility of distancing human activity from creeks and allow some creek sections to exist without trail connections. Sincerely, Kit Gordon Sierra Club Joanne McFarlin Senior Ecologist, Grassroots Ecology Shani Kleinhaus Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Trish Mulvey CLEAN South Bay Alice Kaufman Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills Eileen McLaughlin Board Member, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Linda Ruthruff Conservation Chair, California Native Plant Society, Santa Clara Valley Chapter ITEM #9 REGNART CREEK Written Communications CC 9-17-19 From:Jian He To:Steven Scharf Cc:yes@regnartcreek.com Subject:Please Vote Yes to approve the Regnart Creek Trail Date:Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:47:19 PM Dear Mayor Steven Scharf, I am a resident of Cupertino for more than 14 years and I serve on the Advisory Board of Walk Bike Cupertino. I strongly support the Regnart Creek Trail for many great reasons. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for kids at all ages. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life for the community. I understand the city may have budget concerns. There are a lot of grants are available to help pay for the trail, once its 100% design is completed. For example, the final spending of the city for the Stevens Creek/Blackberry Farm Trail was less than 15% of total construction due to grants. Thanks so much for your faithful service! Please vote Yes to construct the Regnart Creek Trail, that will be a heritage to be passed on for generations, and you will be the one makes the history. Best regards, Jian He, Mother of two boys at 7th and 9th grades 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jian He <jianhe7@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:49 PM To:Liang Chao Cc:yes@regnartcreek.com Subject:Please Vote Yes to approve the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Vise Mayor Liang Chao, I am a resident of Cupertino for more than 14 years and I serve on the Advisory Board of Walk Bike Cupertino. I strongly support the Regnart Creek Trail for many great reasons. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for kids at all ages. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life for the community. I understand the city may have budget concerns. There are a lot of grants are available to help pay for the trail, once its 100% design is completed. For example, the final spending of the city for the Stevens Creek/Blackberry Farm Trail was less than 15% of total construction due to grants. Thanks so much for your faithful service! Please vote Yes to construct the Regnart Creek Trail, that will be a heritage to be passed on for generations, and you will be the one makes the history. Best regards, Jian He, Mother of two boys at 7th and 9th grades   1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jian He <jianhe7@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:50 PM To:Rod Sinks Cc:yes@regnartcreek.com Subject:Please Vote Yes to approve the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Council Member Rod Sinks,     I am a resident of Cupertino for more than 14 years and I serve on the Advisory Board of Walk Bike Cupertino. I strongly support  the Regnart Creek Trail for many great reasons. It will provide a much‐needed off‐street recreation path for the 8,000 residents  of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for kids at all ages. It is a cost efficient  solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life  for the community.     I understand the city may have budget concerns. There are a lot of grants are available to help pay for the trail, once its 100%  design is completed. For example, the final spending of the city for the Stevens Creek/Blackberry Farm Trail was less than 15% of  total construction due to grants.     Thanks so much for your faithful service! Please vote Yes to construct the Regnart Creek Trail, that will be a heritage to be  passed on for generations, and you will be the one makes the history.     Best regards,  Jian He,   Mother of two boys at 7th and 9th grades  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jian He <jianhe7@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:52 PM To:Darcy Paul Cc:yes@regnartcreek.com Subject:Please Vote Yes to approve the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Council Member Darcy Paul,     I am a resident of Cupertino for more than 14 years and I serve on the Advisory Board of Walk Bike Cupertino. I strongly support  the Regnart Creek Trail for many great reasons. It will provide a much‐needed off‐street recreation path for the 8,000 residents  of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for kids at all ages. It is a cost efficient  solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life  for the community.     I understand the city may have budget concerns. There are a lot of grants are available to help pay for the trail, once its 100%  design is completed. For example, the final spending of the city for the Stevens Creek/Blackberry Farm Trail was less than 15% of  total construction due to grants.     Thanks so much for your faithful service! Please vote Yes to construct the Regnart Creek Trail, that will be a heritage to be  passed on for generations, and you will be the one makes the history.     Best regards,  Jian He,   Mother of two boys at 7th and 9th grades  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jian He <jianhe7@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:53 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Cc:yes@regnartcreek.com Subject:Please Vote Yes to approve the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Council Member Jon Willey,     I am a resident of Cupertino for more than 14 years and I serve on the Advisory Board of Walk Bike Cupertino. I strongly support  the Regnart Creek Trail for many great reasons. It will provide a much‐needed off‐street recreation path for the 8,000 residents  of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for kids at all ages. It is a cost efficient  solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life  for the community.     I understand the city may have budget concerns. There are a lot of grants are available to help pay for the trail, once its 100%  design is completed. For example, the final spending of the city for the Stevens Creek/Blackberry Farm Trail was less than 15% of  total construction due to grants.     Thanks so much for your faithful service! Please vote Yes to construct the Regnart Creek Trail, that will be a heritage to be  passed on for generations, and you will be the one makes the history.     Best regards,  Jian He,   Mother of two boys at 7th and 9th grades  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jian He <jianhe7@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:54 PM To:Cupertino City Manager's Office Cc:yes@regnartcreek.com Subject:Please Vote Yes to approve the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Manager Deb Feng,     I am a resident of Cupertino for more than 14 years and I serve on the Advisory Board of Walk Bike Cupertino. I strongly support  the Regnart Creek Trail for many great reasons. It will provide a much‐needed off‐street recreation path for the 8,000 residents  of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for kids at all ages. It is a cost efficient  solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life  for the community.     I understand the city may have budget concerns. There are a lot of grants are available to help pay for the trail, once its 100%  design is completed. For example, the final spending of the city for the Stevens Creek/Blackberry Farm Trail was less than 15% of  total construction due to grants.     Thanks so much for your faithful service! Please vote Yes to construct the Regnart Creek Trail, that will be a heritage to be  passed on for generations, and you will be the one makes the history.     Best regards,  Jian He,   Mother of two boys at 7th and 9th grades  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Julia Miyakawa <jemiyakawa@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, September 14, 2019 10:48 AM To:City Council Subject:Say no to Regnart Creek Council members,   I encourage you to look at the cost alone to reject t this project. The design is at 65%, not even with the difficult Lozano‐De  Palma Lane portion in the report. Will the problems in that area raise the cost even more?  A homeless person was recently observed in our area. The person walked toward the Library field and appeared to be looking  for an opening. Is this what we look forward to having homeless encampment along the creek? Think long and hard before  opening the ditch.  Thank you for your service to the city.   Julia Miyakawa  10345 Faralone Dr.  Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Freda Xu <freda.xuhui@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2019 9:05 PM To:City Council Cc:William Rassieur Subject:Opposition to Regnart Creek trail Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Esteemed Cupertino City Council members,    My name is Freda Xu. My husband Bill Rassieur and I live at 20045 De Palma Lane. I am writing to express my opposition to the  proposed Regnart Creek trail.     De Palma Lane is a private street, which is owned and maintained by the De Palma Lane home owners. The proposed trail will  provide easy access to De Palma Lane. The De Palma Lane home owners will be responsible to pay the damage caused by extra  traffic on the street.     I am also concerned of the safety driving on the street. Backing car from our driveway to the street will be difficult especially  during the school hours.     We will also have to sacrifice our privacy and increase our home insurance coverage to cover liability.  A section of the trail  would face our living room and bedrooms directly and we would have to close the curtains to keep our privacy.     Thanks,  Freda    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Margaret Jewett <pjewett@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2019 9:21 PM To:City Council Subject:Opposition to Regnart Creek Trail Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear Esteemed City Council Members, As a resident of Cupertino for more than 30 years, I am writing to you to voice my concerns about the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. While I understand and agree with the intent to find safe routes for young bikers and walkers to get to school, I don’t agree with the bicycle commission that the creek trail is a safe route. When all the options were evaluated, the first criteria, was not safety, it was “off street”. None of the alternatives were evaluated for safety. The creek is a drainage ditch with steep cement sides and fast current when water is in the creek. It would be a hazardous place to allow children to access. Traffic volume on cross streets during school commute hours, the time when children would be trying to get across those street, has not been evaluated by the bicycle commission. No numbers of expected traffic, either on the trail or on the streets have been presented. This is a major element to consider in determining the type of crossing and the effect it would have on riders or automobile traffic. City Council should have the facts in order to make data driven decisions. Additionally, we are told, the trail would be closed when there is fast moving water, or before dawn or after dusk, which means it would not be usable for school commutes several months of the year. No alternative has been proposed for those times. Improving city streets for bicycling kids is not being considered by the commission, but would be necessary even with an off street trail route. When reviewing the proposed options for the Regnart Creek Trail on September 17, 2019, please consider alternates 4 and 5 as the most appropriate answer to safe routes to school. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this project. Sincerely yours, Margaret (Peggi) Jewett 20030 De Palma Lane  Cupertino      1 Cyrah Caburian From:Sana Tchernov <sana.tchernov.dm@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2019 10:25 PM To:City Council Subject:Heritage trees alert- regarding the proposed Regnart Creek trail project Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear esteemed council members,  I’m reaching out regarding the Regnart Creek trail project. My name is Sana Tchernov and I’m one of the neighbors that has a  fence adjacent to the proposed trail location.      Our community has voiced a number of contentions along the way, including a number of privacy concerns, issues raised by the  water district, ecology of the creek, traffic and safety problems, cost of the project, reduction in property value, and other undue  burdens.      In addition to all of these, I raised a very specific issue related to the heritage redwood trees that are planted on my property  along the proposed trail. The massive root systems for these fan out toward the creek and will be unavoidably damaged by  construction and maintenance of the trail, as well as constant foot and bikes traffic by those using the trail. These very mature  heritage trees are quite important ecological artifacts and should be preserved. My concern was noted, but nobody has followed  up on this issue. Please let me know what is your next step to address this problem.      We urge you to stop this highly environmentally detrimental project and to save the sanctity of our neighborhood.        Sincerely,  Sana Tchernov      20020 De Palma lane, Cupertino         Sent from my iPhone  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Leo Rassieur <leorassieur@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 13, 2019 12:16 AM To:City Council Subject:Opposition to Regnart Creek Trail Development Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hello Cupertino City Council Members,    As a lifelong resident of De Palma Lane, the site of the planned Regnart Creek Trail development, I respectfully write to express  my opposition to the trail.    Although I am only a college student, I have learned a few important things about the nature of government. While the trail  would certainly make transit more convenient for a number of residents of Cupertino, we must consider the costs of this  convenience. What we perhaps gain in efficiency and general comfort we lose in the fundamental privacy of the people living on  De Palma Lane.    I would argue that, even if the the trail were on average beneficial to the majority of Cupertino residents, it is still not a tenable  proposal. When we consider whether a policy has merits, we must consider not only the absolute benefits and costs of it, but  also whether it infringes on certain key rights and privileges owed by community agreement to all residents. If any number of  privacies and protections afforded to residents may be discarded for the common good, then this principle of privacy and  individual rights is forfeit. There must be a limit to development, one that I believe is enshrined in the American concept of  individual, undeniable liberties.    I ask that you consider the moral consequences of this policy, not just for the residents on De Palma Lane and surrounding  streets, but for the community as a whole. If this development is deemed ethical, what would stop the privacy and consent of  others from being violated also in the name of social welfare? At a certain point, the consent of those most directly affected‐‐the  residents of the planned development area‐‐must take precedence.    Best,  Leo Rassieur  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Wil Fluewelling <wil4schools@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, September 13, 2019 10:22 AM To:Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Yes on Regnart Creek Trail! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hello Honorable Council members and City Manager Feng,    I am writing today on behalf of Walk‐Bike Cupertino Advisory Board and as co‐president of the Steven's Creek Elementary PTO.     We have a challenge ahead of us with our children increasingly plugged into technology specifically designed to addict their little  brains. We can counter this growing trend by offering them more green spaces to stretch their legs and foster a love of nature.     Safe routes to schools are becoming harder to manage with increased commuter traffic, especially around hectic school pick up  and drop off times. The more cars we remove from the equation by offering walkable and bikable options the better.    Lastly, it is simply unfair to hold up a project that benefits thousands of community members for a small handful of vocal direct  residents.    No more delays, time to vote Yes on Regnart Creek Trail next Tuesday night!    Thank you for your time and consideration,  Wil Fluewelling       1 Cyrah Caburian From:Mark Miyakawa <markmdt@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, September 13, 2019 11:00 AM To:City Council Subject:Say No to Regnart Creek Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear Esteemed Council Members,    I am against opening the Regnart Creek ( Flood Control Ditch) for any public use.    Totally a waste of city funds for .8 miles    Yasuho Miyakawa, Cupertino Resdient      1 Cyrah Caburian From:NICK GARCIA <nickbethg@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, September 13, 2019 4:36 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart Trail Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council Members, I am writing to you in regard to your upcoming decision on including the Regnart Creek Path in the Cupertino Loop Trail. Please look at this carefully as many good Cupertino residents peace of mind and happiness are at stake. My husband, Nick Garcia, and myself, Beth Garcia, have lived at 19821 La Mar Drive, the exact middle house on La Mar Drive between Blaney and East Estates Drive, for 56 years. We have been proud of our city and thought our city made good decisions and took care of us and our neighbors. Until now! We are distressed that what we have enjoyed for these many years may be compromised by opening up the path along the drainage ditch behind our house and 35 others between Blaney and E. Estates Drive. We know the history of this ditch and can't imagine that anything good can come of this action. We see, firsthand, the use of La Mar Drive, in front of our home, and Wilson Park , across the ditch behind our house. Kids bike to school in both places, in large numbers. Many people walk,and jog in the park, joined by folks in wheelchairs, using walkers, pushing strollers and enjoy Wilson Park paths every day. Can the proposed path compare to this? Hardly! Please leave lovely Wilson Park alone. Keep the closed path behind our homes closed and peaceful and use La Mar Drive, a quiet and already in use street, for safe biking. I don't think Cupertino can really afford to waste millions of dollars on a project that will get little use, or has so many potential problems, which you all should be aware of by now. I am sure many other projects can be completed using the money saved by not doing this path, let alone the continued upkeep which will be constantly needed, draining more money away every year. Think carefully and hard about this, and don't do something that you and everyone involved will later regret. It's important! Sincerely, Beth Garcia 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com> Sent:Friday, September 13, 2019 5:34 PM To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk; Roger Lee; David Stillman Subject:Agenda Item #9: Regnart Creek Trail / Library costs Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Mayor Scharf and council members,    Opening publicly owned land for access by the general public should be a no‐brainer, particularly in an urban area like Cupertino.  You have a willing partner in the Santa Clara Water District to provide an easement to the Regnart Creek / Library Trail at no cost  to the city, which eliminates the extremely high cost of acquiring land for parks and trails in the city.  The mission of the water  district, as well as the city, is to serve the public in general, NOT individual property owners who want to effectively enjoy a  "private park", instead of sharing it with the public.    Council, however, has to decide the level of investment in providing this access by moving ahead to complete the 100% design  phase. This project is comparable to the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail / Blackberry Farm Trail, which was initially opposed by the  residents along the trail, but is now highly popular with the homeowners. The cost of that trail was comparable to the options  for the Regnart Creek Trail detailed in the excellent staff report produced by David Stillman.  Grants, however, significantly  reduced the actual cost of the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail. Our residents got an excellent trail that provides linkage between  Stevens  Creek Blvd and Blackberry Farm which then links to a separate project to McClellan Ranch   Per records from the city,  the investment in this trail was about 15% of the total costs or less than $500,000 ‐ a bargain for this area!!!!! Final cost was less  than $8 per resident, and less than $22 per registered voter for an ADA accessible, all‐weather trail.  Similar grants are likely  available during the 2‐3 years required for the Regnart Creek / Library Trail project.    Stevens Creek Corridor Trail  Construction Contract: $3,281,000     GRANTS  $ 1,215,000 Grant - Calif. River Parkways (Prop. 84)  245,000 Grant - Environmental Enhancement & Mitigation Program  214,000 Grant - Habitat Conservation Fund  565,000 Grant - SCVWD Environ. Enhancement & Implementation  285,000 Grant - SCVWD Trails & Open Space  103,179 Grant - Transportation Development Act, Article 3  95,000 Grant - Transportation Fund for Clean Air  74,600 Contribution - Cupertino Sanitary District, Cost Sharing Agreement  $ 34,534 Grant - VTA Project Readiness Initiative    $2,831,313 Total outside funding  $449,687 Total City Contribution    The overall cost is quite affordable so please take these comments into consideration in your deliberations: (From Attachment G)  2 * Option A ($5,000,000) - Much too expensive. Why should the city spent over $100,000 per residence for concrete fences ($1.6 million), when the standard for the hoi polloi is more flexible wooden fences???  * Option B ($3,400,00) - Preferred because it is ADA compliant, important in creating an Age-Friendly city. Chateau Cupertino, a retirement community, is two blocks away from the trailhead, so walker, wheeled scooter, and wheelchair accessibility is an important consideration. The other options are NOT ADA compliant, which may also limit grants that might be available for ADA compliant projects. At full cost, this comes out to $56 per resident or $170 per voter. This option, however, is likely to attract higher levels of grant funding reducing the final cost to the city.  * Option C, D and E.($2,800,000 to $2,000,000) There is only $800,000 difference between the most expensive and the least expensive of these options - $13 per resident, less than the cost of a meal for 2 at McDonald's, or $40 per voter, less than a meal for 2 at a moderate priced restaurant. These are penny-wise, pound-foolish alternatives which may qualify for fewer grants. Why short-change our city?   * Consider adding the On-Street Bikeway Improvements (Alt. 4) to Option B with the low-cost pop-up bollards ($175,00) at less than $3 per resident (not even a cup of Starbucks coffee) or $8.75 per voter.   * Option F - Should not even be considered.    Thank you for your consideration. Please vote YES to Option B and move ahead to 100% design, which is REQUIRED for grant applications.      Warm regards,    Jean Bedord  Cupertino resident over 25 years    P.S. Please add this public comment to the council packet for  the September 17, Tuesday nights meeting.  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Larry Dean <ldean95014@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, September 14, 2019 4:09 AM To:Steven Scharf Subject:Fwd: Walk-Bike Cupertino Support for the Regnart Creek Trail Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Good Morning Mayor Scharf - On behalf of our Walk-Bike Cupertino team and its 2,000 member community, I am writing to urge you to vote favorably for the the Regnart Creek Trail. I know there are a variety alternatives that will be presented at next week’s council meeting, but a cost effect approach that opens the trail to pedestrians and bicycles is what we strongly support. As you and your fellow council know, many of the factoids and fears communicated by the opposing residents have not passed the “sniff test”. We trust that with your leadership, the council will select and the city staff will implement a sensible plan that opens the full trail to pedestrians and cyclists addresses the legitimate issues regarding safety, security and utilizing. We appreciate your leadership to make Cupertino “Safe and Easy to bike and walk”, and look forward to a positive conclusion next week to move the Regnart Creek Trail project forward. On behalf of the Walk-Bike Cupertino community, Larry Dean 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Larry Dean <ldean95014@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, September 14, 2019 4:12 AM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Walk-Bike Cupertino Supports the Regnart Creek Trail Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Good Morning Councilman Willey - On behalf of our Walk-Bike Cupertino team and its 2,000 members community, I am writing to urge you to vote favorably for the the Regnart Creek Trail. I know there are a variety alternatives that will be presented at next week’s council meeting, but a cost effect approach that opens the trail to pedestrians and bicycles is what we strongly support. As you and your fellow council know, many of the factoids and fears communicated by the opposing residents have not passed the “sniff test”. We trust that with your leadership, the council will select and the city staff will implement a sensible plan that opens the full trail to pedestrians and cyclists addresses the legitimate issues regarding safety, security and utilizing. We appreciate your leadership to make Cupertino “Safe and Easy to bike and walk”, and look forward to a positive conclusion next week to move the Regnart Creek Trail project forward. On behalf of the Walk-Bike Cupertino community, Larry Dean 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Larry Dean <ldean95014@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, September 14, 2019 4:13 AM To:Darcy Paul Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Good Morning Councilman Paul - On behalf of our Walk-Bike Cupertino team and its 2,000 members community, I am writing to urge you to vote favorably for the the Regnart Creek Trail. I know there are a variety alternatives that will be presented at next week’s council meeting, but a cost effect approach that opens the trail to pedestrians and bicycles is what we strongly support. As you and your fellow council know, many of the factoids and fears communicated by the opposing residents have not passed the “sniff test”. We trust that with your leadership, the council will select and the city staff will implement a sensible plan that opens the full trail to pedestrians and cyclists addresses the legitimate issues regarding safety, security and utilization. We appreciate your leadership to make Cupertino “Safe and Easy to bike and walk”, and look forward to a positive conclusion next week to move the Regnart Creek Trail project forward. On behalf of the Walk-Bike Cupertino community, Larry Dean 1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: Tuesday Agenda: Regnant Creek Trail Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.tiff; 19-8-19_Regnart Creek Trail Env Groups Letter .pdf From: Shani Kleinhaus <shanibirds@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 9:06 AM  To: Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Jon  Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>  Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>  Subject: Tuesday Agenda: Regnant Creek Trail    Dear Mayor Scharf and Council members,  Please consider the attached Environmental Groups letter for your discussion of the proposed Regnart Creek trail.  Respectfully     Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D. Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (650) 868 2114  On Aug 19, 2019, at 3:54 PM, shani kleinhaus <shanibirds@gmail.com> wrote:    Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council,    Please find attached a letter from the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, the Santa Clara Valley  Audubon Society, the Committee for Green Foothills and CLEAN South Bay. In this letter and it's  two attachments, we express concerns with the plans for the Regnant Creek Trail. The letter and  the attachments are also relevant to general discussion of creekside trails, including your study  session on Trail Master Plan tomorrow night.    Respectfully,     Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.  Environmental Advocate  Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society  22221 McClellan Rd. Cupertino 95014  Tel. (650) 868 2114    <19‐8‐19_Regnart Creek Trail Env Groups Letter .pdf>    <Guidance for Trails Near Creeks (2).pdf>    <RegnartCreek‐Water district  letter (1).pdf>  ,,*+;?2<:;? )0&))2 0&)&%,')+ %& +0&,% #$)*2  ,%)* % #&# %- )&%$%+# &)% 1+ &%* - #&% % &%)% &,+ + -#&'$%+&+) #*#&%%+#)&,%+0)"*4,)&%)%**+$)&$+ %)%+ &%# ++.%')&-  %**+&%+,)%+ %+),* &% %+&) ') %1&%*++')&-  )$%%+ ++%$&-$%+# %"*&). ## 4&))%+#02+,*&)"* +) #* *&$$,+&)) &)*/)++ $'+&%% $#*2 %#, %$'  %*2)'+ #*2 )* %$$$#*2%&%%+ -) ') %-++ &%4 %<:;=.*%++++#++)+&##0+)/'# % %&,)&%)%*')&++ %. ##   ++%$ )+ &%&)) &)**)"6* +) #*)-#&'4 #.)*,''&)+ -& ')&-  % ** &) '** - ))+ &% % %+,)2 &,) #++)  # + ++ %&+ ## )" *$%+*))+(,#2%*&$)*$,*+')&++4)(,*+++##0 +)')&++)"*%) ') % ++*)&$/** -+) #-#&'$%+%+&&%* ) +) #&%%+ &%*#&%*+)+*.)*,# %+ &% **2*' ##0.%# %+ &%#&% *+)+*%#*& # ++)% %)*+),+,) $')&-$%+*4 %0&+)&$$%+ &%*.')&- +&+##0+)))#-%++&,')+ %&5* %)+)") #')&!+*&##&.*4 •            )" % +* *+" ) ) %))&. % &%*+) + +.% %*4 )" &)) &)*# "+ *&%2-%.%)2')&- &%%+ - +0%),&). ##  . +&,+&%# +. +,$%+ - + *4,))%+$ %+%%+ - + *)%&+)(,%+2 ,++')&'&*%)+)") #.&,#&%*+),+ )+#0+++&'&+ %"% $'++ ++++,))%+#0')&- **&$-#,+&. ## 2*' ##0&) $&-$%++)&,+-#&'#%*'4 •                                       ) ** #2*%'))#&%6*+)+#+)%+ -&)+) #&%%+ - +0&)+ * %))&.*$%+&+)"&)) &)4) *$'#)&&$&)* ")&,+*&% *,)*+)+* %+ *)4 )) -24#%0-2%&) ,*-%')&-  &%-% %++) #&%%+ &%')###+&%)+)"#&%+ **$%+&))+ &% &+&*+&+')&'&*+) #&%)"%"4**+)+*). %&,+& %&)'&)+%% "#%*%)#)0* %+*&,++&&&#*4 % +* *, * +)  #$ %2 )&% '+,)2 *+&)$.+) (,# +0 $')&-$%+*2 )&,%.+) ))2 % ,+ 0 % & *+)+* %   - 0 %&)'&)+ % )% *+&)$.+) %)*+),+,) %+& + * % &)  " #%*2 % %#, % * +)* %+'#%*4 •          &%*+),+ &%%,*&) * %)*+ $'+&+) #*&%) ') %&)) &)  ++%+%&) *),'+ -$ %+%%+ - + *4%)+)") # ')&!+)(, )*+.&) *4  •                       *.&,#*+'&).)+&.)*+ $'#$%++ &%&+)+)"*+)#% &#;2&%*)-+ &%3 o ;)&++%+,)2+)*%%+,)#)* %')"*%+)&,&,++ +0+& *,''&)+. ## 2&#& #,%+ &%*%*+)&%)&%%+ &%+&,')+ %&5* %+,)#%- )&%$%+4  ;4%$&.*2%+,)#)*2. ##  ++%)"*. + %  +0!,) * + &%+&$ %+ %%)*+&)&#& ##+%,%+ &%4 • &*+)%+,)#*0*+$*0)+ %'&## %+&)'+.0*+)&, +  +02 +" % -%+ & ) +*6&6.0 +& )+  )  %+.&)"& ++. + %+,)%&)&,')+ %&4  ;4%$&.*2%+,)#)*2. ##  ++%)"*. + %  +0!,) * + &%+&$ %+ %%)*+&)&#& ##+%,%+ &%4 • $'#$%+&)*,''&)+.&)"0&+)*+&)$&- %-* -*' *2 )**%")&* &%2%% ++-#,2% $')&-.+) (,# +0 % #&& ' +0 +& %% + &#& # ,%+ &% #&% 2 #1*2 %02 +-%*2 )$%%+ % )+&)"*2 ,% ')&))%%#2%&'%*'')#* 7$'* *84   ,%)*+% ++  +0 '#%%)* ) ')') %   + + + - #)+ &% &) + ')&!+4   # - ++ % %- )&%$%+# $'+ '&)+ *&,#  ')')  +  +0 &&**+&')* *+ %',)*, %&)+*+&-#&'++) #2 &%#0&)+#-#&&%+)&-)*0% +$%0&%)%*)&,+,'0+%+#)##0+) *+) +7*++84%  .&,# ##&. %#0+ # &%* )+ &% & #+)%+ -* 7 %#, %  *+)+ # %+ &%8 %  &$'#+****$%+&+ $'+*&+* %%++ - + * %%%)%)+)"2 0+',# %0##0+)4 +.&,##*&##&.$,%)- .0')+ %%+ ),#+&)0 % * *, * +  &%# +) ,# +0 &%+)&# &) % + # &)%  ')+$%+& *% ## 4 *+)&%#0,)0&,+&',)*,%#+)%+ -&,+* &+)"&)) &)%2+&+#)*+ /+%+'&** #2)*+&)+)") ') %&*0*+$ %*+4 *.&,###&.,')+ %&+& ')&- +&$$,% +0. +*,*+ %#2*2 &#& ##0*%* + -% *##0)*'&%* # +) #&%%+ &%4  +! )- % &%*)-+ &%&$$ ++&6 )2  ))#, &$) +'+)  %  # %,* %- )&%$%+#-&+2 %+#)##0,,&%& +0  #  ,$%  *#+ --&0 )+&)2 &$$ ++&))%&&+ ##*  ) *,#-0 &&,%)2  &,+0   ++$%+*3 • ++))&$%- )&%$%+#)&,'*+&+##0+)2 %,)0<:;= • ##0+)#++)+&+ +0&,')+ %&2,,*+<:;>  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Larry Dean <ldean95014@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, September 14, 2019 10:24 AM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Resend with subject title “ Walk-Bike Cupertino Support for Regnart Creek Trail Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed  Good Morning Councilman Paul -   On behalf of our Walk-Bike Cupertino team and its 2,000 member community, I am writing to urge you to vote favorably for the the Regnart Creek Trail. I know there are a variety alternatives that will be presented at next week’s council meeting, but a cost effect approach that opens the trail to pedestrians and bicycles is what we strongly support. As you and your fellow council know, many of the factoids and fears communicated by the opposing residents have not passed the “sniff test”. We trust that with your leadership, the council will select and the city staff will implement a sensible plan that opens the full trail to pedestrians and cyclists addresses the legitimate issues regarding safety, security and utilization. We appreciate your leadership to make Cupertino “Safe and Easy to bike and walk”, and look forward to a positive conclusion next week to move the Regnart Creek Trail project forward. On behalf of the Walk-Bike Cupertino community, Larry Dean 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Ilango <ilangog@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, September 14, 2019 11:25 AM To:City Council Subject:Outstanding issues at 65% RCT plans and Valley Water Comments - Agenda item #9 CC meeting Sep 17 Attachments:VW 65% Comments.pdf; CityReplyto VW65%Comments.pdf Dear Council Members, I would like to bring to your attention that there are many pending outstanding issues that the City is still working with Valley Water (VW). A summary of these issues are posted as Attachment I in the agenda packet. However, these bullet points are not detailed enough to provide a complete picture of the issues. So I would like to present documents with detailed comments on 65% plans (30 comments) by VW and the City's responses to this email for your reference (Please see attached). These are not in the agenda packet. Also the Aug'19 meeting minutes between VW and the City has not been posted yet. In my assessment, from reviewing the 65% plans, the plans are not at 65% milestone. According to the Master agreement with HMH Engineers, Inc., (Design Professional Services for various capital improvement Projects), the designs should be advanced to the "point that all major design issues and solutions are represented in the plans" (This document shows what can be expected at 65% design plans from HMH. Please refer to Exhibit A Page 18, Section 4.03). http://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=513943&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino &cr=1 The 65% plan still shows the two bridge design with impact to base ball field in Wilson Park. The staff now recommends filling up the existing ramp behind La Mar Dr and relocating it to access from the south west corner of Wilson Park in all the options A-E. The design should be modified to reflect this change and it also requires Environmental regulatory permits. Any mitigation measures required by the agencies have to be incorporated to advance to final plans. In addition all the issues as noted in the VW comments need to be mitigated. Most importantly, privacy and noise mitigation for more than half of the residents living along the trail need to be mitigated. Attached: 1. Valley Water comments for 65% design 2. City's responses for VW comments on 65% design Thanks, Ilango Ganga Cupertino Resident On behalf of myself 1 Cyrah Caburian From:viji.ilango@yahoo.com Sent:Saturday, September 14, 2019 12:07 PM To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:DROP BOX - Proposed Regnart Trail Presentations/Emails - Agenda Item #9 Sept 17th,2019 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear City Mayor and Council Members, The following link has presentations that were made at the Council Meetings and email communications that have been sent to the City of Cupertino regarding the Proposed Regnart Creek Trail over a period of time by the concerned residents opposing the project and we ask the City Council to consider on street alternatives outside of creek corridor. Thanks, Viji Note: PDF to be included as part of written communications. ResidentsConcernsonRegnartCreekTrailAgendaItem9.pdf   To help protect yMicrosoft Office pautomatic downlopicture from the ResidentsConcernsonRegnartCreekTrailAgendaItem9.pdf Shared with Dropbox       The following presentations were made at the Council Meetings and email communications have been sent to the City of Cupertino regarding the Proposed Regnart Creek Trail over a period of time by the concerned residents opposing the project. Valley Water response to my comments on proposed Regnart Creek Trail 65% design From:Ilango To:liangchao@cupertino.org Date:Sunday, July 21, 2019, 05:24 PM PDT Dear Vice Mayor Chao, I had written to Valley Water (VW) on my review of 65% design plans of the proposed Regnart Creek Trail and I received the attached response letter dated Jul 10, 2019. As per the letter, Valley Water concurs that the concerns raised by me are in parallel to their concerns. Here are some that I would like to bring to your attention. 1. Trail Maintenance and Creek Repairs: As per the 65% designs, railings are proposed almost at the edge of the creek bank (3 to 6 inches). Based on the plans, it is estimated to have about ~1000 footings (9-foot deep) for railings on the entire length of the creek bank. These railings would add to the ongoing erosion of the creek bank. As per VW, it is the sole responsibility of the City to address erosion issues due to trail construction and its use. The City might have to go to regulatory authorities for their concurrence. The Cupertino City while proposing to open this trail will also be responsible for ongoing maintenance of creek banks due to erosion issues. The VW has not provided a cost estimate for the ongoing maintenance of creek bank and erosion control. This is like the City signing a blank check to VW for unknown maintenance operations/repairs in the future. For example, in 2018, The City of Mountain View approved $595K to VW for trail maintenance repairs (bank repairs costs covered by VW) due to erosion on Stevens Creek Trail near Yuba Dr. 2. Proper Survey Should be done: The City is yet to give a detailed survey identifying the property and fence lines to VW. I had earlier requested the same information from the City and have not received it (the staff just gave me a preliminary topo survey, with no seal of the surveyor, that does not provide this info) Since the available width is too narrow and very close to property lines, a proper boundary survey should be performed to establish the property lines. 3. Trail Closures: As per VW, the trail is expected to be closed for regular maintenance three times a year. In preparation for the maintenance, the City has to likely remove the entire railing for 0.8 miles (it would be a significant operational issue to remove, store, and reinstall up to ~500 eight-foot panels). The VW has expressed their concern with the scale of this maintenance requirement that would be assumed by the City, to ensure that adequate staffing is available to complete the work in a timely manner. This means the trail will have to be closed during each regular and emergency maintenance operations. In addition, more intensive maintenance operations including sediment removal and erosion control is expected every 3-5 years, where the bridges have to removed and the trail is expected to be closed for a duration of up to 2 months. The operational cost of removing, storing and reinstalling bridges should be fully accounted for in the trail operating budget (not included in the current $5.3M projections) 4. Staging area for Bridge removal – The City is yet to provide a plan to VW for staging area for access to cranes for removal and re-installation of the bridges. This is expected to have a major impact to the baseball field and other amenities in Wilson Park. This issue should be addressed with detailed plans before the City brings forward the proposed trail to the Council. The cost of baseball field modifications, and staging area for bridges should be accounted for in the proposed Regnart Creek Trail budget. As per the Master service agreement the City has with HMH engineers, 65% plans should "Advance the design to the point that all major design issues and solutions are represented in the plans". However, the above issues are yet to be resolved. In summary, I have analyzed this project from various angles. The proposed trail has major capital expenditure, which could go up to $6M and counting, not going to be adhering to the national safety standards based on trail usage, all operating expenses yet to be determined, impact to adjacent home owners with no mitigation plans in place for privacy and setbacks. On top of this, the trail would be closed from dusk to dawn every day and maintenance operations during the year, and up to 2 months every few years. This means the residents still have to use existing streets and sidewalks. This trail can never be a permanent replacement for the residential streets. It is also the responsibility of the City to protect the residents’ privacy and safety when retrofitting a trail in a dense suburban neighborhood. My request is, the Council should ask the City engineers what problem is the City trying to solve, then bring a cost-effective solution to address that problem, if one exists. I am sure the City engineers would provide a good cost-effective solution to address the issues at a fraction (5%) of the cost of $5-6M with alternative on street facilities. Regards, Ilango Ganga Cupertino Resident on behalf of myself 07102019 Regnart Comment Letter Response from VW.pdf 111.3kB Santa Clara Valley Water District | 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686 | (408) 265-2600 | www.valleywater.org Clean Water • Healthy Environment • Flood Protection ♺ July 10, 2019 Mr. Ilango Ganga Cupertino Resident Dear Mr. Ganga, Thank you for your continued close attention to the City of Cupertino’s proposed Regnart Creek Trail, and the potential impacts of the trail on Valley Water’s stewardship and operational interests. Staff have completed our review of the 65% plan set and have met with City staff to provide comments, many of which are in close parallel to the concerns you expressed in your June 26th email to Director Hsueh. I have addressed each of your comments below. 1. Railings located at or immediately adjacent to the creek top of bank, erosive banks, and regulatory jurisdiction. While Valley Water is not a regulatory permitting authority, it has been our experience that construction at the top of a creek bank does carry a risk of construction- phase discharge into regulated areas (ie, the bed and banks of the creek). As such we have advised the City and its consultants to include Best Management Practices for erosion control, such a silt fencing or coir rolls, in the project. Additionally, it has also been our experience that construction of structures adjacent to regulated areas warrants a conservative approach, and have recommended that the City request concurrence from the appropriate regulatory authorities that no impacts to regulated areas will occur as a result of the project. Furthermore, terms of the Joint Use Agreement between Valley Water and the City will require that addressing erosion issues due to trail construction and use, if necessary, will be the sole responsibility of the City (see additional detail below). 2. Topographic survey, road width. Valley Water has requested a detailed survey showing both property lines and fence locations, and will confirm that minimum widths of 12 feet will be provided along the maintenance access road. 3. Timing and duration of maintenance operations. As requested by the City, Valley Water provided the timing and duration of routine maintenance activities to the City early in the design process. Routine annual maintenance (vegetation control) is anticipated three times per year for a duration of one day per occurrence. More intensive maintenance including sediment removal and erosion control is anticipated to occur every three to five years, for a duration of two weeks to two months, depending on the scale of the project. Railing removal would occur in all locations that Valley Water’s maintenance access is needed. Removal of the railings along the entire length of creek will likely be required up to three times per year. We have expressed our concern with the scale of this maintenance requirement that would be assumed by the City, to ensure that adequate staffing is available to complete the work in a timely manner. 4. Bank repair, maintenance cost. Valley Water is unable to provide cost estimates for future, undefined erosion repair projects, as costs are really dependent on location, type of repair needed, length of repair, if dewatering is needed, and difficulty of access to the project site. As a result, there is an very wide range of cost per linear foot of repair. 5. Construction staging for bridge removal. Valley Water noted that the 65% plans do not provide sufficient detail to review proposed construction staging locations for bridge removal, anticipated Mr. Ilango Ganga Page 2 July 10,2019 to be required for sediment control and erosion repair projects as necessary (likely once every 3-5 years). We have requested additional detail in the 90% plans. 6. Trash cans. A standard provision of Valley Water’s Joint Use Agreements places all responsibility for trash and litter removal on the project applicant. Please address concerns regarding trash removal to the City. In our experience, trash cans are not typical. I would be happy to answer any further questions or concerns you may have regarding our Joint Use Agreement process with the City of Cupertino, and assure you that our staff are working closely with the City during the project design development to minimize impacts to Valley Water’s stewardship and operational interests. Sincerely, Lisa Bankosh Assistant Officer Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division 1 MEETING MINUTES City of Cupertino Regnart Creek Trail Valley Water (VW) Regnart Creek Environmental and PS&E Meeting #4 Date and Time: May 28, 2019 – 1:30 p.m. Location: Valley Water Offices, 5750 Almaden Expy San Jose, CA 95118 Minutes By: City of Cupertino Attended By: Usha Chatwani Sue Tippets Cody Houston Yvonne Arroyo Lisa Bankosh VW VW VW VW VW Roger Lee David Stillman Jennifer Chu Prashanth Dullu City of Cupertino City of Cupertino City of Cupertino City of Cupertino DISCUSSION ACTION   1. Introductions & Project Status  a. Roger Lee (RL) provided a project update since the last 4/23/19 meeting.  i. City of Cupertino (City) staff originally planned to provide an  informational report and presentation on the project’s 65% design to  the City Council at their May 21st meeting.  However, this agenda  item has been postponed and will be rescheduled to a future  meeting date yet to be determined (tentatively July 16th).  In the  meantime, City continues to work towards completing the 65%  design.  ii. Environmental review continues to move forward.  The  administrative draft of the Initial Study is expected to be available for  City review in mid‐June.  Lisa Bankosh (LB) offered that VW staff can  be available to comment on the draft if needed, although not  required.  b. LB stated that VW will be presenting the draft trail guidelines policy to the  Board at their June 11th meeting as an informational item.     2. 65% Plan Set Comments  a. City provided the draft 65% plan set to VW via email on 5/15/19.  b. Yvonne Arroyo (YA) provided the following preliminary comments.  VW                                                  2 anticipates providing more detailed comments to the City by 6/14/19.  i. Railings:    • Location is very close to the top of bank and could create  instability issues due to erosion caused by the installation  and/or erosion caused by ongoing trail usage.  • LB requested any future railing repair/maintenance be clearly  defined in the maintenance agreement and clarified that the  City carry ongoing maintenance costs related to this work.  • Usha Chatwani (UC) expressed concerns about potential BMP  installations within the top of bank and whether or not it  would require additional regulatory permitting.  ii. Trailheads:    • Ensure the proposed features do not impede VW access.   Surficial treatments, such as decorative pavement, will be  subject to damage by VW maintenance access.  iii. Bridges:  • Provide a detailed plan/process outlining how the bridges will  be removed.  iv. Detailed Survey:  • Provide the topographic survey data in both PDF and CAD file  format.  VW would like to review the measurements  between top of bank, property lines and fence lines.  • David Stillman (DS) clarified that a conservative approach  was taken by the surveyor when capturing the top of bank  topo shots.  If there was a curvature at the top of the bank,  the shots were taken at the very edge of the flat surface.  v. Drainage:   • Cody Houston (CH) expressed concerns that surface runoff  draining towards the creek could increase bank erosion and  that the permeable pavement may be susceptible to  clogging, if not properly maintained, and become  impermeable over time increasing bank erosion from trail  runoff.  CH plans to request further information regarding  the pavement design in his more detailed comments.  vi. Lozano Ln/De Palma Ln:  • Label the trail fronting the developments as “existing trail”.    3. City and VW Potential Land Swap  a. In the previous meeting with VW (4/23/19), the City and VW considered  negotiating an equivalent land swap to mitigate the encroachment of the                                            HMH to provide  files.                                                3 Wilson Park ballfields on VW property.  The land swap would provide VW an  area to perform maintenance, construction staging, and/or mitigation planting  along the same creek.  b. The area just south of the Parkside Ln parking lot was identified as a potential  area.  City needs to confirm that swapping this land has no significant impacts  to current City operations.  CH plans to conduct a site visit to determine the  types of trees within the area and that it is usable space for VW purposes.  c. CH requested the City provide the approximate square footage the City would  need within VW property to accommodate the trail.  Based on this  information, CH to determine approximately how much square footage would  be needed to provide an area for maintenance and construction staging and  an area for mitigation planting.    d. City plans to present the proposed modifications to the Wilson Park ballfield at  the 6/6/19 Parks and Recreation Commission.    4. Standing Meeting  a. Monthly meetings scheduled for the 4th Tuesday of every month from 1:30  to 2:30 p.m.                City to provide  approximate area.    VW to provide  approximate areas.                    Supporting Safe Bike to Schools as a high priority - Agenda item on 20th Aug study session From: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dinyar Dastoor Date: Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:51 PM Subject: Re: FW: Supporting Safe Bike to Schools as a high priority - Agenda item on 20th Aug study session To: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org>, <sscharf@cupertino.org>, <liangchao@cupertino.org>, <rsinks@cupertino.org>, dpaul@cupertino.org <dpaul@cupertino.org>, <jwilley@cupertino.org>, <manager@cupertino.org> Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>, Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org>, Roger Lee <RogerL@cupertino.org> Hello Mr. David, Ms. Deborah, Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Ms Chao, Council member Paul, Council member Willey, Council member Sinks, Thank you for your detailed reply. I really appreciate your quick and thoughtful response. We clearly are in total agreement that we all want the best for our city, residents and children. These letters become too long and loose the central point so I would like to summarize my response. Summary : 1. Please give top priority to creating safe routes to school. For bike paths, there is nothing more important than safety of our children. 2. City can provide 21 miles of safe routes to school for cost of just one 0.8 mile Regnart Creek project (which already has safe 40 feet streets with 4.5 feet sidewalks and shown as safest in all maps of bike ped plan 2016 & Caltrans collision records) 3. It sounds like so obvious to children’s safety as the highest priority. If you feel otherwise, city residents would like to understand the vision and priorities of our city staff and elected members. Detailed statement - We understand the technicality that Bike Boulevard network was not exclusive designed to create safer routes to school. Because this is a prioritization study session, the question we are raising is - 1. When creating bike plans, should we give anything else a higher priority than that of the safety of our children going to school ? 2. Given that we have some of the best schools in the state, do our bike routes around all our schools safe enough that we start looking at other low priority projects ? 3. We are flipping between bike ratings and priority for funding. We implore the council members to give highest priority to school safety around the entire city. We would like to understand what other just justification can we give to our city residents in terms of priority. I am an avid biker. I bike to work and for recreation. I know how busy commuter streets in and around schools pose a threat to children and cyclists commuting on these streets. Improving biking infrastructure on our busiest and most hazardous streets for our children should be topmost priority. In process of attending multiple bike-ped commission and city council meetings, we observe that : 1. We pay consultants and do a lot of research to come up with detailed bike plans with ratings. We put them in tiers and describe our grand vision. 2. Then we just pick projects that treats the bike plan as a mere suggestion. The flow chart presented in the material essentially says - The bike plan may say something, but anyone on city staff or commissioners can pick whatever they like and give it a priority 3. In the process, committed Safe routes to school projects have been languishing for past 2 years and will not be finished even in 2020. In words of city staff, we are putting temporary measures and band-aids this year. 4. Does this process of prioritization encourage or bypass Safe Routes to School ? We submit, it just ignores it ! Our central appeal is as clear, simple and easy to understand - Do not sacrifice our children’s safety against someone’s desire for a route of their choice. And mop up major funding, focus and oxygen from all prioritization exercise. As for your Regnart Creek response, I checked and you are right. The current estimate in your 65% design presentation is $3.5m. And as per the same powerpoint, $3.5m does not include $1.3m wall (protection barrier for all residents) Or 100k cost of moving Ball part field at Wilson park (or possibly as high as $400k). Or recurring maintenance of $40k per year that the city will have to bear for decades to come. Our point about Regnart Creek project prioritization is as follows 1. Per city estimate, 0.8 mile will cost $3.5m (not really, but that is besides the point) 2. Per City estimate in the same presentation, equivalent alternatives on street bike route will cost $200k. 3. Which means by giving Safe Routes to school a higher priority, residents of Cupertino will get 21 Miles of safe routes instead of one hazardous, wasteful 0.8 mille, unconnected to school route and which will remain closed from dusk to dawn. I hope that you will take this input into consideration. Our mutual goal is to provide the best bang for the buck for our city infrastructure, residents and most importantly, our children. Warm regards Dinyar Dastoor On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:34 AM David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> wrote: Hi Dinyar, Thank you for your email. Please allow me to share a few thoughts. The Bike Boulevard network was not designed exclusively to create safer routes to school. As stated in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, “These enhanced bike routes will provide neighborhood-friendly alternatives parallel to bike network options on major streets. This [bike boulevard] network supports families and young students wanting to reach schools, parks, and community amenities on quiet streets with low-traffic volumes”. Within the Plan, these routes were evaluated and ranked according to several weighted criteria, of which “Travel to/near schools” was given 20% weighting but other criteria such as safety, connectivity, and feasibility also figured into the total. Consequently, while we anticipate that the bike boulevard network will likely provide a safe and convenient alternative for many students travelling to schools, this is not the exclusive goal of the network. The City, in partnership with all Cupertino schools and both school districts, developed Suggested Routes to School maps to assist families in determining appropriate routes for biking and walking to school. The maps, which highlight suggested walking and biking routes, indicate estimated travel times and the locations of stop signs, crosswalks, traffic signals, crossing guards, crossing flags, bike lanes, and bike routes that are within the attendance boundary of each school. It is intended that these maps be used as a tool to help determine a route to school that best compliments a student's specific mode of travel. Staff attempted to ensure that the chosen routes were the best of the alternatives available. These maps were created outside of the Bicycle master planning process, and there are no plans in place to specifically improve these routes, as the maps are not intended for that purpose, and routes which may be lacking in certain bicycle- and pedestrian-related improvements were specifically eliminated from being considered as a suggested route where possible. We are currently anticipating that the three bike boulevard phases will be completed mid-2020. Construction of the first two phase of the network will begin within the next month or two with the construction of speed tables along Portal, Merritt, Greenleaf and Beardon. Phase 3 will begin in early 2020. Initial work for these three phases will be flexible bollards accompanied by signage and pavement markings as needed. Permanent construction of the three phases with concrete raised curbs will occur in summer of 2020. With respect to the Regnart Creek Trail, staff was directed by City Council to proceed with the feasibility study in 2017 and, following that, the design of the trail in August 2018. As a result, staff has been working concurrently on this project, as well as other bike and ped projects including the bike boulevard project. The current cost estimate for the Regnart Creek Trail is $3.5 million (there has been no $6 million estimate). Similar to the bike boulevard project, while we expect the Regnart Creek Trail to provide a convenient alternative for students travelling to and from school, it will also enhance connectivity to the library, City Hall, Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the surrounding neighborhoods, thereby benefiting the community as a whole. Thank you again for your input. David Stillman Transportation Manager Public Works DavidS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3249 From: Dinyar Dastoor <dinyar.dastoor@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 7:19 AM To: Steven Scharf <SScharf@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Rod Sinks <RSinks@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org> Subject: Supporting Safe Bike to Schools as a high priority - Agenda item on 20th Aug study session Hello Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Ms Chao, Council member Paul, Council member Willey, Council member Sinks, For the agenda item - “Study session to discuss how the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan”, we would like to bring to attention the priority required for Bike Boulevard network projects as a priority, instead of spending attention, resources and energy on other lower priority projects. We would like to bring to your attention following points on this topic - 1. Safe Routes to School (SRS) is a very important initiative for city of Cupertino. The map from 2016 shows Bike Boulevard projects designed to create safer routes to School. Prior to the plan, less than 20% of the routes shown in the bike boulevard project were available as safe routes for children going to school. 2. The bike boulevard network project is targeted for safer commute to schools and connecting our middle and high schools. We are now in 2019 and only phase 1 design (#1 & #5 in image) has been finished. Phase 2 and Phase 3 have just begun by very preliminary outreach & design. 3. The total cost of three identified phases of Bike Boulevard network project is estimated to be $3m. This crucial project was funded in 2016, but as of today, it is limping along with bandaids and temporary solutions. It will not be finished until late 2020 or even beyond. 4. All this time, instead of prioritizing streets outlined in the Bike Boulevard to create and enhance safe routes to schools, we have been spending money, time and tremendous energy on projects like Regnart Creek that was rated at the bottom of Tier 2 in the list of bike projects, with a score of 48. 5. For some time now, Regnart Creek has been dubbed as Safe Routes to School which is clearly deceptive marketing, given the collision and Bike network stress maps in city’s 2016 Bike plan. The data clearly shows that the streets around Regnart creek neighborhood are the safest and low stress bike and pedestrian commute areas. 6. Regnart Creek is now estimated to be nearly $6m. Legal issues around right of way in some sections still needs to be resolved. Community has been constantly giving feedback that this is not money well spent while starving the crucial projects in the city like the Bike Boulevard project that creates so many more safe routes to school all over the city. In this study session, city officials have created a flowchart to document why a particular project is given priority, when it is at the bottom of the bike plan, also alluding to the fact that it is highly subjective. In the interest of full transparency, we would like to document why Bike Boulevard -Safe Routes to School is not given higher priority despite scoring higher points over wasteful projects like Regnart Creek project. Warm regards Dinyar Dastoor Regnart Creek Trail 65% plan Email sent by the City today From: To:davids@cupertino.org Cc: Date:Saturday, June 8, 2019, 01:06 AM PDT Hi David, We just received an update via email from the city about the Regnart Creek Trail about the 65% design plans. It states : "The current schedule for the 65% plans to be reviewed by the City Council is July 16, 2019. The plans, which staff has received from the project’s engineer, are currently being thoroughly reviewed by the project’s stakeholders. The plans will be released to the public once this review is complete and stakeholder comments are addressed in order to ensure that any information released to the public is accurate to the best knowledge of all stakeholders". I am curious to know who are the 'stakeholders' who will be thoroughly reviewing the plans before they go public a week before it is brought to the city council. Stakeholder is defined as "a person with an interest or concern in something" "People who can affect or be affected by the organization's actions, objectives and policies". This would be mean that the residents abutting the creek who will be impacted 24/7, 365 days are the most important stakeholders in the project. So I am hoping that the city officials while reviewing the plans submitted by the project engineer, will be inviting the the residents abutting the creek(one of the primary stakeholders in this project) before releasing it to the public as mentioned in the email. I would also like to once again bring to your notice that every issue/problem you encountered with the project, the erroneous feasibility report, were predictable and brought to the engineer's and city's attention right from the time you chose to involve the residents living on the creek. Unfortunately at every stage the wise and informed counsel of the residents who have lived by the creek for over 20-30 years were brushed aside under pressure from advocacy groups (most of whom do not reside in this neighborhood or are familiar with the safety issues and the challenges of this creek path). The very clear proof - The water district letter of August 21st very clearly mentioned that they do not prefer the Alternative 1 (the creek path) and preferred Alternative 4 or 5. Not to mention that this was the most expensive of all the alternatives in the feasibility report. The more you read that letter, it reflects poorly on the city and the project engineer (highlighted letter attached). Unfortunately the city administration chose not to share this letter with the city council who was voting on the feasibility report on the very same day - Aug 21st 2018 and who approved a budget of additional 3,80,000 for design for Alternative 1. A very clear breach of trust and brown act violation. Even as of today, the water district officials and maintenance staff fail to understand as to 'why the city is pushing them so hard on this trail despite being aware of the costs and the hardships it will cause them for the maintenance due to its narrow width and the flood control ramp' I would urge you, to please exercise prudent judgment and avoid falling under the same trap, as you begin the review of the 65% draft plans, and not exclude an important stakeholder - the residents who live by the creek and the most impacted group of all the stakeholders and who know the creek and the neighborhood better than anyone currently on the city staff. Please remember that every tax dollar expended on a wasteful project is hard earned money of the residents of this city. That in itself makes them a stakeholder on city funded projects. Thank you for your time. Have a nice weekend, Warm regards, Benaifer Dastoor RegnartCreek-Water district letter.pdf 1.1MB Regnart Creek Trail Position Statement by the Residents on DePalma Lane and Campo De Lozano Homeowners Association Public Meeting on Proposed Regnart Creek Trail City Hall, Conference Room C May 23, 2018 Cupertino Bicycle Paths Program We respect and applaud the work and efforts of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission to: Make Cupertino a more walkable and bicycle friendly community Reduce automobile traffic and congestion Improve connectivity among the various neighborhoods We acknowledge the significant resources devoted to planning and community outreach However, we and a significant majority of residents who live next to Regnart Creek, oppose the trail for use as a public bicycle and pedestrian path. Other options exist, that are less costly and non-disruptive. 2 Significant & Permanent Impact on Properties •Loss of privacy •Loss of view •Increased noise from talking, music, skate boards and scooters •Light pollution from lights •Trespassing on property •Increased litter •Increased pet waste •Negative impact to creek habitat 3 Proposed Trail Impacts Homes on De Palma Lane •The trail would alter ingress and egress, making it more difficult for the homeowners •A fence would be out of place and be visually ugly •The Trail and proposed fencing would limit access of emergency vehicles, putting lives at risk 4 Trail Fencing Options are Not Acceptable •The proposed fence destroys the feel of the neighborhood •Two fences would be unsightly, like a prison •A 6’ fence/wall would create shadows, impacting, if not killing the landscaping •A fence would make the middle area hard to maintain •A fence would reduce and change ingress and egress for the residents, a maze •A fence would force trimming and changing the shape of the beautiful trees 5 Safety and Habibat Ecology Disruption •Coyotes, ducks, frogs, birds, squirrels and other creatures rely on the creek for water. Increased human traffic and fencing would materially alter their habitat •Children walking on the trail may be vulnerable to coyotes. A fence would create an alley, where escape from a coyote or other wild animal would be extremely difficult. There would be no escape 6 Water Levels Reach Dangerous Levels During heavy rains, water levels in the Creek rise to dangerous levels, bordering on over flowing. 7 Trail invites Trespassing and Improper Bicycle Use Trail users already trespass on Lozano Lane property Pedestrian easement disallows bike usage, but cyclists use it anyway. ↔ 8 Crime and Vandalism are already present Vandalism on the pedestrian path occurs Last fall, a stranger tried to approach the daughter of one of the homeowners Cars were broken into in 2017 on premise Strangers walk thru the property Residents are very concerned about security 9 Santa Clara Water District Trail Limited to 10 Feet 10 foot trail dimensions crowd utility pole Photo of 10 feet dimension 10 Survey Showing Water District Property- 10 Feet Santa Clara Water District property is limited to 10 feet. We were informed that 1 foot shoulders are needed on both sides of the trail, or 12 feet. This would encroach on our properties 11 Aerial View of Homes on De Palma Lane 12 Regnart Creek Residents Oppose the Trail All eight households of Campo De Lozano Homeowners Association oppose the Regnart Creek Trail All four households, residing on DePalma Lane, oppose the Regnart Creek Trail The HOA, six households, west of Camp De Lozano HOA oppose the Regnart Creek Trail In addition, more than 95% of households living adjacent to Regnart Creek in Cupertino oppose the proposed trail. A petition has secured their affirmation and signatures 13 My Feedback on Proposed Regnart Creek Trail 65% Draft Designs From:Ilango To:citycouncil@cupertino.org Cc:manager@cupertino.org Date:Sunday, June 23, 2019, 01:19 PM PDT Dear Council Members, I am Ilango Ganga, Cupertino Resident speaking for myself. Here is my feedback based on my review of draft 65% designs plans of proposed Regnart Creek Trail (RCT). I also attended the RCT presentation to Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission on June 19th, 2019. I have highlighted key points that the council should be aware of. 1. Cost Escalation – The total construction cost of the trail (Alternate 1) has increased from $2.1M to $3.5M (see attached). The cost to build a solid wall (like in the Creekside segment) is an additional $1.3M (see attached) to address security and privacy concerns. So, the total cost of the project including feasibility study/design/construction would be ~$5.3M. This cost may change based on how the baseball field issue is resolved, mid-block crossings provided (see point 6 below), if environmental regulatory approvals are required and mitigation plans are addressed. 2. Operations/Maintenance Cost – Ongoing maintenance is estimated to be $40K per year with the option to close the gates to be an additional cost of ~$50K. So, a total operating cost would be ~90K per year. This does not include cost to removal of bridges, bank repair and maintenance cost that the City has to bear due to removable railings. Valley Water insists that the bank maintenance cost be included in JUA which no estimates are available at this time. 3. Alternative 4 and 5: The City presented conceptual designs for Alternate 4 and 5 that use on street facilities . The cost for Alternate 4 is shown as $250K and for Alternate 5 is shown as $200K. These costs have also escalated since feasibility study (used to be $100K and $150K). 4. Lozano Lane Issues - This is still a work in progress. No good solution has been provided. There is still a dispute in terms of available width for the trail alignment in front of their properties. I am disappointed to see the City's solution to these residents is just plastic planters for privacy!! The City should seriously address this issue at 65% before moving any further. 5. DePalma Lane Issues - This is still a work in progress. No solution has been provided on access restrictions to DePalma lane. 6. Baseball Field Issue in Wilson Park due to Regnart Creek Trail - This issue has not been resolved. It is still a work in progress. a. This is a new issue that cropped up since April 2019 that should have been uncovered during the Feasibility Study. The City disclosed at the last Parks and Rec Commission meeting that continuing with current bridge design will impact the baseball field in Wilson park that will make the field not meet regulations. The City proposed 4 options that have an additional estimated cost of $250K to $400K and a potential delay of 12-18 months to the project. Some of the options include moving the entire baseball field to the north (ballpark estimate of $100K), shifting one of the bridges to the east, filling out the existing access ramp and providing a new ramp to Valley Water (VW). As per Parks and Rec Commission, going with these alternate options would require the City to do an outreach to residents around the Wilson Park neighborhood. b. The Valley Water has concerns about cranes and removing bridges as noted in VW minutes (seeattached) “Bridges: Provide a detailed plan/process outlining how the bridges will be removed”. I have also asked the City to provide the details and it is still a work in progress. An additional issue has been uncovered is that the City is encroaching VW land next to baseball field and the city is negotiating with them on land swap for maintenance operations. 7. Mid Block Crossings - The trail adds 2 new unprotected mid-block crossings at (1) Rodriguez and (2) Pacifica that would encourage trail users to cross mid-block. Most accidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists happen at mid-block crossings. The plan does not provide safety measures at these trail heads. However, in my opinion this can be provided by adding protected crossings and this should be added to the total project cost. 8. Fencing - It is not provided as a default to all residents. It would be provided only for residents who opt in. This should be a default option for all residents. So the cost of fencing options like solid wall and/or secondary fencing should be included in the total project cost. 9. Railings - The plans show removable railings throughout the trail and near Lozano Lane where it still being worked. Based on the recent minutes (attached) and my communication with VW, the district is concerned about its maintenance operations, bank failure due to erosion, and bank repairs. The plan is under review by the VW. If the railing designs are approved by Valley water, this design includes 900 -1000 footings and approximately 500 custom panels. As per VW, since the railings are too close to the bank this might trigger regulatory approvals at an additional cost and a delay of 12-18 months. 10. Gates to Trail heads - Currently the design has 10 trail heads. The City recommends the gates to remain open 24 hrs a day with a sign that the trail will be closed from dusk to dawn. This is a big safety concern for homeowners and the solution would cost an additional $50k per year for operating the gates. 11. Trail Width - The trail width as per feasibility study was 10 feet of paved path throughout when the study was approved, whereas as per the current design the width has been narrowed to 8 feet for about 50% of trail segments (Lozano/DePalma/La Mar). a. This sub-standard width does not meet user safety per current national (AASHTO) and state guidelines (CalTrans) for bi-directional multi use path shared by bicyclists and pedestrians next to a deep creek. In addition, the trail has contiguous obstruction on both sides leaving no room for passing traffic on either direction. The city of Mountain View is dealing with complaints of injury accidents on narrow sections of Stevens Creek trail as a result of sub-standard designs. b. The Width of the trail should be determined based on various factors including the number of users, type of users, peak times, etc. The City has not done this analysis. If this analysis is done the level of service on this trail would get an E or F grade. So, citing old trails in the county that were built with sub-standard designs is not a good justification for building new trails. The new trails should adhere to current design guidelines to ensure user safety especially when it is promoted as safe route to school. 12. Bridges - There are 2 bridges. The bridge designs are still under work in progress due to baseball field issues. The current design shows a 90 degree turn with a narrow width of 8 feet that would require bicyclists to step down to access the bridge when shared with pedestrians. Operational issues for removal of bridges with cranes has not been thought through. City has no solutions so far. To summarize, there are still issues to be resolved at 65% level. As per Master service agreement the City has with HMH engineers, 65% plans should "Advance the design to the point that all major design issues and solutions are represented in the plans". However, there are still major unresolved issues. I still do not get what problem the City is trying to solve? The streets that are parallel to the creek are 40 feet wide with 4 ½ feet pedestrian walkways on either side and designated as safe route to school by Safe route to school program. This neighborhood has the best pedestrian sidewalk infrastructure in the City as per the Bike Ped plan. The trail will be closed from dusk to dawn, and will also be closed during heavy rains, and during maintenance operations. This means the users still have to use normal city streets for biking and walking. Is there a $5.3M dollar problem to solve in this neighborhood for just 0.8 mile of trail that doesn’t fit in this dense suburban neighborhood? This would take tax payer dollars away from high priority CIP projects. A smart fiscally responsible solution would be to invest those funds in Citywide high priority transportation projects that are essential for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety throughout the City. The City needs additional funds for the library expansion and for Lawrence Mitty Park. I request the Council to seriously consider the Alternate options that would cost only 5% of the cost of Alternate 1. Thanks, Ilango Ganga Cupertino Resident Construction Cost.JPG 1.1MB Fence-WallCost.JPG 1.2MB 20190528RegnartCreekTrailSWDMinutes.pdf 161.6kB Source: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/swimming/docs/drowning_statistics.pdf •Just 2 inches of water is needed to drown •Most drownings happen in water < 5ft Source: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/swimming/docs/drowning_statistics.pdf •School age kids are the most at risk of drowning!! •How many school months will the trail be practically open? •Donate money to other school programs instead? Source: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hb9411.pdf •Direct outside access and Removing restricted access ===>> 15x more burglaries 4 points real burglars consider when targeting a home 1. The presence of a home security system 2. Possible witnesses –None after hours 3. Visibility of the home –Home is isolated from trail side 4. Multiple escape routes Source: https://www.vivint.com/resources/article/4-points-real-burglars-consider-when-targeting-a-home Regnart creek trail – Myths (Need to be fact checked) •Myth: The City Staff has not asked for input from the local residents •There has been a very large amount of outreach to the community. Four public meetings were held prior to the Feasibility Study City council vote to solicit both oral and written feedback from residents, including one held while walking the trail and a focused meeting with the Lozano Lane residents. Since the approval of the study in August 2018, an additional public outreach meeting was held in December 2018, and another community meeting will be held March 30, 2019 on the trail. •At all times during the planning process, residents have discussed their concerns in one-on-one discussions with City Staff, at Bicycle-Pedestrian Commission Meetings, in independent conversations and at Oral Communications at City Council. The Trail Concepts and the Feasibility Study include this feedback. During March and April of this year, one-on-one individual meetings with each neighbor adjacent to the trail and City Staff will be held which will influence design direction. •Myth: The trail will be unfenced against a steep slope of the creek bed •The feasibility plan for the trail includes a fence that will run along the edge of the creek. Residents, including children, will not be able to fall accidentally into the creek. •Myth: It will be too narrow to for cyclists and walkers to pass •The trail will be 10 feet wide, with a 2 foot shoulder. This will allow pedestrians and cyclists to easily pass each other. Source: https://www.regnartcreek.com/myths-about-the-trail Regnart Creek Comments To: Mayor Paul, Cupertino City Council Members From: M. Gary Wong, 20-year Cupertino Resident Date: August 21, 2018 Re: Opposition to proposed Regnart Creek Trail Introduction: Mayor Paul, Council Members. My name is Gary Wong, a 20 year resident of Cupertino. There are several critical, material, factual errors contained in the Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Study that I would like to bring to the Council’s attention. These errors can alter the perception of safety and privacy on the proposed trail and I urge you to seriously consider them as you evaluate the acceptance or not of the Feasibility Study. Trust but verify. First, I want to make an editorial comment that the community has not been given sufficient time to vet the findings and recommendations of the Study, especially when it is a major capital budget and planning item and because it has lasting impacts on the privacy of over 100 homes. At a meeting on May 23rd, residents of Lozano Lane and DePalma Lane were not allowed to express their concerns with the Trail and information provided to the Consultant and City Staff were left out of the 360 page Feasibility Study. Specific Errors contained in the Feasibility Study: 1. Page 14. Despite advising the Feasibility Study team and providing a Map of Tract 9405, clearly showing the Santa Clara Valley Water District was deeded only 10 feet next to the creek for a pedestrian path and utility service path, the Study wrongly states that 15 feet is available for that part of the Trail. Show Tract Map 9405. 2. Page 15. The map contained in the Study again shows 15 feet when only 10 feet is permitted. This is a major mistake which 2 impacts design, safety and utility of the Trail in the Study. Show Map of Page 15. 3. 10 feet does not meet any bike trail guideline issued by a city, district, county or state. 2 foot shoulders are standard guidelines, leaving only 6 feet for bi-directional traffic. This is clearly against every known trail design standard that exists today. Show Trail Design Illustration. 4. Further, along La Mar, most of the path is 12 to 13 feet, not the 15 feet that would be desirable. When fencing, trees and other site attributes are considered, there is less than the minimum 12 feet. Thus, perhaps more than 70% of the proposed trail may not meet current design guidelines for the Trail. Show Photo of La Mar Measurement 5. The proposed bike trail is too narrow to allow pedestrian and bike traffic to share and should not be pursued. 6. Page 16. The Study mentioned that during a storm, the Creek conveys 560 cubic feet of water per second and is not in a flood zone. The Study neglects to state that water rises to almost the top of the creek, an unsafe condition for pedestrians and cyclists. Show photo of water level of Creek. 7. Page 17 of the Study neglects to mention that the Trail site is a habitat for racoons, Opossums, Coyotes and Vultures. Perhaps they are not harmful to humans, but explain that to a child walking the creek. Explain that to a child who is panicked and is boxed in by a wall and a 14 foot drop on the other side. Tell the child it was foolish to run when he gets injured. Show photo of Vulture and Coyote. There are many more issues to raise regarding safety and privacy but the 3 minute time limit doesn’t permit further comment. Do not approve the Trail for safety, privacy or cost. There are wonderful alternatives available. Thank you. Good evening Council members, I am a resident of Cupertino. I here to talk about a serious violation of Ethics / legal act that was committed when the resolution 18-081 Regnart Creek feasibility study was rushed to the City council for approval on August 21st 2018. Pertinent information from the Santa Clara Valley Water District was hidden from the Council when appropriating $380K of public funds. The City prematurely put forward the resolution 18-081 without proper due diligence or due process and without incorporating specific feedback provided by Santa Clara Valley Water District on the Feasibility Study (see attached District letter dated Aug 21, 2018). The Water District had 22 specific comments on the feasibility document and requested that these issues be addressed prior to final adoption of the feasibility study.The City received this letter (from the District) at least 2 hours before the council meeting, but the staff did not disclose (or suppressed) this information to the City Council and the Public during the deliberations on Aug 21st. The District (property owner) specifically asked the City to address their 22 issues before the final adoption, and the City Staff had the fiduciary duty to disclose this information to the Council that was deliberating the feasibility study. The Council and the Public relies on the City staff to work and present information in good faith, however what happened on Aug 21st is a breach of trust and violation of Ethics, and the public has lost trust that the staff is acting in the best interest of the tax payers. The text in the resolution has misleading information that the District needs were addressed, however the District letter is a proof that that statement is not accurate. The council voted on a feasibility study that does not exist anymore, the amended study on the City website has not been voted for by the Council. So we request the Council who has the oversight to direct the City Attorney and City Manager to review the process to determine if these actions violated any legal or ethics code when appropriating public funds. We request to City management to bring the amended feasibility study back to the Council for approval. Thanks, Ilango 1 Regnart Creek Trail Studies – Comparative Changes between City Council Approved Draft 8/21/18 and Final Report, September 2018 Prepared by: G. Wong, Feb. 23. 2019 Note: Per City website, “Final Feasibility Study was prepared which incorporated Santa Clara Valley Water District comments and other minor administrative edits”. Observations: The Feasibility was amended to include substantive changes raised by Water District. However, it is our view that these are not MINOR administrative errors as represented to the Council. The Final Feasibility should seek confirmation from Santa Clara Valley Water District as to its acceptability and the Final study should be resubmitted to Council for approval. Council Resolution 18-081 states that SCVWD concerns and needs have been addressed whereas the letter from SCVWD on 8/21/18 proves that the statement in the resolution is inaccurate. Page Council Approved Study 8/21/18 Final Feasibility Study(partially includes SCVWD comments) SCVWD Comments Letter dated 8/21/18 Resident Observations 2 Inserts: “SCVWD COORDINATION Four coordination meetings between the City and SCVWD were held in preparation of the study. As SCVWD is the owner of Regnart Creek, the study takes into consideration their needs and concerns. The meetings focused on trail alignment, features, maintenance responsibility, and liability. The City will continue coordination with SCVWD throughout subsequent phases of the project”. Letter issued on day Council considers and votes on Trail Feasibility Study and approves funding for design and environmental impact study. States SCVWD concerns and needs are addressed, which is counter to SCVWD 8/21/18 letter which implies it did not see a draft of the Study prior to release or Council approval. 2 3 Inserts: “Trail head amenities may be provided where they do not conflict with or reduce SCVWD maintenance access” States access road have limited space for amenities such as information boards, seating. Trail head illustrations differ from site constraints. 4 Alternative 1 is recommended Silent on SCVWD preferred alternatives 4 or 5 SCVWD states preference for Alternative 4 or 5, with limited impact to SCVWD maintenance and operations. States Alternative 1 is most impactful Alternative 1 is recommended by HMH. No change nor mention of SCVWD preference for Alternate 4 or 5. Council and public were not informed of SCVWD preferences 7 Silent on SCVWD concerns. SCVWD expresses concern that designating trails as transportation corridors can be a problem when considering future uses of right of way for SCVWD purposes. It confers a duty onto SCVWD, through CEQA, to mitigate for any loss of or adverse impacts to the transportation corridor, in addition to any lost recreational use. The Joint Use Agreement will provide that the City be responsible for trail closures, trail detour routes, signs and maps, CEQA documentation and City will need to hold SCVWD harmless, take full responsibility and assume liability. Such costs are not considered in the Study. 3 mitigation required to implement the trail closures. 8 Under Agencies & Stakeholders, inserts “as depicted in property documentation and record maps.” Suggests verification of ingress-egress rights of PG&E and AT&T be verified through actual title documentation. Trail widths constraints exists and could be further constrained by utility access rights. 14 Inserts: “SCVWD as-builts depict the widths varying from 10 feet to 15 feet throughout the corridor”. Leaves in: Field measurements taken in preparation of this study recorded widths varying from 12 feet to 25 feet from the fence line to top of bank. At the end of the last paragraph, inserts “The City’s responsibilities and liabilities regarding the trail will be outlined and specified in future joint use agreements between the City and SCVWD”. The Study states maintenance road varies from 12 to 25’. District as- builts show maintenance road widths between 10- 15 ft., however this width has been reduced in many areas due to ongoing erosion and deterioration. The document should be revised to reflect this. Despite SCVWD reports of 10-15 feet trail widths, with on-going erosion, the final Study maintains the corridor widths are from 12- 25 feet, providing misleading, confusing and conflicting information to the Council and public. 16 Table 3.1 indicates no erosion noted on Reach 1 and mild incised invert, spot erosion on Reach 2. Table 3.1 changed to Bank Erosion and undercutting on Reach 1 and Bank Erosion and undercutting on Reach 2. The Final Study is silent on bank erosion and the instability of the banks. SCVWD notes that the Feasibility Study states the channel has no erosion. The information appears to be taken from an outdated report. SCVWD have document reports of erosion and sediment conditions in all reaches of Regnart Creek. The banks Erosion and bank instability suggests the Trail may be an unsuitable use or require extensive, costly repairs. Council and the public are not made aware of these conditions in the Final Study. The study misleads by using old data 4 in these reaches are unstable. The section of the Study needs to be updated to reflect the current condition along Regnart Creek where the trail is proposed. when new data was available from district. 22 Inserts: “SCVWD as-builts depict the access road widths varying from 10 feet to 15 feet throughout the corridor. Field measurements taken in preparation of this study recorded widths varying from 12 feet to 25 feet from fence line to top of bank”. Deletes: The existing road varies in width from 12 feet to 25 feet, constraining desired maintenance access widths in select locations. Same comment as right of way, indicating as builts showing widths from 10 feet to 15 feet. It is unclear how field measurements were made or what the boundary ranges are. Despite information to the contrary from the land owner, SCVWD, the Study continues to rely on its field measurements to promote the Trail. 23 Deletes: “THE HDM, AASHTO, and ADA manuals provide definitive, mandatory standards for trail design and construction. The PM, DG, UD, UM, NACTO, TK and MUTCD provides guidelines and recommendations that are no mandatory features for a proposed trail.” Inserts” The listed design resource manuals provide guidelines and recommendations that are not mandatory features for a proposed trail. No comment from SCVWD Removed the Mandatory guidelines to be followed because there is no space to build a standards compliant trail. This confirms the Regnart Creek Trail may not conform to broadly accepted trail criteria. 5 25 Deletes: “SCVWD allows the trail tread width to a minimum of 8 ft where existing access road is narrow.” Inserts: “Use of motorized vehicles on countywide trails shall be prohibited, except for wheelchairs, maintenance vehicles, and emergency vehicles. Under Trail Closures, inserts: “The City is responsible for temporary trail closures when construction, repair, and maintenance of the creek and or trail are required. These closures responsibilities may include notification to the public and implementation of detour routing.” Deletes: “Private access to public trails is discouraged, but in some instances it can occur. Criteria that shall be used to evaluate the appropriateness of private access to public trails include: visibility of access points, self-closing and self-locking features of gates, alignment between entry point and the actual trail head; and maintenance cost and responsibilities.” Inserts: “Private access to public creek trails on SCVWD right-of-way is prohibited. All access points to and from the trail shall SCVWD does not have allowable trail tread width standards. Trails should accommodate fully loaded maintenance equipment and any damage to the trail will be City responsibility. City will take full responsibility for trail closures when needed for District flood protection maintenance purposes. District does not allow or permit private access to public trails. All access points must be public access points controlled by the City. SCVWD asks that certain inaccurate representations be deleted. 6 be public access points controlled by the City.” 26 Trail Monitoring and Maintenance. Deletes: “Local and managing agencies are responsible … work. Inserts: “The City of Cupertino is responsible for patrolling the trail for potential maintenance and corrective work.” “Routine maintenance and repair of the trail and trail features is the responsibility of the City.” Inserts: “A level of service approach should be used by the managing agency to operate and maintain trails. Table UM-1 provides a general management framework for normal trail-related stewardship activities” (UM-3.0) SCVWD states “managing agencies” be changed to City of Cupertino. City should specify its maintenance and inspection criteria. Study should state that the City will prioritize and implement immediate repairs on District Right of Way where problems are impacting Regnart Creek or maintenance activities. Material costs for trail maintenance and operations are not stated in the Study and are permanent additions to the City’s operating budget. 27 The Study is silent on SCVWD participation or notification of public outreach. SCVWD requests invitation to participate in future outreach efforts so that we can be aware of community concerns related to the proposed use of our right of way and the City’s plans for addressing those concerns. Key stakeholder, SCVWD was excluded from public outreach, as well as receiving feedback on draft Study before adoption by the council. The question is why? Has SCVWD expressed its acceptability of the Final Study? 32 Inserts: Agency Coordination added to the Study explaining sensitivity to the needs and concerns of SCVWD Seems contradictory when SCVWD has not seen the study before release and 7 staff recommended approval from city council without disclosing SCVWD concerns. 34-38 Does not address SCVWD comment Alternative 1 would be most impactful to the District’s operation and maintenance activities. It will increase maintenance costs any work we do in this area, and the bridges may not be feasible without more detailed information on how their construction will affect our maintenance access. Additionally, it has been our experience that pedestrian bridge abutments cannot usually be constructed without removing the adjacent creek bank, which will require regulatory approvals. Key concern by SCVWD is not addressed or documented in the study. 39 Third diagram added: 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9 6.7: Trust Bridge increases from 42’ to 46’ 6.8 New Diagram Added showing 10’ bike/pedestrian path. SCVWD requests actual cross sections on this page at the most restrictive pinch points to show how the existing maintenance road access width will be Shows 10’ trail width but is unclear of the width reduction with wood split- rail, which could impact vehicle passage. 8 6.9 Removable wood split-rail added to diagram impacted. Study should specify how quickly the City will respond to requests to remove their bridges when requested by the District. 40-41 Diagram 6.13. The 2 foot shoulder is removed. Truss is increased from 40’ to 46’. Railing will not be allowed along the top of the bank, unless it is outside the District right of way as it impedes our ability to access the channel from the top of the bank. The diagram doesn’t seem to be to scale. Though the truss bridge was increased by 6 feet, the footings seem to be positioned at the same spot the diagram it updated. It would seem the longer truss bridge would take up more room from the current trail path. 6 feet is a meaningful distance where trail widths are already narrow. 42 Cantilever Structure at Lozano Lane Inserts: “and was unacceptable to the Santa Clara Valley Water District”. Box Culvert at Lozano Lane Inserts: “The SCVWD was unwilling to accept the negative environmental and slope stability consequences of this concept”. SCVWD ask that these designs were unacceptable to the District. New language suggesting these alternatives would cause erosion, affect seasonal wetlands and restrict District maintenance for flood protection. These alternatives were not selected based on sound engineering principale and These alternatives were offered to residents on Lozano Lane and De Palma Lane. 9 do not represent the District’s opinion. 44 Inserts:” Trailhead and access features shall be implemented as to not restrict or limit SCVWD’s ability to access the creek for maintenance. The City will be responsible for the maintenance of trailhead features”. Trailhead features should not limit ability for the District’s maintenance equipment to enter and leave maintenance roads. 45 Not addressed Plantings and decorative pavement at entrances are subject to damage and may be in the way of maintenance activities. 47 The Final Study is silent on safety concerns Safety railing and features make maintenance and inspection of District facilities difficult. At 3:1, no fencing is required, but most bank slopes are steeper than 3:1. A fence 2 feet from top of bank reduces usable space understanding that a vehicle needs more than 8’+/- width of the vehicle when there are constraints/wall on either side. Secondary screening fences will take another 18 inches or so, further reducing the width of the maintenance road. The Final Study is silent on safety concerns next to a steep creek , which is significant when a path is proposed as a safe route to school The final study still maintains that railing is allowed which is inaccurate while negotiations are still going on. 10 Removing fencing is also a lot of work and setting the fencing 2 feet back from the top of the bank will reduce the District’s maintenance footprint to 10 feet in some places which is not enough room for maintenance equipment 51-53 The Final Study is silent on these concerns. The cost for these additional measures adds costs and time to operations. It limits when and how we inspect our facilities, increase public frustration with the District when facilities must be closed and increases labor hours to work around. Adds increased operational costs for the City and District. 56 Trail Alignment. Insert: “the City will work closely with these residents to implement an appropriate screening solution”. Insert: “Mitigation for any loss or adverse impacts to the trail is the responsibility of the City. The City is also responsible for coordination with CEQA to provide pertinent documentation regarding trail Is there an increase in insurance premiums to the City for this increased liability? The Study is silent on this matter. 11 closures associated with flood protection work performed by SCVWD”. 57 Insert: “The porous paved trail will be designed to withstand maintenance vehicle loads. Swales, ditches, and drainage systems will not restrict or limit maintenance vehicle access widths”. Trail Surface Porous pavement must be designed to withstand maintenance loads and swale/drainage designs cannot restrict maintenance path width. 59 Insert: “The porous paved trail will be designated to withstand maintenance vehicle loads. Swales, ditches, and drainage systems shall not restrict or limit maintenance access widths”. Insert: “The city will coordinate directly with the County Sheriff’s office to establish patrol resources and scheduling commitments”. Insert: “In the event that creek side railings need to be temporarily removed to allow SCVWD to perform maintenance work or construction, the City will initiate trail closures and railing removals within 24 hours of notification as to not impede SCVWD from performing work”. County wide, Police Departments are strapped for resources and cannot provide consistent patrolling. The Study states removable fencing is consistent with many Creekside trails. There are few Santa Clara County trails that have top of bank fencing. This is a significant impact to the District which must be addressed. 61 Cross Section 4-4, 2 feet shoulder removed. Further narrows the trail width in an already constrained location. FW: Inaccuracies in the posted minutes - Proposed Regnart Trail From:David Stillman (DavidS@cupertino.org) To: Cc:RogerL@cupertino.org; LaurenS@cupertino.org; Timmb@cupertino.org Date:Friday, April 26, 2019, 04:20 PM PDT Hi Ilango, Roger asked me to respond to your email. He and I appreciate your taking the time to look into these issues. Valley Water is currently updating their guidelines, and Lisa Bankosh did indicate during the meeting that the trail design is generally consistent with their guidelines. VW has not shared their proposed criteria yet, and so we cannot say to what extent the trail meets their proposed guidelines. As you know, there is limited space available along the trail, and we intend to maximize the use that space to the extent possible to accommodate the trail. The guidelines are recommended practices, not requirements, and it is likely we won’t meet all guidelines due to the limited space. We will be happy to point out the exceptions once the design is more complete. Regarding modification of the minutes, they are an accurate representation of the discussion that happened at the meeting and have been reviewed and approved by City, HMH and Valley District staff. The discussion and analysis that you are requesting was not discussed at the meeting and so doesn’t belong to be included as part of the minutes. We’d be happy to address your concerns separately as we fine tune the trail design. Thanks, David David Stillman Transportation Manager Public Works DavidS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3249 From: Ilango <ilangog@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 10:37 PM To: Roger Lee <RogerL@cupertino.org> Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <manager@cupertino.org> Subject: Inaccuracies in the posted minutes - Proposed Regnart Trail Dear Roger, Thank you for posting the minutes of the meeting dated Mar 28th, 2019 between the Valley Water District (VW) and the City of Cupertino on the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. I would like to point out couple of issues in the minutes. https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=24159 1. An excerpt from the meeting minutes, “Regnart Creek Trail will abide by currently published guidelines per the direction of VW. i. Santa Clara County Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines shall be used as guidelines, whenever feasible, for Regnart Creek Trail design”. Please indicate what it means by,”whenever feasible”. What would the city do when it is not feasible? Provide details where it is not feasible and when the trail does not meet the guidelines so the public can be made aware of the issues and the Council can make informed decisions. 2. I noticed an inaccurate statement in the minutes. Here is an excerpt, "Lisa Bankosh (LB) stated the Regnart Creek Trail design does not appear to deviate from current guidelines." However, the trail does not meet the guidelines including setback to residential properties/private fences as set in the Santa Clara County Interjurisdictional Uniform Trail Design Guidelines. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/parks/PlansProjects/Documents/TrailsMasterPlan/Interjursidictional-Trails-Guidelines-text- and-graphics.pdf The proposed trail runs too close to the homes with a setback as narrow as 2 feet from the property lines. It does not meet the following guidelines UD 1.1.2, UD 1.1.4, Figs T-5A, T- 3, T-4, UD 2.2.2, etc., Please correct the inaccurate statement in the minutes and state the facts. UD 1.1.2 - Trail Setbacks Land Use Category Residential 25 feet “UD - 1.1.2 (††)* Trails shall generally be sited as far away from occupied dwellings as practical. Where trails are developed in conjunction with high-density residential areas, it may be appropriate to incorporate the trail or access to the trail into the overall circulation of the housing complex. In these situations, the trail alignment should be developed to avoid the creation of alleys and should take into consideration the privacy of residents using setbacks as indicated in Table UD-1. (See also: Figure T-4). Table UD-1: Trail Setbacks Land Use Category(1) Trail Setback (2) Residential 25 feet (7.6 m)”. Fig T- 5A - Setback to private property line greater than 10 feet optimum and 3’-6” feet minimum UD 1.1.4 - In areas where trail routes are adjacent to private property, security fencing or walls should be no closer to the trail than 3’-6”. “UD - 1.1.4 (†)* In areas where trail routes are adjacent to private property, visible fencing shall be employed, 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” (1 m) and no lower than 4’-8” (1.4 m). (See also: Guideline UD - 4.11.2, Figures T-4, T-5A, and T-5B)”. Fig T-5A – Clearance 3’-6” minimum for tree, sign or other obstructions UD - 2.1 (††) Trail Setting. The public lands or easements that comprise the trail setting should not preclude the viability of adjacent uses. The trail setting should allow sufficient width for management activities and/or buffer space from adjacent uses. Table UD-2 lists optimum widths for trail settings based on generic urban land use designations: Land Use: Low density Residential – Optimum Trail Route Easement / Right-of-way: 30 feet (9.1m) UD 2.2.2: Shared-use trails should be designed as paved two-way paths and should have an optimum width of 12 feet whereas proposed Regnart Trail has 8 feet paved width. I request you to update the minutes accordingly and identify all the areas where the trail does not meet the guidelines. If the city believes that the UD guidelines are met, please provide details as to how it meets the guidelines. Thanks, Ilango Ganga As a Cupertino Resident Dear Mayor and Cupertino City Council members, I am a Cupertino resident for the past 16 years. I am concerned about the proposed Regnart trail, and a huge majority of residents (over 90%) in this part of the city share similar concerns. When the City is planning to retrofit a trail in an established residential neighborhood, especially when it affects the serenity and peaceful living of current residents, it is important that their concerns should take priority over the advocacy groups that typically don’t care about the affected residents, unless it personally affects them as well. The residential streets parallel to the creek have the highest safety rating, and traffic is not an issue on these streets. Safe and cost effective alternatives are available using existing surface streets when compared to the multi-million dollar trail (with issues) for a short distance of 3/4th of a mile. The proposed trail has various geographical constraints and impacts the residents along the creek in multiple different ways. The proposed alignment is next to front, side, and back yards of homes along the path. Key issues of major concern are safety and security of the users, privacy and security of neighbors, traffic congestion on Blaney Ave, liability to the city, and loss of habitat. Privacy and security are important to the residents for peaceful living. Differing grading levels, fencing structures, and open access after dark severely affect the privacy and security of residents along the creek. Risk of break-ins, theft and vandalism are higher on dark secluded creek paths. The feasibility study simply does not adequately address these issues, and does not fully account for in cost estimates, possibly to low ball the numbers. Safety of users on a shared use narrow path next to a deep creek (as deep as 12-14 feet) is a major concern, when K-5 children share the path with adult bikers and teenagers that can race over 20 miles per hour. Unlike other cities, Cupertino does not have a policy/guidelines for implementation of shared use trails/bike paths next to creeks. So the feasibility study conveniently cherry picks the lowest width (8-10 ft tread) from different references. Santa Clara County Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail design guidelines specify an optimum tread width of 12 ft or more with 2 ft of shoulders on either side (total of 16 ft) is required (UM 4.53) when significant pedestrian and/or bike traffic is expected on shared use paths to avoid conflict between pedestrians and bikers. Also less than 12 ft wide tread can break up along the edges as result of loads from maintenance vehicles (1003.1), which is a routine occurrence on this trail. In addition, 2 ft clearance from the creek bank is required for installing a split railing that further reduces the available width for the trail. So, the proposed alignment will result in a tread width of 8 ft (or even lower) in multiple segments of the trail violating safety standards (USDOT: “Trails that are 2.4 m (8 ft), which AASHTO recommends only in “rare instances,” were found to have poor levels of service, except at very low volumes”). This is critical when the trail is being promoted for use by school children, teenage and adult bikers; there is not enough width along multiple segments of the trail, which will greatly affect children safety and triggers liability to the city and tax payer dollars. In conclusion the trail does not meet the safety standards of multiple national, state and county guidelines for a shared use path. The nature of the path does not provide adequate access to emergency vehicles inhibiting emergency or medical personal from reaching sections of the trail on time critical situations, affecting user safety. Safe Alternatives: The creek runs along a residential neighborhood with safe surface streets with sidewalks, and access to nearby schools, library and parks. Safe alternatives over surface streets exist in this part of the city at a fraction of the cost (1/24th or $100K for “Alternative 4” per feasibility study) of developing this $2.4 Million trail, for just a 3/4th of a mile that too split into multiple segments with three crossings. Another alternative (East of DeAnza Bike blvd) path exists in the vicinity that has not been documented in the feasibility study (may be “conveniently” left out!). There is a Class III bike lane as part of the Bike Boulevard project that connects the Creekside Park to the City center through Pacifica, Suisun, Clifford, and East Estates Dr. This path provides access to Eaton Elementary from Creekside Park, and Class III bike lane markings are already in place from Creekside to Suisun/Eaton where there is a crossing-guard. Residents already use this path to walk/bike to Eaton. The concept of Cupertino loop can continue on surface streets (Alternative 4). Based on 2016 bike plan, only 56% of “the loop” is on proposed trails, 44% of “the loop” runs on surface streets through major arteries McClellan Rd, Stevens Creek Blvd, Stelling Rd, Tantau Ave and crosses major intersections on Stevens Creek Blvd, Miller Ave and De Anza Blvd. The residential streets (Alternative 4) in our neighborhood are the safest of all (less than 6% of the loop). As per data cited in the bicycle and pedestrian plans, there were no incidents on these alternate streets. Major incidents and traffic problems per those studies were in the major arteries, not on these residential streets. The feasibility study could not substantiate with data on what problems exist in this neighborhood and why such an expensive solution is needed, because no such problems exist here. The proposal is trying to fit a solution to a problem that is non-existent in this residential area. In summary, consider the safety/security of children & residents and privacy of homeowners when retrofitting a trail in an established neighborhood. The residential streets have the highest safety rating, with sidewalks and kids can continue to safely bike and walk to school here. As our elected representatives, I encourage you to address the neighborhood concerns by choosing “Alternative 4” ($100K, on existing residential streets) that greatly meets the objectives of safe biking/walking in the city and saves $2.3 Million of tax payer dollars. The funds can be diverted to broader use to improve bike and pedestrian safety on major arteries and large part of the city streets and boulevards around Cupertino. Ilango Ganga Farallone Dr, Cupertino Fw: Liability issues regarding Regnart Creek Path From:Linda Wyckoff To: Date:Wednesday, September 11, 2019, 11:41 AM PDT ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Linda Wyckoff <lwyckoff2@yahoo.com> To: dpaul@cupertino.org <dpaul@cupertino.org>; rsinks@cupertino.org <rsinks@cupertino.org>; svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>; bchang@cupertino.org <bchang@cupertino.org>; sscharf@cupertino.org <sscharf@cupertino.org>; Timm Borden <timmb@cupertino.org>; manager@cupertino.org <manager@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2018, 9:31:36 PM PDT Subject: Liability issues regarding Regnart Creek Path Dear Esteemed Council Members, Ms. Chan, Mr. Borden and Mr. Paulsen, I email you today to voice my concern about liability for the City of Cupertino with regard to the proposed Regnart Creek Path. I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting on August 21st so I will impart my remarks to you via this email. This path isstated in the draft of the Feasibility Study to be a primarily recreational trail on page 5, while on page 56 of this document, it statesthat the City of Cupertino would be the responsible party in regards to maintenance and liability of the trail. In the early 2000’s there was a case Prokop vs. the City of Los Angeles. David Prokop sued Los Angeles, seeking damages forinjuries he suffered while cycling along a bike path designed by the city. He was attempting to cycle through an opening to the path,ignoring the message painted on the pavement that stated “WALK BIKE,” when he collided with a chain link fence, causing a severelaceration to his forehead, loss of consciousness and neck pain. He asserted the fence was placed too close to the bike path. Thecourts have defined bike paths as recreational trails where users are "at their own risk.” For routes deemed for transportation, theliability is borne by the city in which the path resides. Therefore, if somehow you can have your bike path designated as a route oftransportation, then you can hold the city liable for any injuries you might sustain while using it. The Prokop case attempted to place liability back onto the city, not the users of these recreational trails. This case started amovement in California to have all cities in the state liable for injuries sustained on all paths regardless of reasons for use. Our localcycling coalition was supportive of this movement. This case was ruled in favor of the city of Los Angeles in 2007. However, now itappears that paths are being redefined as routes of transportation to school or work. This is certainly the case with Regnart CreekPath. Only the most casual of parent would allow their young child to walk or bike to school on this unsupervised path. Parents arebeing misled into thinking their children can benefit from this path. It is also not a particularly appropriate route for workcommuters, nor for students, most all of whom could easily find more direct routes to school by utilizing existing safe streets. It mayend up being only slight hyperbole to postulate that possibly the only commuting that will be done on this path is from HowardCourt to City Hall, the direct path of Jennifer Shearin, by far the most vociferously outspoken proponent and spin doctor for thepath. It is said that City Council will be taking the recommendation of the Bike/Pedestrian Commission. The duty of a commission is tobe unbiased so they can make a reasonable, objective and fair recommendation on a particular subject. I ask, is that happening here?Do you think any issue that does not support the commission’s wish for the path will be fully considered? Cupertino does not currently have a city attorney with whom to consult. This puts the city at a grave disadvantage. Mistakes can bemade that could bankrupt the city. Opening up a recreational path such as Regnart could very well be one of those mistakes. This is apath that has been designed by proxy. Guidelines by many different governing agencies were used to cobble together the leastrestrictive design requirements possible. It should be called Frankenpath. The proposed path has been retroactively designed to fit into a neighborhood where it does not belong, most specifically for theunfortunate residents of Lozano Lane, such as Gary Wong and his family, whose daily living environment will be impacted in a mostunconscionable way. Will there be a fence erected between the trail and the creek? Will concerned homeowners’ legitimate safetyand privacy concerns be mitigated by one of several unappealing proposed fence / wall scenarios (refer to page 46)? Yes, we heardat “community outreach” events, only to now learn that such protective measures are unlikely. Fencing will only be erected toprevent users from leaving the trail. Lighting won’t be provided. Grading where the path is significantly higher than the homes it isnext to will not be provided. Obviously, cost becomes an important consideration in such evaluations. Is the city truly cognizant ofwhat it would actually cost to construct this short path in a way that answers the multitude of concerns that have been brought toyour attention by concerned neighbors? Is an estimate of “in the $1 million to $10 million range” something that you’re prepared toact upon? Really? Will the costs be buried in so many different places that the total will never be available to the public? Will the current design be dumbed down in an effort to “save costs” making the path become an attractive nuisance that is also quitedangerous? A large part of the budget appears to be going towards bizarre, to put it mildly, bridging with removable trusses to solvethe problem of the maintenance access ramp. These trusses would be removed by crane then reassembled. What? Has reality taken aleave of absence in our city? Reading about the alternatives discontinued from further evaluation on pages 42-3 might prove mypoint. I must also mention that our neighborhood has been defamed on social media, traditional media and at the podium in City Hall asbeing only concerned with our safety and privacy. And though many of my neighbors no doubt harbor such concerns, we have alsobeen typecast as wanting the path behind our back fence for our own personal playground. We bought our homes in spite of the path,not because of it. We’ve been accused of being selfish NIMBY’s with “deep pockets” because we were able to scrape together $500to fund signs in our yards. Everyone with a ‘no path’ lawn sign up feels deeply about their opposition to the path. We all have keptthem up so long so that we will finally be recognized and hopefully finally listened to. We know this path very well. It is not an assetthat it is being purported to be. Our newest neighbors are just as opposed as those of us who have lived here for decades and recallvividly the vandalism of past years when the area behind our homes was left as an unlocked thoroughfare. The path is touted asraising the value of our homes. Really? Not when you ask a credible realtor. How many of you have actually walked this path its full length vs. having just looked at artist renderings? Come walk with us. Wewill show you what you are voting on. Currently in our community and nation there is a lack of civility that can lead to a total loss of community. Please do not contributeto this degradation of Cupertino. It’s a slippery slope that leads a community into a downward spiral. Steve Piasecki, a formerdirector of Community Development in Cupertino, said at a long ago City Council meeting that you can’t have community if peopledon’t feel safe. I agree with that. Well, another important point is that you can’t have community if residents feel they haveabsolutely no say in what happens to their neighborhood. If the City Council elects to override the fervent wishes of a neighborhoodso dramatically as in the case of Regnart Creek Path, you send a loud and clear message that their input and activism do not matterin Cupertino. That is not the kind of impact anyone should want to leave on the city they serve. Sincerely, Linda Wyckoff 19971 La Mar Drive Linda Wyckoff’s Speeches Speech to CC 9/3/19 Since Regnart Path doesn’t fit its neighborhood well, the course of action early on was to disenfranchise adjacent neighbors, to disregard safety guidelines so the trail cannot be called substandard if there are no standards, and to repeat falsehoods enough so that in time they become the de facto truth. It’s like “the emperor has no clothes”. If the trail makes it to construction and it comes time for the public to finally see the finished product, many will say “That’s this?” “What the heck?” “Do I really want my kids on this?” What benefit is it to Lawson students? Where is the beautiful nature trail we were promised? Where is the paved class 1 bike trail we were promised? As now proposed, it will be an unpaved and rutted dirt trail next to a drainage ditch. And if it’s not paved, it’s not class 1. Due to the sighting of wild animal droppings on the trail, we adjacent neighbors were accused of walking our dogs back there, another myth. Then there’s the lure of massive gains in home values. That myth has got to be the most fantastic of all, as documented by a professional appraiser. I’ve been to many so called “outreach sessions”, where we were told what is going to happen to our neighborhood. The outreach was to the benefit of the proponents, not us. Our input was neither listened to nor welcomed. This in no way constitutes legitimate outreach. City staff teamed with path proponents to give them access to tightly-held information about the path while we had to dig for it. While we were digging deep, proponents were out gathering petition signatures. Staff told us that the petition doesn’t matter, it’s not a popularity contest. So we stopped signature collections at around 500 in August of 2018. As whispered now however, it appears that petition collecting may end up being all that matters. Another fairytale is school connectivity. Regnart has a total of 40 points in the priority rating for school connectivity. Parents are being presented with the myth that this pneumatic tube will deliver their children to school. If you think you’ve been hearing from us a lot lately, just wait till parents realize they’ve been sold a faulty bill of goods. The pro-path petition is based on myths. Don’t forget, most who signed the petition supporting Regnart have never walked the trail and have little emotional investment. They were hard sold by those touting myths that will not hold up so well under the heat of public scrutiny once it’s in. I’ve just scratched the surface tonight. Remember, the truth always has a way of coming out in the end. Speech to CC 8/19 Priority Study Session We’ve watched estimates for Regnart balloon from $664K to nearly $6 million and counting. This is due to rising costs on bridgework, moving the baseball field mere feet to the north and neighborhood security requirements. Why is it that we are told cost is no issue for Regnart while supporters of the all-inclusion play ground and the library expansion for costs over $5 million are asked to fundraise for their projects? What does this say about our priorities in this city? What it does say is that Regnart could become our own “bullet train”. The Transportation Manager said at a recent City Council meeting and at a Bike/Ped Commission meeting that project priority ranking criteria is indeed subjective, and admitting this fact is just about the only thing about this process that has been transparent. At the November 2017 Bike Ped Commission meeting, a motion was passed to adjust scoring by 10 points for School Connectivity for Carmen Road Bridge and Regnart Creek Trail to propel these projects to Tier One priority. Additionally, it is intimated that every bike incident within Cupertino city limits would have been prevented by having Regnart trail built. One councilmember commented that it appears to be heavy lobbying that pushes projects up to the surface of this list. The amount of pressure that a handful of lobbyists for this trail have exerted is astounding. That in itself should indicate that maybe it isn’t such a good idea. If it was a good idea it would be supported by its nearest neighbors, which it clearly is not. Developers need Regnart trail to offset the impact of their large project. Under the General Plan only land connected to creeks and bike path can be dedicated as “parkland”. We need to add developers as a special interest group also pushing for this path. We hear about staff needing consensus for certain projects to go forward. Why is neighborhood consent for Regnart never considered? Staff, please tell the citizens of this city how the bicycle boulevards that actually connect neighborhoods to schools including De Anza, and that benefit of a large percentage of the population are bumped downward at the expense of an unfeasible trail that’s opposed by a large segment of our citizenry. A trail which is laden with dangerous crossings and many other issues which will make it most unattractive to parents considering the best routes for their children’s school commutes. Let’s not forget the true meaning of the word priority. Speech to CC 5/21/19 Today, May 21st, was originally targeted as a milestone, the date of council’s vote whether or not to proceed to final design of Regnart Trail. Instead, we now find the vote postponed to July, due to a council member’s quest for a waiver of his longstanding recusal regarding Regnart trail decisions. His recusal was an obvious and wise decision due to his home’s location. It does not abut the path but is very near it. Has the appearance of impropriety that resulted in his opting for recusal somehow since dissipated into thin air? No. In fact, a recent professional appraisal of his home states that “intervening obstacles“, which specifically means his neighbor’s homes, will absorb any negative aspects of the path regarding noise, privacy, safety and security. This individual seeking unrecusal has stated to me and other path opponents that “nothing you can tell me about the path will change my mind”. He also let us know at one point, that there appeared to be a spy within our midst. We then found out that our assumed “leaks” were actually due to a city staffer choosing to blind cc a path proponent on what we had inferred were confidential email correspondences between ourselves and city personnel. Is this proper behavior for supposedly neutral city staff? Is last minute unrecusal from voting the proper behavior of an elected city official? Another elected city official bragged in public about his role in recruiting Monta Vista High School students to come to this podium to address city council in support of the trail. Keep in mind that exactly zero Monta Vista students would use Regnart trail on their school commute. In fact, only a very small subset of ‘Cupertino High’ students are well positioned to use it, all being west of Blaney Avenue. And finally, Council will recall a letter from the Water District finding fault with the Draft Feasibility Study, specifically enumerating 22 deficiencies that was withheld from City Council prior to their vote last August 21. After the vote, staff made the recommended changes, then labeled the new report as final on the city website without presenting it to Council. This was all discovered by our team. Why is it that ordinary citizens are providing checks and balances on city personnel? I once saw a quote “Speak the truth even if you voice shakes”. That is what I am doing today. In July, this body can opt to end this debate once and for all, and save the city millions of dollars. Please scrub it’s mention on all City Master Plans. Thanks for listening to me. Speech to CC of 5/7/19 The issue of competing goods has been brought up frequently in this room. This means that both sides to an issue have value, but simply differ in opinion. When considering competing goods in the case of Regnart Trail, whose voice ought to weigh more heavily? The occasional user, or the family whose front door is a mere feet away from the path, and who will have to deal with it 24/7. A seasoned former Parks and Rec chair said he had never seen an opposition so strongly united against a project as the Regnart Creek path was when it was debuted back in 2005. He concluded that a trail shouldn’t be crammed down the neighborhood’s throat. And of course, in 2005 the City Council ended up voting unanimously to remove the trail from the city’s general plan. But somehow… now years later, it got back in. There are many people in Cupertino who are indifferent to Regnart Path. Even the unaffected can see that while this may not be their issue, the next one might be. As our neighborhood goes, so will go others. Whitney and Clay, you’ll be next. And then another and another. By shoehorning this path into an existing suburban neighborhood using substandard widths, precedent will have been established to do so elsewhere. A better, more cost effective solution is to use the Regnart Creek funding to provide more and better on-street bike lanes. To that end, I’d like to suggest that the City Council move to require that Bike / Ped commission meetings be videotaped and posted. This commission is advising on some very big ticket items for the city, and all community members should have access to their meetings as we already do for other commissions. This fight gives me no pleasure. My neighbors and I did not join it willingly. In fact we were blindsided by it. My neighbors are not “a few hysterical NIMBYs” as we have been called. Soon City Council will have the opportunity to end this sad excuse for “parkland use” once and for all. It has been said on this dais that you can’t have community if people don’t feel safe. Well, another important point is that you can’t have community if homeowners feel they have absolutely no say in what happens to their neighborhood. If the City Council elects to override the fervent wishes of a neighborhood so dramatically as in the case of Regnart Trail, you send a loud and clear message to all residents that their input and activism don’t matter in Cupertino. Speech given by Dave Wyckoff to CC A few of us were able to meet with city engineering staff yesterday to review the design for Regnart creek trail. Unfortunately, it seems that most major sticking points remain unresolved: especially at Lazano Lane, and at De Palma Lane. Bridge removal logistics for creek maintenance using a crane are incomplete. The proposed mid-street crossing solution at Blaney will add an additional choke point for some 8000 cars a day. One of the Wilson park Little League fields, including the huge backstop, all the fences, dugouts and all, may require being picked up and relocated some 10 feet or so to the north, ripping out a bunch of concrete and potentially impacting the location of the snack shack and the T-ball field. Alternative designs to moving the little league field appear to be even more costly. There’s apparently no feasible scenario for locking 10 separate gates at night, and no lighting is being provided. At some point, as costs mount, it’s imperative that those of you on the council assess the viability of this project on a realistic cost-benefit basis. You’ll recall that path opponents had collected 450+ signatures from Cupertino residents by last August, but this project won’t be based on any popularity contest. It’ll be on what’s best for the commmunity after your thorough analysis. And on whether there’s real value added. So let’s take this part of the route as currently designed. If one enters the trail here at east estates, they will then be forced to cross a bridge at a 90° angle. Then turn again at another 90° angle, slowing any cyclist. They’ll proceed behind these trees, then come back across, on a separate diagonal bridge, before proceeding down to Blaney. Pedestrians would have a much shorter route just walking the safe sidewalk here. Cyclists would have a more direct route straight through on La Mar. Then, to proceed to the very end of the trail, one could just turn from Lamar onto Blaney and then take a right on Pacifica. From start to finish, the proposed trail is actually a long cut, not a short cut. Many commuters will choose to bypass it altogether. Let’s save several million dollars and just stripe the existing roads with markings to make them as safe as possible. Maybe add speedbumps if needed. Lets also demand realistic trail usage projections based on where people actually live and where they actually commute to. And finally, let’s find out whether parents will be comfortable sending young kids to school along an unsupervised back alley path, knowing as we do how that same plan worked out back in the 1960s and 70s, when the Wilson park area was known as Wilson Elementary school. Anyway, thanks for listening. One last thing. Unfortunately, instead of sticking to legitimate arguments, proponents have recently taken to accusing local residents of blocking public trail use so that we can retain “our own personal recreational area.” As if we’re having neighborhood barbecues back there, or maybe setting up a horseshoe pit or something. I have no idea what it is that you think we use this area for, but it’s wrong. It’s dishonest. We don’t go back there for recreational purposes for a couple of reasons. It would be a pretty stupid thing to do, as the area is unattractive and in no way a place for homeowners to hang out. Secondly, it’s illegal and we would be subject to trespassing laws. So please, can we stop with the dishonest caricatures being propagated in community and even school periodicals? Speech on 4/23/20 to SCVWD Good evening board members. I am here to talk about The proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Cupertino City staff and its consultants are proposing to override existing trail setback guidelines so that the Regnart Creek Trail can be intrusively shoehorned into the existing creek locale. It’s a poor fit. Please do not allow your own guidelines to be discarded. This is an upstream Trail, where water rushes through forcefully and creates a much higher probability of erosion. Its banks already show erosion as you have already noted. Before a project of this size and complexity is presented to anyone, a detailed inspection of the site should have been made. Such careful planning, however, was not exercised when the City of Cupertino proposed the Regnart Creek trail. You may have been getting robo emails in support of Regnart Trail from people all over the valley as they have been flooding Cupertino City Council inboxes lately. Emails have been distributed far and wide that include a QR code to be scanned to easily initiate these robo emails. Please take these emails with a grain of salt, as they likely come from remote non- residents who may support the proliferation of bike trails in general but have not even set eyes on this specific proposed path. When any city is proposing a trail on your property in the future, I would strongly suggest that the Water District does their own outreach to adjacent property owners who are most affected via postal mailings and request a response directly from the affected residents from the outset. Please do not simply heed city staff assurances that neighborhood residents are supportive to prevent something like this from happening again. One only needs to look at the tread marks left behind from the trucks on the roadbed on the muddy surface of the path to see that maintenance trucks are barely wide enough to fit into it as it stands now. Big trucks, both yours and PG&E, drive behind our back fences almost touching the fences, so that they don’t dare venture too close to the creek edge. I request the Board to not enter into a Joint Use Agreement with the City of Cupertino if you cannot mitigate neighborhood concerns. Why would you want such a trail if you know the neighbors will not feel any sense of stewardship towards it? Please don’t approve the trail if does not meet the guidelines. Please do not allow setbacks from private property any closer than your own guideline recommendations. Do not set an unfortunate precedent by overriding your own guidelines. I assume they were put in place to mitigate pinch points. What if the entire trail is one big pinch point as Regnart trail is? I would also encourage the board members to walk the trail to fully understand the residents concerns before making any decisions. Speech to CC on 4/17/19 Robo emails of support for Regnart Trail from people all over the valley have been flooding your inboxes. Emails with a QR code to scan to robo email you have been sent wide and far. Please take these emails with a grain of salt because that’s all they are worth. If you cast a wide net, you’ll catch a lot of bait fish. Path proponents have gotten 1000+ signatures for their petition. A petition signer should be informed by the requestor about the issues before signing. Most of them have not seen the path nor will ever use it. Were they told that there will be no safety railing to separate the path from the creek and how narrow it will be? We’ve all experienced hyper aggressive petition signature gatherers at one time or another and possibly signed something we should not have. Proponents are selling this path for its benefits to get to the library after school, do they realize that a good many children who bike to the library will be coming home after dark in the fall and winter and therefore would need to return home on the well-lit surface streets. The path will be easily accessible to them but it will be pitch dark. Let’s hope no young child uses this path to get home from the library when it’s dark. Also, solo riders going to the library would be using the path during periods with very low usage. This is not a good path to be alone on. If these parents were informed about this very fact, I’m sure they would not support this path. I’m not saying that those who sign the path did so in ignorance however they were either misinformed or not informed at all of important issues regarding this path. It is a natural reaction to say yes to paths in general however people need to be informed that this is a very unique and potentially dangerous path. Proponents state that this path will provide recreation space to 8,000 people living one quarter of a mile of the trail without the large price tag. Pardon me but this path has a very large price tag. It could be upwards of six million dollars with additional ongoing fees for maintenance. Speech to CC 3/18 Our neighborhood has been very concerned with the way this project has been conducted. Before we had any knowledge of it, a feasibility study and a negative mitigation declaration had been provided to the city. Path supporters had sole access to your ears about a year and a half before we had any input. By that time, we heard that you all had made your decision that the path should be opened. Please listen to us. Please try to see this from our point of view. We’ve lived here a long time and think you need to trust what we are saying. A lot of money is spent on the consultant’s studies but they all seem to not measure certain aspects that are crucial. Those are the basic rights that every citizen of this city has. They are the right to privacy, safety and security. Also, it should be noted in these reports if the project has neighborhood acceptance. These reports failed on all accounts. Just the fact that we were not brought on board with this project until a year and a half had gone into it speaks volumes. By this omission, we can assume our input was not wanted. The more eyes on something means the more problems can be addressed and then mitigated. When we speak, our words are thought of as “fake news”. They had solo access to your ears for a year and a half and talked up the plan until you were all on board with this plan. At this point, we were finally informed of the plan. The projects that have been shielded from the public eye need to come out into the light. We need to have our input heard too, otherwise there you will only be hearing one side of the story and there are always two sides of it. We invite the standing city council members to join us on a walk down the path. Let us show you how former Parks and rec commissioner Therese Smith labeled the path’s inaccessibility for emergency vehicles as “The Fatal Flaw” while the Negative Mitigation Declaration labels it as “less than significant impact” because no new fire or police facilities will have to be built for it. We will also be providing a letter containing a list of our concerns about this project so that we do not have to tell you three minutes at a time. It will save us all so much time. This project has enough cumulatively considerable impact that it should be rejected. The Negative Mitigation Declaration says it does not. It took us time to show this to the city council in 2005 but we finally were able to get our story told. In conclusion, we trust that our city representatives will hear us out, just as they did in 2005. Speech in 2/18, this speech was given at both Safety Commission meeting and City Council Meeting I have lived by Regnart Creek for 23 years and know it well. I have been asked to convey to you the thoughts of a number of households that live directly adjacent to the proposed path and will be most directly impacted. Having canvassed the area thoroughly, we can confidently state that our neighborhood is almost unanimous in opposition. The trail is being promoted, dubiously we believe, as a “safe transportation route to school.” I recently spoke with an avid cyclist and path proponent at the city meeting and I asked her why she wanted to bike down our back alley instead of the very attractive Wilson Park parallel to the path. She told me in Wilson Park she is forced to make S-curves and slow down to 15 miles per hour. Think about that for a moment. How do we reconcile the prospect of speeding cyclists mixed with young pedestrians, skateboarders, e-bikes and young cyclists on a very narrow path? It’s a recipe for disaster. The path curves at several spots and creates a secluded environment that many will find unsuitable for their children to walk to school on. In the June 2016 Bike and Transportation Plan, our neighborhood streets were rated a 1 out of 20 for safety by Alta Consulting, which is the safest rating a street can get. This proves the point that the safety problem is not in our neighborhood, its elsewhere. Many safety problems are being created, not solved, by proposing this path. The path intersects busy streets at several points, creating chaos and the potential for accidents at those crossings. The Blaney crossing is particularly problematic. I’d recommend that you spend some time there at peak school transit times and try to imagine young cyclists mixing with speeding cars at a blind perpendicular crossing. An open and accessible creek bed will become an attractive nuisance for unsupervised youngsters and teens. There will be no neighborhood watch in effect, so everyone will be on their own back there. It will potentially provide a safe haven for illicit activities. Long time residents recall rock-throwing and other transgressions in past years when the area was not so thoroughly locked down The path is inaccessible for any emergency vehicles or police cars due to the V-cutout in the roadway. Some bridges have been proposed but no bridge solves this problem. We have been told that solid fencing is out of the question for the path due to its cost. That will either leave the path with no lighting or with lighting that will flood our homes at all times of the night. It is highly unlikely that the numerous gates to the path will be closed every night so we will be left with a dark, open alleyway behind our homes, hardly conducive to providing a sense of “safety”. Thank you for your consideration of the safety needs of our community. Valley Water response to my comments on proposed Regnart Creek Trail 65% design From:Ilango To:dpaul@cupertino.org Date:Sunday, July 21, 2019, 05:14 PM PDT Dear Darcy, I had written to Valley Water (VW) on my review of 65% design plans of the proposed Regnart Creek Trail and I received the attached response letter dated Jul 10, 2019. As per the letter, Valley Water concurs that the concerns raised by me are in parallel to their concerns. Here are some that I would like to bring to your attention. 1. Trail Maintenance and Creek Repairs: As per the 65% designs, railings are proposed almost at the edge of the creek bank (3 to 6 inches). Based on the plans, it is estimated to have about ~1000 footings (9-foot deep) for railings on the entire length of the creek bank. These railings would add to the ongoing erosion of the creek bank. As per VW, it is the sole responsibility of the City to address erosion issues due to trail construction and its use. The City might have to go to regulatory authorities for their concurrence. The Cupertino City while proposing to open this trail will also be responsible for ongoing maintenance of creek banks due to erosion issues. The VW has not provided a cost estimate for the ongoing maintenance of creek bank and erosion control. This is like the City signing a blank check to VW for unknown maintenance operations/repairs in the future. For example, in 2018, The City of Mountain View approved $595K to VW for trail maintenance repairs (bank repairs costs covered by VW) due to erosion on Stevens Creek Trail near Yuba Dr. 2. Proper Survey Should be done: The City is yet to give a detailed survey identifying the property and fence lines to VW. I had earlier requested the same information from the City and have not received it (the staff just gave me a preliminary topo survey, with no seal of the surveyor, that does not provide this info) Since the available width is too narrow and very close to property lines, a proper boundary survey should be performed to establish the property lines. 3. Trail Closures: As per VW, the trail is expected to be closed for regular maintenance three times a year. In preparation for the maintenance, the City has to likely remove the entire railing for 0.8 miles (it would be a significant operational issue to remove, store, and reinstall up to ~500 eight-foot panels). The VW has expressed their concern with the scale of this maintenance requirement that would be assumed by the City, to ensure that adequate staffing is available to complete the work in a timely manner. This means the trail will have to be closed during each regular and emergency maintenance operations. In addition, more intensive maintenance operations including sediment removal and erosion control is expected every 3-5 years, where the bridges have to removed and the trail is expected to be closed for a duration of up to 2 months. The operational cost of removing, storing and reinstalling bridges should be fully accounted for in the trail operating budget (not included in the current $5.3M projections) 4. Staging area for Bridge removal – The City is yet to provide a plan to VW for staging area for access to cranes for removal and re-installation of the bridges. This is expected to have a major impact to the baseball field and other amenities in Wilson Park. This issue should be addressed with detailed plans before the City brings forward the proposed trail to the Council. The cost of baseball field modifications, and staging area for bridges should be accounted for in the proposed Regnart Creek Trail budget. As per the Master service agreement the City has with HMH engineers, 65% plans should "Advance the design to the point that all major design issues and solutions are represented in the plans". However, the above issues are yet to be resolved. In summary, I have analyzed this project from various angles. The proposed trail has major capital expenditure, which could go up to $6M and counting, not going to be adhering to the national safety standards based on trail usage, all operating expenses yet to be determined, impact to adjacent home owners with no mitigation plans in place for privacy and setbacks. On top of this, the trail would be closed from dusk to dawn every day and maintenance operations during the year, and up to 2 months every few years. This means the residents still have to use existing streets and sidewalks. This trail can never be a permanent replacement for the residential streets. It is also the responsibility of the City to protect the residents’ privacy and safety when retrofitting a trail in a dense suburban neighborhood. My request is, the Council should ask the City engineers what problem is the City trying to solve, then bring a cost-effective solution to address that problem, if one exists. I am sure the City engineers are smart to provide a good cost-effective solution to address the issues at a fraction of $6M with alternative on street facilities. Regards, Ilango Ganga Cupertino Resident on behalf of myself 07102019 Regnart Comment Letter Response from VW.pdf 111.3kB New City Hall ●Approximate Size 40,000 sf ●Two Floors with Underground Parking ●Estimated Cost: ~$75-95M Library Expansion ●“Perch” Addition ●Approximate Size: 4,420sf ●Estimated Cost: ~$8.5M Enhanced Community Facilities Potential Amenities include: ●Aquatic Center (2 pool): ~$25-50M ●Multistory Gym (50k s.f.): ~$50-100M ●Multistory Arts / Performance/ Community/ Incubator Space (100k s.f.): ~$80 -120M ●Renovated Sports Center: ~$15-18M ●Expanded Senior Center: ~$10-15M Electric Community Shuttle ●6 shuttles operating weekdays 8 am to 6 pm ~$1.5M/year ●6 shuttles operating daily 8 am to 6 pm ~$2M/year Bicycle Transportation Plan ●Stevens Creek Class IV Bike Lanes, Phases 2 & 3: ~$5-6M ●McClellan/DeAnza Intersection Reconfiguration: ~$1-2M ●Bike/Ped Overcrossing of Hwy 85 at the Oaks: ~$10-20M ●Carmen Rd Bridge: ~$2-4M ●Junipero Serra Trail: ~$7-52M ●Regnart Creek Trail: ~$5-6M ●UPRR Bridge to Snyder-Hammond: ~$2-6M ●UPRR Trail -~$10-20M Automated Guideway Transit Study – Mt. View Transit Station to I-280/Wolfe Rd Study to connect future Mountain View system (North Bayshore to downtown transit station) to Apple/Vallco area. Study cost -~$1.5-2M Hwy 85 Transit Guideway Study – Hwy 101 in San Jose to Hwy 101 in Mt. View Although $350M is currently included in the Santa Clara County Measure B Program, this funding could bridge any gaps to expedite planning and design - ~$5-10M Transit Study –Stevens Creek Corridor to Downtown San Jose Study to connect the Cupertino and Santa Clara and downtown San Jose with timely and viable transit, possible subway system. Conceptual Study cost -~$1.5-2M Los Gatos Creek Trail Width comparison to Regnart Creek Trail Los Gatos trail -Tread width & Shoulder width 9 feet Tread width Shoulder width 5ft and 3 inchesShoulder width Much more than other side The tread to security fence spacing •Wide shoulder width from security fence to tread edge >6 feet to >16 feet through out the trail segment •Except for two pinch points, one at a corner with 4ft shoulder and another at a house with 3 ft shoulder •There is a an additional chainlink security barrier for homes closer the trail Shoulder width 7ft and 3 inches 9 feet Tread width Security fence –Notice the Chain link fence Shoulder width 3 feet •Homes that are closer to the trail have Chain link fence for security •Pinch point-Exception •Shoulder width is narrow (3 feet) for only one home •All other homes, the shoulder is much wider (>6 to >16 feet) •Notice the Child is walking off the tread on the shoulder •Left of the center line is for bikers to pass by and for opposite traffic 9 feet Tread width Exception -Pinch point in a corner •One pinch point at a corner with 4ft to fence •Additional chainlink security fence in this corner 4 feet Pinch point at one corner This is how 1 ft spacing will look (as suggested in HMH January minutes) 1 ft •To give you a perspective this is how a 1 ft spacing will look •1 ft spacing is proposed behind La Mar •If some biker falls on the fence it will cause injury to biker and damage to fence Railings for safety next to steep creek Railing height 4’8” •4’8” Railing next to creek with steep slope to avoid hazards and for safety of trail users •See wide shoulders on either side of the trail What is available behind La Mar Drive? •Only 12 to 13 feet available through the entire stretch of La Mar Dr •Not sufficient to provide MIN setback to private fences •Not sufficient to meet Class 1 standard guidelines •Not sufficient to provide safety railings Total only 12-13 feet available Available width behind La Mar Dr –a comparison •Only 12-13 feet is available behind La Mar •As measured, and based on preliminary survey •12-13 ft through entire stretch of La Mar •Whereas 17.5 feet is required to build a Class 1 multi-use bikeway As per trail design criteria: •Uniform Interjuirsdictional trail design guide lines (UD 1.1.4) Security fencing or walls should be no closer to the trail than 3’-6” •HDM 1003.1(3) The clear width of a bicycle path on structures between railings shall be not less than 10 feet, plus shoulders is 14 feet •San Jose: Trail alignment should strive to sustain 5’ of clearance from fences 9 Total 12-13 feet available behind La Mar TreadShoulder 2ft railing cleara nce Minimum 3.5 ft required per UD 1.1.4 between trail and fence. San Jose –5 ft clearance Shoulder Min 2 ft required per HDM 1003.1(3) MIN 10 ft Tread required for Class 1 per HDM 1003.1(3), however only 4.5 ft is available Minimum setback to security fences Only 4.5 ft will be available for Tread, if minimum trail design guidelines are followed Available Width on La Mar Drive near bridges •Behind La Mar Drive, next to bridges the width narrows to 10 feet 10 Total of 10 ft near Bridge Only 2.5 Feet available for Tread here if all spacings are implemented 2ft 3.5 ft2ft Minimum 3.5 ft shoulder required per UD 1.1.4 between trail and fenceThis drawing from Regnart Creek feasibility study Shared use path selection guidance (AASHTO) •Separated shared used paths selected based on volume of vehicles and speed •Do not mischaracterize our safe suburban residential streets as unsafe •Use on street facilities (pedestrian paths & shared lane or bike boulevard) appropriate for this neighborhood streets Source: AASHTO guide for selection of bicycle facilities CC Agenda item #22, written comments on agenda item Draft Parks & Recreation SystemMaster Plan From:Ilango To:citycouncil@cupertino.org Date:Tuesday, May 21, 2019, 03:57 PM PDT Dear Mayor and City Council members, I have the following written comments on agenda item #22 Draft Parks & Recreation System Master Plan. I am a Cupertino Resident writing on behalf of myself. Chapter 4 refers to Enhancements to Trails: "Creekside Park and Connection to Regnart Creek Trail: Consider adding trail amenities, enhancing and protecting the riparian corridor, and adding green infrastructure." I request to remove the above statement from the Draft Parks Master plan. The Regnart Creek is still not approved and any reference to it should be removed from Draft plan.  Regnart Creek is a flood control channel and Valley Water District owns this land and the City has not got into any JUA yet.  Chapter 5 refers to Cupertino Loop Trail implementation. About half of the Cupertino loop is on-street roads, and the rest is part of transportation plans. There is no need have have this in the implementation section of the the draft Parks Master plan. In addition Regnart Creek is not yet approved, and no JUA has been completed. The loop can continue on on street facilities. So please remove any reference to Regnart Creek Trail from the Draft Master Plan including Chapter 5. I have frequently heard in Council meetings to include Park facilitates in the East of Cuperino and especially Lawrence- Mitty park have featured in these requests. However, I do not see this included in the Draft Parks Master Plan Chapter 5. I request the Council to prioritize Lawrence-Mitty Park and include it in Chapter 5 of the Parks Master plan. Thanks, Ilango Ganga Cupertino Resident Baseball Field Impact I wanted to summarize in writing the three potential impacts we discussed that might arise if Cupertino Little League is indeed forced to modify the field at Wilson Park in some manner to accommodate the planned Regnart Creek Trail bridge. I do not represent Cupertino Little League in any sense, but I am a Cupertino parent and baseball fan who used to coach on these fields in the early 2000’s, and I believe that the proposed changes could impact play considerably and could also become quite expensive. First, we need to keep in mind that Little League rules at the national level specify particular measurements for age 12-and-under Little League baseball games, such as 60 foot bases and 200 foot outfield fences. It would appear that to accommodate the proposed bridge over Regnart Creek, that the right field fence would need to be moved several feet in (I would think at least 10 feet, but even if it were moved just 5 feet, the impact would still be considerable). In order to maintain the 200 foot outfield fence standard, home plate and the three bases, as well as the pitchers mound, would each need to be moved in a northward direction. Grass plantings and dirt realignment would also be required. Assuming that just a 5 foot relocation is required, unless the entire backstop and the third base fence and dugout are also moved, the effect on play in having an asymmetrical backstop in relation to the field would be significant. This is because in youth baseball, the wild pitch or passed ball (where a pitched ball eludes the catcher’s grasp and strikes the backstop) is a much more common occurrence than in higher level baseball leagues (senior level little league, high school, college or at professional levels). As such, young catchers are taught how to anticipate bounces off of a symmetrical backstop that is designed so that the mis-handled pitched ball typically bounces back toward the catcher, where he can then act to quickly retrieve it and throw out or tag a baserunner. With home plate moved just 5 feet northward, the now asymmetrically-aligned backstop would induce much more unpredictable bounces. In particular, pitches that elude the catcher will now tend to be much more likely to skip way down the first base line in foul territory, making it much easier for baserunners to move up an extra base than in a situation where a catcher can expect a more predictable bounce. This would have a negative impact on the game, as the offense would gain an advantage on the defense, and more runs would be scored based on haphazard bounces rather than successfully batted base hits. This would clearly introduce a detrimental impact on the play of the game. Alternatively, in order to move home plate and the bases, and yet avoid the asymmetrical backstop situation described above, the entire backstop would need to be moved to provide symmetry with home plate, which would require the removal of a good deal of ground-level concrete, plus the entire 25 foot high (or so) chain link and wooden backstop, greatly increasing the cost. The relocated field would also begin to encroach upon the snack shack area, another reason why this would be a less than ideal scenario. I would expect that knowledgeable baseball authorities would reject any scenario that ends up creating an asymmetrical playing field. That imperfection would need to be weighed against the greatly increased cost of moving the entire backstop along with the entire third-base side fence and dugout. So I would think that a second scenario could be envisioned, albeit also imperfect. This would entail simply moving in the fence along the right field line by 5 to 15 feet (whatever space is deemed necessary to accommodate the bridge), while leaving home plate and the pitchers mound and bases where they are now. This would obviously be a much more cost-effective solution, but it would come at what I think is a huge disadvantage for the league and the kids who play there. For many Wilson Park games (especially those played by the younger kids), having a shorter fence in right field would only occasionally impact the game. The problem arises however, when one considers the higher quality level of play that occurs at the Majors Little League level (the more skilled 10 through 12-year-olds), and then especially when post-season All-Star games featuring the best players from leagues throughout the South Bay Area come to Wilson Park. These games, which typically take place In the June and July timeframe, often feature extremely high level youth baseball play. The games are quite competitive and very fun to watch, even if one doesn’t know the players. Unfortunately, I would envision that converting the trail-impacted field at Wilson Park to a non-standard outfield dimension (anything less than 200 feet) would render the field unacceptable for post-season All-Star play consideration. The national-based Little League authority headquartered in Williamsport, Pennsylvania tends to be extremely anal about these kinds of things. Unless I am mistaken, the non-standard dimensions would likely be disqualifying for tournament play. I would think that local Cupertino authorities (within Little League and otherwise) would be quite reluctant to sacrifice this field for its most competitive games when players, parents and fans from other communities ascend upon Cupertino. From what I’ve seen, Wilson Park as currently configured for baseball is something of a jewel among South Bay Little League environments. The fields are well-maintained and the environment has a great feel. Anyway, I would recommend that the viability of a non-standard sized field be considered by whatever little league authorities (local or otherwise) are required before making a drastic decision to revise the field’s dimensions. Finally, a third issue that may come into effect concerns the possibility that trail users could, however unlikely it may seem, be struck by a batted ball that clears the fence just 195 or more feet away from home plate. Currently, spectators at Wilson Park during a game are generally aware that a batted ball or thrown could travel in their direction at any given time. Trail users however, would likely give little thought to the fact that they could be hit with a baseball when simply passing by. However improbable such an occurrence may be, the aspect of liability should be looked at. Anyway, just my two cents as a big fan of youth baseball. Trailhead –created midblock unprotected crossing Midblock Unprotected Crossing –Rodrigues Ave Midblock Unprotected Crossing –Pacifica Dr Trailhead –created midblock unprotected crossing Good evening Council members. Thanks to Roger Lee and the Staff for reviewing the process on how the bike ped projects are prioritized and initiated during the CIP and out of cycle to the City Council. I wrote to the Council that this process was not followed for the Regnart Creek Trail with evidence. During the review, Council member Darcy Paul brought up the point that as per the Municipal Code and Govt Code that the CIP projects should go to the Planning commission for compliance to General plan. As for as I know, Regnart Creek trail did not go to the planning commission for review. General plan emphasizes preserving the character of single-family residences and to ensure sufficient protections for privacy, noise, setbacks, visual impacts, and buffers are provided. It requires the City to work with affected neighbors in locating trails and to ensure their concerns are appropriately addressed. However, issues with privacy, noise, setbacks, and vegetation buffers have not been addressed in the 65% plans when I reviewed in June, and the Bike Ped Commission is not the right place to review such issues nor the public works department. This should be reviewed by the planning commission and planning department and guidelines should be developed where there are no guidelines. As some of the Council members are aware, VW is in the process of designing definitive trail design guidelines, which the proposed Regnart Trail may not adhere to. The residents have been requesting to publish the 65% designs since May, however this has not been released yet. There were many unresolved issues when I reviewed it in June. The City Manager says the staff is still working on the issues and will release the plans as soon as it is ready. Thank You Deb. Residents have been requesting that the design plans and alternatives be released at least two weeks before it comes to the Council. As per the City website, proposed Regnart Creek Trail progress is tentatively scheduled as a study session on Sep 17th. However, there are only two weeks between now and Sep 17th, not sufficient time for publication and proper reviews. For example, as late as last week, we noticed new issues cropping up like installing retaining curb on or adjacent to property lines behind La Mar. This would require a boundary survey and discussions with property owners, which has not been done by the City. In addition, there are encroachment / land swap issues in Wilson park and near Civic Center. So I request to the City to take sufficient time to work the details with concerned residents and release the designs before bringing it to the Council. We do not want a repeat of the feasibility study that was rushed to the Council without any reviews or proper due diligence. RPC-5.1.2: Trail Projects. Implement trail projects described in this Element; evaluate any safety, security and privacy impacts and mitigations associated with trail development; and work with affected neighbors in locating trails to ensure that their concerns are appropriately addressed. Regnart Creek TrailOpposition Statement by Cupertino Residents Residing Next to Regnart CreekRegnart Creek Bike TrailCity Council Meeting August 21, 2018 Cupertino Bicycle Paths ProgramWe respect and applaud the work and efforts of the Council, City staff and the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission to:Make Cupertino a more walkable and bicycle friendly communityReduce automobile traffic and congestionImprove connectivity among the various neighborhoodsWe acknowledge the significant resources devoted to planning in the preparation of the 2016 Bicycle Transportation PlanHowever, over 95% of residents who live next to Regnart Creek, oppose the trail for use as a public bicycle and pedestrian path.  Other options exist, that are not under consideration that are less costly and non‐disruptive.2 Executive SummaryThe public outreach pertaining to the Regnart Creek trail is biased and incomplete.  The process is disrespectful to Cupertino residents.A budget of $1‐10 million was quoted, indicating the plan is not soundly conceived.Alternative paths were not included as part of the Trail study mandate, which would lead to wasteful spending of tax payer funds if approved.Safety, habitat & privacy issues have been glossed over, ignoring existing safe routes with adjacent pedestrian sidewalks.Avid cyclists have stated they would not use the proposed trailOpposition to the Regnart Creek trail is widespread and residents are prepared to take legal action to preserve their rights3 Significant & Permanent Impact on Properties•Loss of privacy•Loss of view•Increased noise from talking, music, skate boards and scooters•Light pollution from lights•Trespassing on property•Increased litter•Increased pet waste•Harmful impact to creek habitat4From thisTo this Proposed Trail Impacts Homes on De Palma Lane•The trail would alter ingress and egress, making it more difficult for the homeowners•A fence would be out of place and be visually ugly•The Trail and proposed fencing would limit access of emergency vehicles, putting lives at risk5 Trail Fencing Options are Not Acceptable•The proposed wall/fence destroys the feel of the neighborhood•Proposed wall/fences would be unsightly, like a prison •A  6’ fence/wall would create shadows, impacting, if not killing the landscaping•A fence would make the middle area hard to maintain•A fence would reduce and change ingress and egress for the residents, a maze•A fence would force trimming and changing the shape of the beautiful trees6 Safety and Habitat Ecology Disruption•Coyotes, ducks, frogs, birds, squirrels and other creatures rely on the creek for water.  Increased human traffic and fencing would materially alter their habitat•Children walking on the trail may be vulnerable to coyotes and vultures or frightened by other native animals.•A fence would create an alley, where escape from a coyote or other wild animal would be extremely difficult.  There would be no escape•A child could fall 14 feet into the dry creek and aid would not be immediately available.7Are children safe walking on a path where there are coyotes?Are children safe where vultures with 7 ft wingspans search for food and prey? Water Levels Reach Dangerous LevelsDuring heavy rains, water levels in the Creek rise to dangerous levels, bordering on over flowing.Are children safe walking along swift running water?Are children safe walking along a creekwhere there is no fencing, and a 14 foot drop?8 Trail invites Trespassing and Improper Bicycle UseCyclists already trespass on Lozano Lane property Pedestrian easement disallows bike usage, but cyclists use it anyway. There is no enforcement of pedestrian use only.↔9 Crime and Vandalism are already presentVandalism on the pedestrian path occursLast fall, a stranger tried to approach the daughter of one of the homeownersCars were broken into in 2017 on premiseStrangers walk thru the propertyResidents are very concerned about security10 Santa Clara Water District Trail Limited to 10 Feet10 foot trail dimensions crowd utility pole Photo of 10 feet dimension11 Survey Showing Water District Property‐ 10 FeetSanta Clara Water District property is limited to 10 feet.  We were informed that 1 foot shoulders are needed on both sides of the trail, or 12 feet.  This would encroach on our properties. If kept to 10 feet, 8 feet is too narrow for cyclists and pedestrians to share. One of the reasons Cupertino created bike paths is because cyclists and pedestrians can’t share a sidewalk, they are too narrow.12 Aerial View of Homes on Lozano & De Palma Lane13Unlike the gentlemen who purchased a home near the railroad, he knew what he was buying.Our situation is not comparable, we did not buy these homes for a 7 foot wall to be erected in front of them. We did not buy these homes to have our privacy and security compromised. Safe, Viable Alternative Paths Already Exist14Safe, bike friendly streets already exist Regnart Creek Existing Safe Routes to Schools15Existing safe residential streets with side walksPacifica, Somerset, Farallone Dr 95% of Regnart Creek Residents Oppose the Trail100% of the homeowners of Campo De Lozano Homeowners Association oppose the Regnart Creek Trail100% of the households, residing on DePalma Lane, oppose the Regnart Creek Trail95% of households along La Mar, Vicksburg, Farallone and Las Ondasoppose the Regnart Creek TrailA petition has confirmed their opposition to the this Trail. Note the numerous signs posted throughout the community. Stop the madness, don’t create a problem where none exist.The residents are very angry about encroachment on their rights.16 Residential and Voter Opposition is Widespread17 Council Responsibility to Do No Harm18 My inputs to CIP Study session From:Ilango To:citycouncil@cupertino.org Date:Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 11:59 AM PDT Dear Mayor and Council members, I reviewed the 5-year CIP projects report for Study session today and here is my feedback for your consideration. 1. Library expansion - About 900,000 visits have been made to the library in 2018. The OpenGov survey results show that large percentage of respondents prefer investment in the library. So investing in library expansion would have a wider impact to the community of over 60,000 residents. However, the cost projections of $10 million for 4400 Sqft of expansion plus 33 additional parking stalls seems to be too high. The city has to explore cost effective ways to expand 4400 Sqft. The library expansion is included in Options A and B. This should also be included in Option C that leaves $3.15 to be allocated for other projects. 2. City Hall Expansion of $70 Million seems like a luxurious project for our city when we do not have dollars. This includes raising taxes, going for high debt financing, and depleting all of capital reserves. Also, it takes away money from all essential projects. Going with this option requires lot of community input. Instead, the City should be looking at cost effective alternatives to retrofit the existing building. The best option for interim city hall is using the Monta Vista Center. This is the lower cost option and this investment also goes towards improving the city facility for the longer term. 3. Cupertino Sports Center Seismic Retrofit and HVAC upgrade: This is one of the best used facilities in Cupertino. The customer base is 2000. The classes it offers has quadrupled since 2004, whereas the HVAC was installed for a customer base of 600. The facility temperature is always too hot or too cold and is very uncomfortable for the users when temperatures soars. Since a higher number of kids and adults use this facility every day, investing in seismic retrofit and HVAC upgrade is a good idea. Seismic upgrade of $1M is included in all 3 options whereas HVAC upgrade of 500K is not included in any of the options, it is in other projects list. 5. Transportation Projects: Blackberry farm entrance road improvement projects. The feasibility study was approved to start in FY2019. In the transportation projects report to the Council on April 2nd, the report states that no cost estimate is available for this project. However the CIP projects list shows this as a high priority project in options A and B with a cost of $5.5M. Is the feasibility study completed? This looks like a large sum of money to be set aside for Blackberry farm related projects that is draining City resources. The public should be provided more information on this line item on why this is a higher priority. Most of the transportation dollars goes towards bike projects ($58M out of $69.6M, as noted below), but the issues are in the major arteries and intersections. So the City should be investing in roadway improvements and major intersections, which is also the preferred option by the OpenGov Survey respondents. 6. Cost Estimates of CIP projects: The cost estimates for CIP projects has had huge escalations from the time it is projected in the budget/master plans to implementation. For example, Bike Projects: Total Cost for Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 in 2016 Bike Plan - $18 Million https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=3479#page=99 Current Bike Transportation Plan projects costs as presented to council on Apr 2nd, 2019 - Total $58,329,555 https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=7127004&GUID=9747DCED-83F9- 4483-AE83-0ABC2B1E1325 The cost has escalated from $18 million to $58 Million in less than 3 years, which is 322% higher than original estimates. The city should come up with a better way of estimating project costs. If you add up all city wide transportation Projects in the list, the cost is $69.6 million . Bike projects alone is $58.3 million which is 83% of total cost which is lopsided when there only 0.7% bike commuters in the City per 2016 Bike plan. So when the City Council makes projects decisions based on the project estimates, the dollars quoted should be within a reasonable range so the Council can make right decisions in prioritizing projects that benefits the city at large. Thank You, Ilango Ganga Cupertino Resident From: Jenny Lu Date: Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:55 PM Subject: Against Regnart Creek Trail Project To: <dpaul@cupertino.org>, <rsinks@cupertino.org>, <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>, <bchang@cupertino.org>, <sscharf@cupertino.org>, <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Dear Cupertino City council members, As a high school senior, I have attended Cupertino schools for more than 10 years. I am writing to oppose the proposal of Regnart Creek Trail project, as it is absolutely a waste of money and effort. Proponents of the bike trail says that this is for school-age kids. However, I do not think it necessary as the parallel streets are very safe and quiet. My sister, friends and I always bike on Torre Ave. to Lawson Middle school, and on Lamar Dr. to Cupertino High School. These streets have almost no traffic, more convenient and accessible than the proposed bike trail with a 6-7 ft wall. Please allocate our precious money to more useful school-related or city projects. Or, please have the above streets painted for bike use to save the cost. Sincerely, Jenny Lu From: s hong To:dpaul@cupertino.org,rsinks@cupertino.org,svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org,bchang@cuperti no.org,sscharf@cupertino.organd 1 more... Aug 15, 2018 at 5:20 PM Dear Cupertino City council members, As a Cupertino resident for more than 10 years, I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. I have listed the following reasons, with the first one being the most critical one. 1. Safety violation Near Lozano Lane the narrowest path for the bike trail is only 10 ft wide. If the proposed 6-7 ft wall is built, the remaining trail width will be only 9.5 ft at this location. This violates Santa Clara County safety guidelines for bike trails (refer to link https://www.sccgov.org/sites/parks/PlansProjects/Documents/TrailsMasterPlan/Interjursidic tional-Trails-Guidelines-text-and-graphics.pdf , section T1) This guideline recommends 12 ft in width with 2 ft shoulders on each side for bike trails, meaning a total of 16 ft. A width of 9.5 ft is a reduction by more than 60%, greatly violating safety requirements, when the trail is said to be built for school-age kids! When two bikes from opposite directions meet at this location, collisions are inevitable, especially for unskilled teen riders. As this 9.5 ft trail is sandwiched between two bricked/cement walls, injuries can be quite serious. Furthermore, this narrow path is not ambulance accessible, posting a serious safety concern! I would not allow any child to bike on this path. 2. Traffic disturbance Blaney is a busy street during rush hours. Adding another bike crosswalk will further slow down the traffic flow on this street. It still posts a safety risk for teen riders to bike across this busy street in rush hours. 3. Waste of money There are existing residential streets and sidewalks parallel to the trail with almost no traffic even in rush hours. I strongly suggest that you take a walk or drive along these streets, such as La Mar, Torre Ave, etc. I walk everyday on these streets for recreation and exercises. My children used to bike on these streets to Lawson Middle School and Cupertino High School before they are able to drive cars. These streets are safer and quieter, much more ideal for children to bike on. On the other hand, the trail is not easily accessible to most nearby residents. With the proposed wall, only people from the two trail ends will conveniently use it. School-age kids living in between the two entrances will be blocked by the wall with limited entrances. They will not use the trail to schools. Therefore, it is absolutely a waste to build the bike trail. Much cost effective to paint the nearby parallel streets to designate bike lanes. More kids will then conveniently use them from their homes to schools. As publicly elected officials, please exercise fiscal disciplines, use tax payers' money where it is most needed and help to reduce the high tax burden that we, the residents and tax payers, are facing today. 4. Violation of the city's own regulations The proposed trail also violates the city's own regulations regarding protecting residential neighbor-hoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects from more intense developments. See link: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=1510 Regardless of a 6-7 ft wall to be built or not, the trail will greatly impact the privacy (including light / noise pollution) and beautiful views of all the houses along the creeks. The homeowners bought their houses here with the privacy and gorgeous views that they seek for, invested in and thus deserved to have. The right and privilege of about 100 families should not be deprived simply due to the personal needs of a few biking amateurs who do not live nor investigate in this neighborhood. Please say NO to the Trail and use existing bike lanes and parallel residential streets for bike riders! Thank you, Stella RCT: unclear benefit •It’s not solving a problem: •The demand is not well studied/understood: •RCT will be open only during dawn to dusk. •Still needs safe alternatives. Q: What is the problem the City is trying to solve? A (by the city): The proposed trail is less about solving a problem but more about creating an improvement for both cyclists and pedestrians.If constructed, it would provide separation from vehicle traffic that would not be possible on the street. The trail is consistent with General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040 Policy M-1.3: Regional Trail Development, Policy M-2.3: Connectivity, and Policy M-5.3: Connections to Trails. Q: How many bicyclists and pedestrians are expected to use the proposed trail? A (by the city): No estimate of number of users has been performed, and any estimate would necessarily contain so many assumptions and variables as to be essentially meaningless. What is known is that there are many connections such as the Civic Center/Library, Wilson Park, Creekside Park and vicinity to schools and therefore it is very reasonable that the trail would be well utilized. Regnart Creek Trail (RCT) Source: from the presentation to the BPC given by a city staff (June, 2019) RCT Construction Cost Escalation Status Cost estimation Funding Note 2016 bike ped plan N/A $660 K N/A Feasibility study (04/18)complete $2.1 M N/A 65% Design (06/19)complete $3.5 M unfunded 67% up from FS (530% from 2016 proposal) Ballfield relocation +$100 K unfunded Design not available for review yet. Cost estimation based on BPC presentation by city staff (June 2019), underestimated alternative options: 250 ~ 400K Solid wall fencing +$1.3 M ($500/LF)unfunded Underestimation: Would cover only less than 0.5 linear miles. Additional budget needed to cover all residents’ properties impacted Design cost for ballfield relocation TBD unfunded Depending on the choice of options Design cost FS & 65% design complete $530K funded Including feasibility study Total $5.43 M+ RCT Construction Cost Escalation Status Cost Est.Cost Revision Funding Note 2016 bike ped plan N/A $660 K N/A Feasibility study (04/18)complete $2.1 M N/A 65% Design (06/19)complete $3.5 M $3.5M unfunded 67% up from FS (530% from 2016 proposal) Ballfield impact +$100 K $100K ~ $400K unfunded Underestimation for ballfield relocation ($100k) alternative options: 250 ~ 400K Solid wall fencing +$1.3 M ($500/LF) $2.77 M+ ($500/LF)unfunded Underestimation: 1.3M for less than 0.5 linear miles. Need to cover over 1 miles. Additional budget needed for taller fencing (Farallone & Las Ondas) Design cost for ballfield relocation TBD TBD unfunded Depending on the choice of options Design cost FS & 65% design complete $530K $530K funded Including feasibility study Total $5.43 M+$6.9~$7.2M Privacy & Safety: Fencing •65% covers only for opted-in residents (<10) •Should be opt-out: budget for all residents adjacent to RCT •$1.3M (by city estimation in BPC presentation, June 2019) •$500/LF (city estimation) for concrete block wall •Covers only for 2600 linear feet (<.5 linear miles) •RCT: ~.8 miles •to cover all impacted residents •~.7 miles (approx.)with residents’ backyard facing the trail •segments with residents on both side: +.35 miles (approx.) •ex. Vicksburg Dr, Las Ondas Way, .. •taller fencing •ex. Farallone Dr, Las Ondas Way •5280’ (1 mile) * 1.05* $500 = $2.772M •Plus additional cost for taller fencing•Fence design •Transparent material above the existing fence height •Not to block their view •Residents across from the Wilson park Taller fencing needed RCT Fencing Requirement: ~1.05 miles ~12 feet~28 feet Wilson Park Ballfield Relocation (10’ North) : $100K ~5 feet Other IssuesOther Issues (VW meeting minutes, 5/28/19) RCT Operational Cost (CIP) CIP item Cost Estimation Crane Access Path TBD Existing path: WIDENING needed Class III Bike Lane Class III Bike Lane. Class II Bike lane exists No work needed Reference estimation: -Alternative Path 5 -$200K mostly for widening a section of Wilson park trail -Up from $100K (04/18) Existing path: WIDENING needed Class III Bike Lane Class III Bike Lane. Class II Bike lane exists No work needed Reference estimation for crane access path: -Alternative Path 5 -$200K mostly for widening a section of Wilson park trail 6’ => 10’ A potential Crane Access Path RCT Maintenance Cost (recurring) Maintenance Item Cost/year Budgeted in 65% design Note Ongoing maintenance $40K/year yes Inc. railing removal & replacement cost $20K /year (for seasonal maintenances by WD, vegetation control) Path Closure $50k/year no 10 gates to trail heads Bridge & railing removal & replacement, parking TBD no For intensive maintenances for sediment removal and erosion control by WD Bank repair For erosion caused by construction and use (per joint use agreement between the city and the water district) TBD no Cf. Stevens Creek Trail erosion repair (June, 2019): $600K total $90K+ Cost Increase: FY 19-20 Bike and Pedestrian CIP Project Funding Avg cost increase during construction (1, 2, 3 & 4) volume weighted: 56% 62% up 33% up 0% N/A: new project N/A: new project 1 3 2 4. Bike Boulevard project: 1.7M -> ~3M (76%) RCT Cost Status Cost estimation Funding Note 65% Design (06/19)complete $3.5 M unfunded 67% up from FS (530% from 2016 proposal) Ballfield relocation $100 K +unfunded •Design not available for review yet •Need to include the secondary impact on adjacent area and north field, if any, due to the ballfield relocation •alternative options: 250 ~ 400K Solid wall fencing $2.77 M +unfunded Cost for taller fencing not included Design cost for ballfield relocation TBD unfunded Depending on the choice of options Design cost FS & 65% design complete $530K funded Including feasibility study Real cost, not an estimation CIP for operation TBD Ex. Crane paths for Bridge removal. Prob. $200K min CIP Total $6.9 M +$10.76 M+ w. 56% avg cost increase during construction Annual Maintenance $90K +Bridge/rail removal, bank repair cost not included Adherence to Public Standard, Liability Issues -not addressed in the 65% design •Lozano & De Palma Lane: •Only 10’ available for trail •minimum trail width: 12’ (8’+2’ shoulders both side) •No permanent structure allowed •Security/privacy issue •Daily path closure: •No budget allocated to open/close 10 gates to trail heads •Sheriff and police availability •No budget allocation for recommended patrol Safety, Privacy, Noise, Liability Issues (cont.) - not addressed in the 65% design •Indemnity & hold harmless: •City refuses to indemnify residents •Needs some guarantee that the trail users shall not hold residents along the trail responsible for any injury, death, or legal liability Other Issues (cont.) •Environmental Impact •(Valley Water, VW) “construction of structures adjacent to regulated areas (at the top of the creek bank) warrants a conservative approach, and have recommended that the City request concurrence from the appropriate regulatory authorities that no impacts to regulated areas will occur as a result of the project.” •The Sierra Club opposes this trail •Emergency Water District access to the creek •Flood control ditch •May get impede by the structures added to the trail Funded CIP (2017) Cost Inefficienty Entire Bike Bvld Network Project: $1.7M RCT: $8M+ (x2.7) RCT (unfunded)vs. Bike Boulevard Network (stage 2,funded) Wilson Park Baseball Field Lozano Ln NeigborhoodRegnart Creek Area Cupertino City Council 削足适履 Cutting feet to fit into shoes Extremely Expensive High Impact: Creek Services, Privacy & Safety Not a Must & Better Solution Exists Building Regnart Creek Trail – Not a Smart Idea •> 6 Millions for 0.8 mile trail Due to the need of removable railings, removable bridges, plus move /redesign of Wilson Park Baseball Field •Interference with SC Water District services, especially in emergency •Unsafe to students -- narrow, 50% path <=8 feet wide Removable railings still questionable due to soil quality/ erosion •Path too close to 80+ residential homes First trail right in front of residents’ front doors •Alternative 4 & 5 –very safe, low impact to creek services and neighbors, No accident reported, very low cost -- 3-5% of RCT expense •Don Burnett bridge over HW 280 – built in past for the same advertised reasons, high cost but very low usage, proven a wrong decision All serious concerns expressed to Cupertino City and Council for one year Council’s final decision – a symbol, beyond the Regnart Creek Trail Whether Cupertino City carefully pays attention to the critical facts residents present Whether Cupertino City able to wisely use its limited budget and prioritize projects Whether Cuperitino will have similar unwise proposals tomorrow We request Don’t be the laughing stock! Stop the madness! Have a common sense! Go for Alternative 4 or 5! Good evening Mayor and Council members, I am speaking on behalf of myself as Cupertino resident. I am here to share what I learnt from the Walkshop for the proposed Regnart Trail. One of the top concerns is Safety. There will not be railings next to the deep creek. Note that a railing is required next to the channel when the slope is steeper than 3:1 per AASHTO guidelines. The Regnart creek has a slope steeper than 3:1, and a fall deeper than 10-12 feet, so a railing is required to ensure user safety and to avoid hazards. (This point is noted in both Regnart Creek Feasibility Study and Junipero Serra feasibility Study). I also learnt that the trail width will shrink by 2 feet to 8 feet paved path with 2 feet shoulders on either side. In order to build a safe muti-use Class 1 bidirectional path for bicyclists and pedestrians, including school children, you need a safety railing and a minimum width of 10 feet plus 2 feet shoulders on either side per AASHTO standard (this guideline was also noted in Junipero Serra feasibility Study). So this trail alignment is not a safe route to school for children and not safe for adults next to a channel that is up to 10-12 feet deep, which is hazardous with or without water. Existing residential streets are much safer and all have pedestrian sidewalks. Hence, I request the Council to bring Alternative 4 to the Community meeting on Apr 24 in addition to Alternative 1. Alternative 4 in the feasibility study uses existing safe streets and would cost around $100K when compared to $2.5Million for Alternative 1. I request the Council to prioritize other Tier 1 projects in 2016 bicycle transportation plan to accelerate city wide bicycle facilities for broader impact to community, instead of spending any more funds on this 0.8 miles of Regnart Creek trail that is one of the lowest ranked tier 2 projects. Good evening Mayor and Council members, I am a resident of Cupertino. I am here to talk about the flaws in Regnart Creek feasibility study that was recently approved by the council, and point out that the city prematurely put forward the resolution without proper due diligence of the study and prior review by the water district. As per the letter to the city dated Aug 21, 2018, the district did not want the city to move forward with the feasibility study without addressing its comments. Instead, the city council went ahead with approving the plan that very same evening. The city has an obligation to remedy the errors and restrictions brought forward by the water district as the trail is on the district property. I will emphasize major flaws that affect the trail’s feasibility and user safety based on the water district’s comments to the city. 1) The feasibility study incorrectly states that the available width for the trail is 12-25 ft, whereas, as per the water district, the available width is only 10-15 ft, or even less along the creek due to erosion. There is simply not enough space to build a Class 1 shared use bike and pedestrian path that can ensure user safety per national, state or county guidelines. Several residents, including me, pointed this width issue to the city council, and our concerns were brushed aside. 2) According to the district, a safety railing will not be allowed on the creek bank (on its right of way), as the proposed railing affects the creek maintenance operations. The district states that the creek slope is steeper than 3:1. Such a steep slope requires railings to ensure user safety. The study and the staff at the council meeting misled the public and the council to believe that various types of railings would be allowed by the water district, whereas that is not the case as per the district comments. 3) The proposed bridge will affect the creek bank and would require regulatory approvals, which will increase the cost. These additional costs were not made transparent to the public during the Aug 21 meeting. There are many other substantive issues raised by the water district that affect the trail feasibility. So this raises the question: why did the city management bring forward a resolution to spend 350 thousand dollars of tax payer money on EIR without first doing proper due diligence on the feasibility study. The council voted based on a flawed report that affects trail feasibility. So I request the Mayor and the council to direct the city manager to address the flaws and bring a corrected study back for public comments and for review by the city council. Proposed Regnart Creek Trail Cost Estimates •Feasibility Study -$165K (approved) •Design and Environmental Clearance -$380K (approved) •Revised Construction Cost Estimate $3.5M (BPC Meeting) •Option for Solid Wall (partial)-$1.3M (BPC Meeting) •Potential Cost to Mitigate Baseball Field Issue - $100K -$400K (PRC Meeting) •Potential EIR cost -$250K (PRC Meeting) •Yet to Add : Solution to Mid Block Crossings, Provide Fencing, Noise Mitigation, Wall to rest of the homeowners, and more. •Total Cost can go up to $6Million + •This started as $660K project ( per Bike Ped Plan 2016) Regnart Creek Trail Neighborhood Concerns Presentation to Santa Clara Valley Water District Board Policy and Planning Committee Meeting October 22, 2018 Margaret (Peggi) Jewett-pjewett@pacbell.net Neighborhood Concerns •Feasibility •Safety •Security •Environmental Impact •Traffic impact Feasibility Study glossed over concerns •The feasibility study was predetermined to be positive when consultants were hired •No estimate of expected usage, no surveys •Most of the speakers in favor of the trail will not be users of the trail •95% of neighbors to the trail oppose the plan •Safety and security were not considered in the plan The “creek” is a drainage ditch •Steep sides are not easy to climb •During rainy season, water is fast running and often deep •The presence of water near the trail is an “attractive nuisance”, inviting kids to investigate •Plans for fences to keep people away from the water interfere with district maintenance Creek is dangerous for youngsters •Steep sides make exit from the ditch, especially with fast moving flow of water difficult, if not, impossible Long sections of the trail will be inaccessible except at trail heads Limited access for aid if a rider falls, or gets caught in the creek. Gates currently prevent access to vandals and transients •Gates are currently locked at all times •When previously opened, several incidents of break-ins occurred •Now proposal is to keep gates open at all times with signs saying use only from dawn until dusk. •No enforcement is planned Environmental Impact on Flora and Fauna •Many animal species call the only protected “natural” space in the area home •Squirrels, possums, birds, frogs, occasional coyotes •Current “improved” section of trail is home to no one Plan to build a bridge to Wilson Park will require removal of trees in the park District maintenance requires water level access. A yet to be engineered, movable bridge is required at this point for cyclists to cross into adjacent Wilson Park to avoid water level trail. Trees line the Wilson Park side of the creek. They would need to be removed for a new bridge. Perimeter fence will impede maintenance and emergency access •Proposed wall on De Palma Lane to route traffic to trail entrance will block access to maintenance and emergency vehicles •Without the wall, cyclists will likely prefer using De Palma Lane to proceed to Blaney as proposed crossing at Blaney requires dismount and redirect to cross the street •Safety issue on private road, with liability issues for city and residents of the road •Safety issue crossing heavily used Blaney during school commute times, at sanctioned crossing or elsewhere Neighbors, who know the dangers of the creek and open access to the maintenance road along the creek, oppose this plan. Over 400 signed petition to request city to find a safer alternative. 11 Regnart Creek Trail -Concerned Cupertino Residents !/$ Analysis •Problem -Safe route to schools for kids??? Eaton Elementary, Cupertino High •No Reported bike accidents on the current path in the past 5 years •Implications -Kids need to walk/bike on roads with cars on it •Work arounds •Alternate 4 exists. Fix it to make it safer for biking (Designated bike lanes etc.). Cost -$100000 •Cost of proposed fix -$2.4 million •Risks of proposed fix •Safety -No railings –Risky for kids –may not get used for school •Security –Neighbors along the trail worried about burglaries/privacy/unintended uses after hours •Ways to reduce risk •Add safety railing on the creek side •Close gates from dusk to dawn •Add security cameras that could record 24/7 at entry and exit of trails Why Parents drop children to school (Age 10-14) •Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944360902988794 •Studied children between the ages of 10 and 14 living in the San Francisco Bay Area by surveying their parents. •We chose this age group because previous research found that children in the United States begin to travel independently around the age of 10, meaning children of this age might be allowed to walk or bike to school (Matthews, 1992Matthews,M.1992.Making sense of place: Children's understanding of large-scale environments,Savage, MD:Barnes & Noble Books.[Google Scholar]). Why Parents drop children to school (Age 10-14) Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944360902988794 Source: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/swimming/docs/drowning_statistics.pdf •Just 2 inches of water is needed to drown •Most drownings happen in water < 5ft Source: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/swimming/docs/drowning_statistics.pdf •School age kids are the most at risk of drowning!! •How many school months will the trail be practically open? •Donate money to other school programs instead? With Water –Heavy rain/Moderate rain High water levels No water –Steep with rocks Steep Dropoff Adult on path Source: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hb9411.pdf •Direct outside access and Removing restricted access ===>> 15x more burglaries 4 points real burglars consider when targeting a home 1.The presence of a home security system 2.Possible witnesses –None after hours 3.Visibility of the home –Home is isolated from trail side 4.Multiple escape routes Source: https://www.vivint.com/resources/article/4-points-real-burglars-consider-when-targeting-a-home Regnart creek trail website –Myths –used to gather support •Myth: The City Staff has not asked for input from the local residents •There has been a very large amount of outreach to the community. Four public meetings were held prior to the Feasibility Study City council vote to solicit both oral and written feedback from residents, including one held while walking the trail and a focused meeting with the Lozano Lane residents. Since the approval of the study in August 2018, an additional public outreach meeting was held in December 2018, and another community meeting will be held March 30, 2019 on the trail. •At all times during the planning process, residents have discussed their concerns in one -on-one discussions with City Staff, at Bicycle-Pedestrian Commission Meetings, in independent conversations and at Oral Communications at City Council. The Trail Concepts and the Feasibility Study include this feedback. During March and April of this year, one-on- one individual meetings with each neighbor adjacent to the trail and City Staff will be held which will influence design direction. •Myth: The trail will be unfenced against a steep slope of the creek bed •The feasibility plan for the trail includes a fence that will run along the edge of the creek. Residents, including children, will not be able to fall accidentally into the creek. •Myth: It will be too narrow to for cyclists and walkers to pass •The trail will be 10 feet wide, with a 2 foot shoulder. This will allow pedestrians and cyclists to easily pass each other. Source: https://www.regnartcreek.com/myths-about-the-trail Regnart Creek Trail -Concerned Cupertino Residents !/$ Analysis •Problem -Safe route to schools for kids??? Eaton Elementary, Cupertino High •No Reported bike accidents on the current path in the past 5 years •Implications -Kids need to walk/bike on roads with cars on it •Work arounds •Alternate 4 exists. Fix it to make it safer for biking (Designated bike lanes etc.). Cost - $100000 •Cost of proposed fix -$2.4 million •Risks of proposed fix •Safety -No railings –Risky for kids –may not get used for school •Security –Neighbors along the trail worried about burglaries/privacy/unintended uses after hours •Ways to reduce risk •Add safety railing on the creek side •Close gates from dusk to dawn •Add security cameras that could record 24/7 at entry and exit of trails Why Parents drop children to school (Age 10-14) •Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944360902988794 •Studied children between the ages of 10 and 14 living in the San Francisco Bay Area by surveying their parents. •We chose this age group because previous research found that children in the United States begin to travel independently around the age of 10, meaning children of this age might be allowed to walk or bike to school (Matthews, 1992Matthews,M.1992.Making sense of place: Children's understanding of large-scale environments,Savage, MD:Barnes & Noble Books.[Google Scholar]). Why Parents drop children to school (Age 10-14) Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944360902988794 Source: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/swimming/docs/drowning_statistics.pdf •Just 2 inches of water is needed to drown •Most drownings happen in water < 5ft Source: https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/swimming/docs/drowning_statistics.pdf •School age kids are the most at risk of drowning!! •How many school months will the trail be practically open? •Donate money to other school programs instead? With Water –Heavy rain/Moderate rain High water levels No water –Steep with rocks Steep Dropoff Adult on path Source: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hb9411.pdf •Direct outside access and Removing restricted access ===>> 15x more burglaries 4 points real burglars consider when targeting a home 1.The presence of a home security system 2.Possible witnesses –None after hours 3.Visibility of the home –Home is isolated from trail side 4.Multiple escape routes Source: https://www.vivint.com/resources/article/4-points-real-burglars-consider-when-targeting-a-home Regnart creek trail website –Myths –used to gather support •Myth: The City Staff has not asked for input from the local residents •There has been a very large amount of outreach to the community. Four public meetings were held prior to the Feasibility Study City council vote to solicit both oral and written feedback from residents, including one held while walking the trail and a focused meeting with the Lozano Lane residents. Since the approval of the study in August 2018, an additional public outreach meeting was held in December 2018, and another community meeting will be held March 30, 2019 on the trail. •At all times during the planning process, residents have discussed their concerns in one-on-one discussions with City Staff, at Bicycle-Pedestrian Commission Meetings, in independent conversations and at Oral Communications at City Council. The Trail Concepts and the Feasibility Study include this feedback. During March and April of this year, one-on-one individual meetings with each neighbor adjacent to the trail and City Staff will be held which will influence design direction. •Myth: The trail will be unfenced against a steep slope of the creek bed •The feasibility plan for the trail includes a fence that will run along the edge of the creek. Residents, including children, will not be able to fall accidentally into the creek. •Myth: It will be too narrow to for cyclists and walkers to pass •The trail will be 10 feet wide, with a 2 foot shoulder. This will allow pedestrians and cyclists to easily pass each other. Source: https://www.regnartcreek.com/myths-about-the-trail Regnart Creek Trail -Concerned Cupertino Residents Safety –Please use high railing throughout the trail High water levels Privacy -Consistent design •History repeats!! •8 feet sound barrier wall with lighting •Fence on creek side is around 6 foot tall •No privacy issues •No liability issues –wall owned by city •Better security since path would be lit at night Source: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hb9411.pdf •Install security cameras at trail entry/exit points •Close trail ga tes between dusk and dawn 15X Security Why Parents drop children to school (Age 10-14) Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944360902988794 !/$ Analysis •How many kids/people will be using the trail (0.8 miles long that still has 2 dangerous road crossings) •Does the safety railing get impacted by the erosion along the creek (3inch clearance) •Can we put the $2.4M to better use •Expand library •Create bike lanes on the roads throughout Cupertino •Build gates on school entrances that close between school sta r t/end Suraj Dalvi <sun.dalvi@gmail.com> Regnart Creek Trail Sound Wall Suraj Dalvi Jun 13, 2019 at 10:45 AM To: davids@cupertino.org Hello David, For the Regnart Creek Trail, I have been repeatedly suggesting the city to use the same approach as was used for the houses near the Creekside park (8 feet tall sound walls with night lighting). This would - Reduce the noise from the trail - Provide security to the houses along the trail and - Ensure that the homeowners are not liable for any accidents I am wondering if this is being considered for the 65% study that will be taken to the City Council. Thanks Suraj Page 1 of 1Gmail - Regnart Creek Trail Sound Wall 9/9/2019https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=2b42a5babc&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a... Mayor Scharf, Council Members and Staff My name is Gary Wong, a 21 year resident of Cupertino As you know, the prior Council approved the draft Feasibility Study of the Regnart Creek on August 21, 2018. The Santa Clara Valley Water District raised numerous issues with the approved Study. Revisions were made to the Study and a Final Study was posted to the City’s website in September. The website noted that only administrative changes were made. At prior Open Communications, a number of errors in the Feasibility Study, both draft and Final have been shared. At the City Council Meeting held on February 19, 2019, Councilman Willey and Vice Mayor Chao, inquired as to the changes made, and received a response similar to the website, that the Final study contains administrative changes. We are submitting a comparison of the Draft Study, the Final Study and issues raised by the Water District. It is our conclusion, that there are many issues of substance that are not addressed in the District’s letter, are inconsistent with the District’s letter and merits reconsideration by the current Council. With tens of millions of dollars potentially allocated to City trails, the practicality of the proposed trails, and the cost – benefits thereof, also merit serious consideration in light of the many competing needs for city projects and available financial resources. March 19, 2013 Mayor Scharf, Council Members and Staff My name is Gary Wong, a 21 year resident of Cupertino I have several remarks pertaining to the Regnart Creek Trail. 1. At the last City Council Meeting, I made several remarks pertaining to the differences of the Approved Feasibility Study for the Regnart Creek Trail and the Final Study posted on the City’s Website. A few days later, the Final Study was removed from the City’s website with no explanation. I want to ask why it was removed and if there is any significance to this action. Does this mean the approved draft dated August 21, 2018 the governing document? 2. The Joint User of the Regnart Creek Trail, the land owner, the Santa Clara Valley Water District expressed its preference for Alternative 4. There is a Trail Walk scheduled on Saturday, March 30th. This Trail Walk should also include Alternative 4 and not just Alternative 1. The public should receive a fair and balanced view of the options under consideration. 3. Lastly, at several Council meetings, it was mentioned that the Trail will improve safety and home values. I am submitting an editorial from the Seattle Times, which reports of 20 year study conducted by The National Association of Reversionary Property Owners. The study, conducted over 20 years, involved 330 properties bordering the Burke-Gilman Trail. They studied the assessed values bordering this trail and found homes along the trail appreciated 26% while the average properties in King County went up 325%. Further, the slower growth in property values of the homes along the trail resulted in a $50 million reduction from the tax rolls to the City and County. This loss in tax revenue was made up by higher taxes to the other residents in the County. 4. The same study reported, and the Seattle Police Department confirmed, that crime rates were higher for those homes along the trail. With tens of millions of dollars potentially allocated to City trails, the practicality of the proposed trails, and the cost – benefits thereof, merit serious consideration in light of the many competing needs for city projects and available financial resources that will be discussed tonight. Aug 21, 2018 Concerned Cupertino Residents opposed to opening of a path along the protected Regnart Creek • Problem statement – Is there one? • Safety concerns for children and neighbors • Privacy concerns in residential neighborhood • Existing safe streets with highest safety rating • Direct money to problem areas Agenda 2 Problem statement –Is there one? What problem are we trying to solve? 3 • All streets have sidewalks in this neighborhood: East of DeAnza• Safe for pedestrians No Sidewalks in these areas: West of De Anza What problem are we trying to solve? 4 • Bike and pedestrian issues are on major corridors / arteries • No issues on “alternate” residential streets parallel to the creek points • Streets here are safe with sidewalks for walking and biking Safety concerns as a shared use path (bikers / Peds) K-5 & teenage/adult bikers: optimum design needed to avoid conflict 5Narrow 12-13ft • The path is narrow for a shared use path, does not meet state, county, national guidelines (UM4.53, HDM 1003.1, AASHTO) • Tread width will be 6-8ft in multiple segments of trail, is lower than minimum standards • 8 ft should be used only in very rare instances (AASHTO); found to have poor levels of service (USDOT)2ft2ft2ft6-7ftTread < 8Ft Optimum 12ft tread + 2+2ft shoulder, + 2 for railings • Not en0ugh width, trail is not ideal location for a safe shared use path for children and bikers even with 4 ft railings Safety issues on narrow shared use path next to deep creek 6 RegnartCreek slope is 1:1 or steeper and drop is up to 12-14ft. Not enough clearance for safe shared use 6 Steep Drop-off This slope is 14ft Danger! High water levels • Privacy issues not fully addressed in Feasibility study • Not fully budgeted in the study • Other Cupertino trails did not have impact of this large magnitude Privacy impact for 82 homes in an established neighborhood 7 Proposed Regnart trail runs through residential area, order of magnitude impact compared to other trails Stevens Creek trail primarily runs through green space, impact to few homes (3-5) Saratoga Creek trail runs parallel to Lawrence and partly green space, impact to 9 homes Existing safe “Alternative” residential streets 8 • “Alternative 4” on existing streets is $100K compared to $2.4M for the proposed trail A Class III bike lane exists in East of DeAnzaBike Blvd project connecting “Creekside to City center via Eaton School” Class III markings already exist on East Estates and Clifford connecting Suisun/Eaton (with crossing-guard) Pacifica Dr East Estates Creekside Park The Cupertino “Loop” Trail concept 9 • 44% of “the loop” is on major streets & crosses major junctions: Stevens Creek, Stelling, McClellan, DeAnza • Only 56% on trails • So “the loop” can continue on much safer “Alternate 4” streets in this neighborhood (6%) • Safety of children and Privacy is critical when retrofitting trail in an established neighborhood • Consider the risks associated with proposed trail, liability risks to the city and taxpayers • Choose “Alternative 4” : Existing safe routes to school on residential streets with sidewalks • Save $2.3M, direct funds for broader use to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety on major arteries and intersections across the city • Vote No on RegnartCreek Trail Summary 10 9/9/19, 9&49 PMGmail - RCT: 65% design plan and the staff report Page 1 of 1https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=42f4f6c32e&view=pt&search=…-a%3Ar-2634848260884785318&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-2634848260884785318 Jeonghee Yi <jeonghee.yi@gmail.com> RCT: 65% design plan and the staff report Jeonghee Yi Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 10:25 AM To: Roger Lee <rogerl@cupertino.org> Cc: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Hi, Roger. I briefly reviewed the 65% design plan and the staff report and found a discrepancy: the staff report recommends the north ramp option with one bridge plan while the 65% design plan still with 2 bridges option. The staff report does seem to address the 65% plan needs to be updated by saying "Moving forward to 100% design plans, the 65% design will be modified to incorporate this change." Could you clarify that the City's recommendation is the north ramp with 1 bridge option and the 65% plan exhibit a outdated plan on that regard ? I'm referring to the following docs: - 65% design plan: https://cupertiuno-aws-file-transfer.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/C+-+65Percent_ Plans.pdf - staff report: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=25118 Thank you, Jeonghee Santa Clara Valley Water commission meeting From:Ilango To:dpaul@cupertino.org Date:Friday, August 9, 2019, 10:29 PM PDT Hi Darcy, I came to know that you are our City representative at the Santa Clara Valley Water Commission meetings. I would like to get an update from you on the proceedings on the agenda item 5.2 Trail policy guidelines at the Jul 24, 2019 meeting. The minutes have not yet been posted. So please provide a brief update on the discussions or I can call you to talk for a few minutes. The Valley Water is in the process of developing trail design guidelines next to the creek banks. I have extensively read trail policy standards and guidelines and interested to be part of the policy development as a resident representative sharing the property line with the water district. However, Valley Water would not take resident reps, instead we can only submit comments during public outreach, which I plan to do. My question to the Valley Water is: what would be the process for trails that are proposed by cities when the new guidelines are still in development. I was concerned that cities might circumvent the trail design standards/guidelines or will not protect the rights of adjacent residential dwelling units. For example, proposed Regnart Creek trail is running too close to adjacent properties and does not adhere to UD guidelines. Since few cities are requesting for trail development, the Valley Water is planning to develop more definitive guidelines/policies to be adhered by the cities. Ideally, it would be appropriate if the proposed Regnart Creek trail can wait until the trail design guidelines are adopted by VW. Was there any discussion at the water commission with respect to the proposed projects like Regnart Creek trail. Thanks, Ilango Ganga Cupertino resident on behalf of myself 9/8/19, 2(18 PMGmail - Concerns about Regnart Creek Trail Page 1 of 3https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=42f4f6c32e&view=pt&search=…d-a%3Ar5222663006635392855&simpl=msg-a%3Ar6968414566829841040 Jeonghee Yi <jeonghee.yi@gmail.com> Concerns about Regnart Creek Trail 1 message Jeonghee Yi Sun, May 19, 2019 at 11:58 PM To: sscharf@cupertino.org Dear Cupertino Mayor Mr. Sharf: As resident of the city of Cupertino, I request that you vote against the proposed Regnart Creek Trail project. The followings are my concerns about the safety of creek uses and the burden on the city budget as well as the increased risks on the safely and privacy of affected residents and properties that are directly adjacent to the proposed trail. 1. The budget The cost of the trail was estimated at $2.45 million on the feasibility report. However, other estimations on public presentations I was told are much higher between $5 to $6 million. What's the reason for the discrepancy ? What're underestimated by the feasibility study ? 2. The necessity and prioritization This project is not necessarily what the City of Cupertino has to have to transport our children safely to schools, or other residents to safely pass the streets. La Mar Dr or Farallone Dr that run parallel to the proposed trail, for example, are in very close proximity to the proposed trail and very safe to walk and bike. There are many more projects in need, such as building new City Hall and Library, compared to this project that may even require special tax assessment to complete. We should not draw the city budget to the trail project and rather use for more urgent, higher priority item before asking the resident for raising tax. 3. Problems with the feasibility study The study wrongly states that the widths of Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD, or District) maintenance road that are a large portion of the trail paths. According to SCVWD's letter to Ms. Jennifer Chu, Associate Civil Engineer, City of Cupertino (letter attached): (Item 5.a)"The (feasibility) Study states that our maintenance road varies from 12 to 25'. District as-builts show the maintenance road widths in this reach are mainly between 10 feet and 15 feet; however, this width has been reduced in many areas due to ongoing erosion/deterioration." 4. safety of trail users, especially children Please remind all the safety issues when the trail was open and why the trail was eventually closed. The following is a testimony of a long time resident that I found from the city document with feedback for the trail project from residents: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=24145 "This path was closed because a girl was attacked and other children were being accosted for money. People are vulnerable because there is no sighting from the roads" And I don't see anything to prevent this from happening again in the proposal. 9/8/19, 2(18 PMGmail - Concerns about Regnart Creek Trail Page 2 of 3https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=42f4f6c32e&view=pt&search=…d-a%3Ar5222663006635392855&simpl=msg-a%3Ar6968414566829841040 5. Not good enough width and condition of the trail road: As indicated in the SCVWD's letter, the widths of at least some section of the trail path is sub-standard and doesn't allow enough any buffer or set-back for the residents along the road. (See the attached document referenced in 3.). This in turn may worsen privacy and security risks to the residents along the trail. Further the trail usage will only accelerate the erosion/deterioration of the road without proper and on- going maintenance that will increase road maintenance cost. Who would be responsible for the increased cost and how would we pay for them ? 6. Increased privacy intrusion and security risks to the properties and residents along the trail: Again the history attest the privacy intrusion and security risks of the residents along the trail taken from the city document: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=24145 - "I have lived @ since 1974 before the cyclone fence - the rocks, apricots coming over the fence - people jumping fence for short cuts to Blaney since we live directly at ... we do not needs this. we have safe streets children can walk. lots of side walks" - "I'm against this proposal 100%. My reasons are as follows: the creek are was opened long ago to the proposal you are now putting forth. We the homeowners along side of this creek will remember what took place. Kids peeing in the creek, kids throwing rocks over our fences, broken windows many times, garbage thrown in our yards, kids trying to climb fences and get into our yard, noise in the evening hours, camping, and with this said, a beginning of crime issues." 7. No plan to address safety and security issues in the plan. With all these foreseeable safety and security issues, there is no plan to mitigate the issues in the proposed trail project. I talked to a representative from sherif department who attend a city council meeting. He clearly said they do not plan to increase any monitoring activities near the trail and has no budget allocated for that, either. 8. Financial consequences to the residents along the trail: Due to the afore-mentioned security risks, and lack of mitigations by the city or the sherif department, there will be many costs the residents along the trail have to pay for, including but not limited to, revamping existing fence or installing sturdier new fence, security device installation, security service, increased insurance cost. Just for some reference, one of the affected residents added surveillance cameras on the trail side with their existing security service due to the security concern in case the trail project moves forward. They paid $1,400 for the cameras alone. Another resident consulted with their insurance agent and they were told that their insurance would go up if the trail opens. Why do the residents along the trail have to suffer from the vulnerability and the financial consequences and pay for the social costs of the trail, while small group of trail users only take the social benefits without having any negative consequences ? 9. Injustice of simple counts of support As mentioned, the negative impact and increased risks the affected residents and properties are much greater while negative impact virtually doesn't exist to the rest of residents who simply enjoy the trail. Therefore, just simple count of resident support is not a fair way of judging the support. Thank you. Respectfully, 9/8/19, 2(18 PMGmail - Concerns about Regnart Creek Trail Page 3 of 3https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=42f4f6c32e&view=pt&search=…d-a%3Ar5222663006635392855&simpl=msg-a%3Ar6968414566829841040 Jeonghee Regnart Creek SCVWD letter - August 21, 2018 (1).pdf 293K Written Communications Agenda Item 1 Study Session - August 20th 2019 From:Ilango Ganga To:citycouncil@cupertino.org Cc:DebF@cupertino.org Date:Tuesday, August 20, 2019, 09:25 AM PDT Dear City Council Members, It is good to see that the City has finally documented the process on how projects from 2016 Bicycle Plan and 2018 Pedestrian Plan have been brought to the City Council for consideration. However, this process was not followed for the proposed Regnart Creek Trail (RCT). I have attached the flow chart in Attachment C (from Aug 20, 2019 study session packet) with annotation to illustrate that the process was circumvented while initiating the RCT feasibility study. 1. Proposed Regnart Creek Trail was not in 2017-18 CIP study session list of recommended projects (see attached Jun 06 AgendaStudySession CIP 2017.pdf). 2. The RCT feasibility study was not in recommended project list in 2017 CIP study session, so no input from the community, no input from BPC. 3. No Council direction from 2017 CIP study session on RCT (see minutes of 2017 CIP study session) 4. RCT Not in the agenda packet, nor in the Staff report of CIP approval on Jun 20, 2017 CC meeting. (See Staff report, Agenda June 20 2017.pdf) 5. The project magically appeared on the day of CC meeting presentation by then Public Works Director Tim Borden. Motion proposed by Council member Sinks and seconded by Council member Scharf (Council member Paul not present). The RCT feasibility study was inserted under Mc Clellan corridor project. A potential violation of Brown Act because RCT was not part of study session or not in the published agenda on June 20th. (See agenda and minutes of Jun 6th and agenda of June 20th 2017 CC meeting). So the attachment C process was not followed for Regnart Creek Trail and the community residents were not given an opportunity to provide their inputs. Another point to note is Regnart Creek trail is a 40th ranking Tier 2 project in 2016 bike plan when the feasibility study was initiated. The 2018 pedestrian plan was not in existence at that time. Then when 2018 pedestrian plan was in development, even though streets next to RCT got the best safety rating and have the best pedestrian infrastructure in the City (See 2018 Ped Plan page 12), the BPC added 10 points to school connectivity to move RCT to tier 1 (See minutes of Nov 2017 BPC meeting). All streets in this area have pedestrian sidewalks and are well connected to schools, library and parks. So there is no good reason to adjust the priority for RCT, the city and residents will be best served to prioritize pedestrian projects in areas where there are side walk deficits. As per the AASHTO guidelines bike facilities selection guide, bike blvd projects and bike lanes are suitable for low to moderate traffic streets and residential streets(like La Mar Dr). The separated bike lanes and multi use paths are suitable for major corridors like Stevens Creek Blvd where there is more traffic. For example City of Berkeley and City of Palo Alto have successfully implemented Bike blvd projects in their infrastructure for safe biking. I request the city to be fiscally responsible and prioritize investment of tax payer dollars in improving the safety on many miles of city wide biking and waking infrastructure instead of spending millions of dollars on 0.8 miles of RCT. Note that Bike blvd Phase 2 connects City center to Creekside Park and to Cupertino High School. And prioritize top ranking Stevens Creek blvd separated bike lanes project that is essential for safe biking. I request the City to follow the documented process when initiating projects. Prioritize projects where there is best ROI. Residents should always be notified so they can provide inputs. Thanks, Ilango Ganga Cupertino Resident on behalf of myself. AgendaStudySession2017.pdf 126.2kB Minutes StudySession2017.pdf 218.7kB AgendaCIP2017.pdf 136.5kB MinutesCIP2017.pdf 147.5kB BPCMinutesNovember2017.pdf 2.6MB Attachment-C-Annotated .jpg 2.4MB CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA CITY COUNCIL 5:00 PM 10350 Torre Avenue and 10300 Torre Avenue Tuesday, June 20, 2017 Special Meeting Non-Televised Closed Session (5:00) Followed by Televised Regular Meeting (6:45) NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby called for Tuesday, June 20, 2017, commencing at 5:00 p.m. for a closed session beginning in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California and then moving to City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting." The regular meeting items will be heard at 6:45 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. SPECIAL MEETING ROLL CALL - 5:00 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber CLOSED SESSION 1.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (one potential case) ADJOURNMENT REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL - 6:45 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1.Subject: Proclamation for July as National Park & Recreation Month Recommended Action: Present Proclamation for July as National Park & Recreation Month 2.Subject: Presentation regarding Fourth of July festivities Recommended Action: Receive presentation regarding Fourth of July festivities 3.Subject: Proclamation for International Yoga Day on June 21 Recommended Action: Present Proclamation for International Yoga Day on June 21 4.Subject: Presentation regarding Climate Action Plan & Greenhouse Gas Inventory Recommended Action: Receive presentation regarding Climate Action Plan & Greenhouse Gas Inventory Staff Report A. 2016 Climate Action Plan Progress Update Report B. 2015 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Update C. CAP Progress Report Summary POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 5.Subject: Approve the June 6 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the June 6 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA 6.Subject: Budget appropriation for the funding agreement between the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project Recommended Action: Approve the budget appropriation for the funding agreement between the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project Staff Report A - Funding Agreement Amendment 7.Subject: 2016 Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Annual Housing Element Progress Report Recommended Action: Accept the 2016 Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Annual Housing Element Progress Report Staff Report A - 2016 HCD Annual Housing Element Progress Report SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.Subject: Fiscal Year 2017-18 Fee Schedule (continued from June 6) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-052 approving the FY 2017-18 Fee Schedule (continued from June 6) Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Proposed Schedule A - General Fees C - Proposed Fee Schedule B - Engineering Fees D - Proposed Fee Schedule C - Planning Fees E - Proposed Fee Schedule D - Building Fees F - Proposed Fee Schedule E - Recreation Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA 9.Subject: Public hearing to consider the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); and a finding of General Plan conformance; and the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18; and the Adoption of the Recommended Budget; and Establishment of the Appropriation Limit, and related actions Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 17-053 establishing a special project budget for Public Works Traffic Engineering Program for costs related to Apple Pass through Revenues for FY 2017-18; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17-054 establishing an Operating Budget and Capital Budget for FY 2017-18; and 3. Approve the appropriation of $22,000 in Public Works Traffic Engineering for a Senior Mobility Pilot Program; and 4. Approve the appropriation of $800 to $1000 for City Council Community Funding for the Iranian Federated Women’s Club Event; and 5. Approve the appropriation of $50,000 for the Creekside Bldg. Roof Modification; and 6. Approve the appropriation of $779,762 in the Capital Improvement Fund and the appropriation of $779,762 in transfers out from the Transportation Fund to fund Bike Plan Implementation costs in the Capital Improvement Fund; and 7. Approve the appropriation of $3 million in Capital Projects for the Bike Plan Implementation and the additional appropriation of $3 million in transfers out of the Capital Reserve to fund Bike Plan costs; and 8. Adopt Resolution No. 17-055 establishing an Appropriation Limit for FY 2017-18; and 9. Adopt Resolution No. 17-056 amending the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program Staff Report A - Draft Resolution - Pass through Revenue Budget for FY 2017-18 B - Draft Resolution - Operating and Capital Budget for FY 2017-18 C - Draft Resolution - Appropriation Limit for FY 2017-18 D - Budget Study Session Follow-up items E - Draft Resolution - Unrepresented Employees' Compensation Program F - Unrepresented Employees' Compensation Program - Redlined G - Unrepresented Employees' Compensation Program - Clean H - Job Description - Emergency Services Coordinator I - Job Description - Innovation and Technology Manager - Applications J - Job Description - Transportation Manager Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA 10.Subject: 2017-18 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program and Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funding allocations Recommended Action: Conduct the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution 17-057 approving the 2017-18 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program and Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funding allocations Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Housing Commission Resolution No. 17-02 C - 2017-18 CDBG, HSG and BMR AHF Grant Application Summary D - 2017-18 CDBG, HSG and BMR AHF Grant Application Descriptions E - 2017-18 CDBG Capital Housing Project Contract F - 2017-18 CDBG Public Service Contract Amendment G - 2017-18 HSG Public Service Contract Amendment H - 2017-18 BMR AHF Public Service Contract Amendment I - 2017-18 BMR AHF Public Service Contract Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA 11.Subject: Development project to consider allowing the construction of a 19 unit affordable senior housing development with associated parking and landscape improvements on a vacant parcel including a Heart of the City Exception to allow 100% of the front and rear of the property to be a non-retail use (Application No. (s): DP-2016-02, ASA-2016-15, EXC-2017-03; Applicant(s): Kathy Robinson (Charities Housing); Location: 19160 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN(s): 375-07-001) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17-058 approving Development Permit (DP-2016-02); and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 17-059 approving Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2016-15); and 4. Adopt Resolution No. 17-060 approving Heart of the City Exception (EXC-2017-03) Staff Report A - Draft Resolution (DP-2016-02) B - Draft Resolution (ASA-2016-15) C - Draft Resolution (EXC-2017-03) D - Public Comments E - Memo to File regarding Use Permit and CEQA Exemption F - Plan Set G - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6829 H - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6830 I - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6831 ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 12.Subject: Brush abatement for public nuisance and potential fire hazard Recommended Action: Remove this item from the agenda since all parcels on the list have complied Staff Report A - SCCFD Letter Page 6 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA 13.Subject: First reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.72 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 17-2164: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Sections 16.72.010, 16.72.020, 16.72.030, 16.72.040, 16.72.050, 16.72.060 and 16.72.070 of Chapter 16.72 of Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding recycling and diversion requirements for construction and demolition waste to be consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code" Staff Report A - Proposed Ordinance B - Redline Proposed Ordinance REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 14.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments ADJOURNMENT Page 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 8 CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA CITY COUNCIL 6:45 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber Tuesday, June 6, 2017 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION 1.Subject: Study Session Regarding the Amended Proposed Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget Recommended Action: Receive the Amended Proposed Fiscal Year 2017-2018 CIP for consideration Staff Report A - Amended Proposed Fiscal Year 2017/18 Capital Improvement Program CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 2.Subject: Presentation on new City website features Recommended Action: Receive presentation 3.Subject: Certificate of Commendation to Monta Vista High School chemistry teacher Kavita Gupta for her work to support students in our community Recommended Action: Present Certificate of Commendation 4.Subject: Presentation of the Biennial Community Survey Recommended Action: Receive the presentation and accept the City of Cupertino 2017 Community Survey report A - 2017 Community Survey Report POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 6, 2017City Council AGENDA This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 5.Subject: Approve the May 16 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 16 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes 6.Subject: Approve the May 23 Special Meeting (Teen Commission interviews) City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 23 Special Meeting (Teen Commission interviews) City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes 7.Subject: Annual adoption of City Investment Policy Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-049 accepting the City Investment Policy Staff Report A - Draft Resolution Accepting the City Investment Policy B - Investment Policy Marked C - Investment Policy Final 8.Subject: Annual adoption of Other Post-Employment Benefits (“OPEB”) Trust Investment Policy Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-050 accepting the OPEB Trust Investment Policy Staff Report A - Draft Resolution accepting the OPEB Investment Policy B - OPEB Trust Investment Policy MARKED C - OPEB Trust Investment Policy Final Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 6, 2017City Council AGENDA 9.Subject: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter opposing SB 649 Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Senator Ben Hueso (the author of the bill), and to copy Senator Jim Beall, Assemblyman Evan Low, Assemblyman Marc Berman and League of Cities Regional Public Affairs Manager Seth Miller Staff Report A - Draft Letter of Opposition to SB 649 10.Subject: Appointment of Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates (HdL) as the City’s representative with authority to examine tax records of the State Board of Equalization, for purposes related to governmental functions of the City related to collection of City sales, use, and transaction taxes Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-051 authorizing Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates to serve as the City’s representative with the State Board of Equalization Staff Report A - Draft Resolution 11.Subject: Contract with Dan Gertmenian for the Math Olympiad education program for the period of July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Dan Gertmenian for the Math Olympiad youth program for the one-year period of July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 Staff Report 12.Subject: Amendment with Friends of the Stevens Creek Trail and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the period extending through June 30, 2018 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to amend a contract with Friends of the Stevens Creek Trail and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society at McClellan Ranch Preserve for the period extending through June 30, 2018 Staff Report A - Audubon Draft Agreement Second Amendment B - Friends Draft Agreement Second Amendment 13.Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Barista Dan Inc (dba Bitter + Sweet), 20560 Town Center Lane Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for Barista Dan Inc (dba Bitter + Sweet), 20560 Town Center Lane Staff Report A - Application Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 6, 2017City Council AGENDA SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES PUBLIC HEARINGS 14.Subject: Fiscal Year 2017-18 Fee Schedule Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-052 approving the FY 2017-18 Fee Schedule Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Proposed Schedule A - General Fees C - Proposed Fee Schedule B - Engineering Fees D - Proposed Fee Schedule C - Planning Fees E - Proposed Fee Schedule D - Building Fees F - Proposed Fee Schedule E - Recreation ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 15.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments ADJOURNMENT 16.Subject: Adjournment in memory of Homestead High School sophomore Kimberly Nuestro Recommended Action: Adjourn the meeting in memory of Homestead High School sophomore Kimberly Nuestro Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 6, 2017City Council AGENDA The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA CITY COUNCIL 5:00 PM 10350 Torre Avenue and 10300 Torre Avenue Tuesday, June 20, 2017 Special Meeting Non-Televised Closed Session (5:00) Followed by Televised Regular Meeting (6:45) NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby called for Tuesday, June 20, 2017, commencing at 5:00 p.m. for a closed session beginning in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California and then moving to City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting." The regular meeting items will be heard at 6:45 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. SPECIAL MEETING ROLL CALL - 5:00 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber CLOSED SESSION 1.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (one potential case) ADJOURNMENT REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL - 6:45 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1.Subject: Proclamation for July as National Park & Recreation Month Recommended Action: Present Proclamation for July as National Park & Recreation Month 2.Subject: Presentation regarding Fourth of July festivities Recommended Action: Receive presentation regarding Fourth of July festivities 3.Subject: Proclamation for International Yoga Day on June 21 Recommended Action: Present Proclamation for International Yoga Day on June 21 4.Subject: Presentation regarding Climate Action Plan & Greenhouse Gas Inventory Recommended Action: Receive presentation regarding Climate Action Plan & Greenhouse Gas Inventory Staff Report A. 2016 Climate Action Plan Progress Update Report B. 2015 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Update C. CAP Progress Report Summary POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 5.Subject: Approve the June 6 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the June 6 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA 6.Subject: Budget appropriation for the funding agreement between the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project Recommended Action: Approve the budget appropriation for the funding agreement between the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the I-280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project Staff Report A - Funding Agreement Amendment 7.Subject: 2016 Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Annual Housing Element Progress Report Recommended Action: Accept the 2016 Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Annual Housing Element Progress Report Staff Report A - 2016 HCD Annual Housing Element Progress Report SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.Subject: Fiscal Year 2017-18 Fee Schedule (continued from June 6) Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-052 approving the FY 2017-18 Fee Schedule (continued from June 6) Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Proposed Schedule A - General Fees C - Proposed Fee Schedule B - Engineering Fees D - Proposed Fee Schedule C - Planning Fees E - Proposed Fee Schedule D - Building Fees F - Proposed Fee Schedule E - Recreation Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA 9.Subject: Public hearing to consider the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); and a finding of General Plan conformance; and the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18; and the Adoption of the Recommended Budget; and Establishment of the Appropriation Limit, and related actions Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 17-053 establishing a special project budget for Public Works Traffic Engineering Program for costs related to Apple Pass through Revenues for FY 2017-18; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17-054 establishing an Operating Budget and Capital Budget for FY 2017-18; and 3. Approve the appropriation of $22,000 in Public Works Traffic Engineering for a Senior Mobility Pilot Program; and 4. Approve the appropriation of $800 to $1000 for City Council Community Funding for the Iranian Federated Women’s Club Event; and 5. Approve the appropriation of $50,000 for the Creekside Bldg. Roof Modification; and 6. Approve the appropriation of $779,762 in the Capital Improvement Fund and the appropriation of $779,762 in transfers out from the Transportation Fund to fund Bike Plan Implementation costs in the Capital Improvement Fund; and 7. Approve the appropriation of $3 million in Capital Projects for the Bike Plan Implementation and the additional appropriation of $3 million in transfers out of the Capital Reserve to fund Bike Plan costs; and 8. Adopt Resolution No. 17-055 establishing an Appropriation Limit for FY 2017-18; and 9. Adopt Resolution No. 17-056 amending the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program Staff Report A - Draft Resolution - Pass through Revenue Budget for FY 2017-18 B - Draft Resolution - Operating and Capital Budget for FY 2017-18 C - Draft Resolution - Appropriation Limit for FY 2017-18 D - Budget Study Session Follow-up items E - Draft Resolution - Unrepresented Employees' Compensation Program F - Unrepresented Employees' Compensation Program - Redlined G - Unrepresented Employees' Compensation Program - Clean H - Job Description - Emergency Services Coordinator I - Job Description - Innovation and Technology Manager - Applications J - Job Description - Transportation Manager Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA 10.Subject: 2017-18 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program and Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funding allocations Recommended Action: Conduct the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution 17-057 approving the 2017-18 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program and Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funding allocations Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Housing Commission Resolution No. 17-02 C - 2017-18 CDBG, HSG and BMR AHF Grant Application Summary D - 2017-18 CDBG, HSG and BMR AHF Grant Application Descriptions E - 2017-18 CDBG Capital Housing Project Contract F - 2017-18 CDBG Public Service Contract Amendment G - 2017-18 HSG Public Service Contract Amendment H - 2017-18 BMR AHF Public Service Contract Amendment I - 2017-18 BMR AHF Public Service Contract Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA 11.Subject: Development project to consider allowing the construction of a 19 unit affordable senior housing development with associated parking and landscape improvements on a vacant parcel including a Heart of the City Exception to allow 100% of the front and rear of the property to be a non-retail use (Application No. (s): DP-2016-02, ASA-2016-15, EXC-2017-03; Applicant(s): Kathy Robinson (Charities Housing); Location: 19160 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN(s): 375-07-001) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17-058 approving Development Permit (DP-2016-02); and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 17-059 approving Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2016-15); and 4. Adopt Resolution No. 17-060 approving Heart of the City Exception (EXC-2017-03) Staff Report A - Draft Resolution (DP-2016-02) B - Draft Resolution (ASA-2016-15) C - Draft Resolution (EXC-2017-03) D - Public Comments E - Memo to File regarding Use Permit and CEQA Exemption F - Plan Set G - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6829 H - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6830 I - Planning Commission Resolution No. 6831 ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 12.Subject: Brush abatement for public nuisance and potential fire hazard Recommended Action: Remove this item from the agenda since all parcels on the list have complied Staff Report A - SCCFD Letter Page 6 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA 13.Subject: First reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.72 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition Waste Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 17-2164: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Sections 16.72.010, 16.72.020, 16.72.030, 16.72.040, 16.72.050, 16.72.060 and 16.72.070 of Chapter 16.72 of Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding recycling and diversion requirements for construction and demolition waste to be consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code" Staff Report A - Proposed Ordinance B - Redline Proposed Ordinance REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 14.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments ADJOURNMENT Page 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 20, 2017City Council AGENDA The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 8 CITY OF CUPERTINO CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA CITY COUNCIL 6:45 PM 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber Tuesday, June 6, 2017 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION 1.Subject: Study Session Regarding the Amended Proposed Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget Recommended Action: Receive the Amended Proposed Fiscal Year 2017-2018 CIP for consideration Staff Report A - Amended Proposed Fiscal Year 2017/18 Capital Improvement Program CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 2.Subject: Presentation on new City website features Recommended Action: Receive presentation 3.Subject: Certificate of Commendation to Monta Vista High School chemistry teacher Kavita Gupta for her work to support students in our community Recommended Action: Present Certificate of Commendation 4.Subject: Presentation of the Biennial Community Survey Recommended Action: Receive the presentation and accept the City of Cupertino 2017 Community Survey report A - 2017 Community Survey Report POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 6, 2017City Council AGENDA This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 5.Subject: Approve the May 16 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 16 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes 6.Subject: Approve the May 23 Special Meeting (Teen Commission interviews) City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 23 Special Meeting (Teen Commission interviews) City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes 7.Subject: Annual adoption of City Investment Policy Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-049 accepting the City Investment Policy Staff Report A - Draft Resolution Accepting the City Investment Policy B - Investment Policy Marked C - Investment Policy Final 8.Subject: Annual adoption of Other Post-Employment Benefits (“OPEB”) Trust Investment Policy Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-050 accepting the OPEB Trust Investment Policy Staff Report A - Draft Resolution accepting the OPEB Investment Policy B - OPEB Trust Investment Policy MARKED C - OPEB Trust Investment Policy Final Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 6, 2017City Council AGENDA 9.Subject: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter opposing SB 649 Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Senator Ben Hueso (the author of the bill), and to copy Senator Jim Beall, Assemblyman Evan Low, Assemblyman Marc Berman and League of Cities Regional Public Affairs Manager Seth Miller Staff Report A - Draft Letter of Opposition to SB 649 10.Subject: Appointment of Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates (HdL) as the City’s representative with authority to examine tax records of the State Board of Equalization, for purposes related to governmental functions of the City related to collection of City sales, use, and transaction taxes Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-051 authorizing Hinderliter, de Llamas & Associates to serve as the City’s representative with the State Board of Equalization Staff Report A - Draft Resolution 11.Subject: Contract with Dan Gertmenian for the Math Olympiad education program for the period of July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Dan Gertmenian for the Math Olympiad youth program for the one-year period of July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 Staff Report 12.Subject: Amendment with Friends of the Stevens Creek Trail and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the period extending through June 30, 2018 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to amend a contract with Friends of the Stevens Creek Trail and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society at McClellan Ranch Preserve for the period extending through June 30, 2018 Staff Report A - Audubon Draft Agreement Second Amendment B - Friends Draft Agreement Second Amendment 13.Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Barista Dan Inc (dba Bitter + Sweet), 20560 Town Center Lane Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for Barista Dan Inc (dba Bitter + Sweet), 20560 Town Center Lane Staff Report A - Application Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 6, 2017City Council AGENDA SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES PUBLIC HEARINGS 14.Subject: Fiscal Year 2017-18 Fee Schedule Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-052 approving the FY 2017-18 Fee Schedule Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Proposed Schedule A - General Fees C - Proposed Fee Schedule B - Engineering Fees D - Proposed Fee Schedule C - Planning Fees E - Proposed Fee Schedule D - Building Fees F - Proposed Fee Schedule E - Recreation ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 15.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments ADJOURNMENT 16.Subject: Adjournment in memory of Homestead High School sophomore Kimberly Nuestro Recommended Action: Adjourn the meeting in memory of Homestead High School sophomore Kimberly Nuestro Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO June 6, 2017City Council AGENDA The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO          APPROVED MINUTES  CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL  Tuesday, June 20, 2017     SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING    ROLL CALL    At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan called the Special City Council meeting to order in  the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue. The closed session  continued in City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.     Present: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, and Councilmembers Barry Chang, Steven Scharf,  and Rod Sinks. Absent: Vice Mayor Darcy Paul.    Council went into closed session and reconvened in open session at 6:45 p.m. in the  Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue for the Regular  Meeting.    CLOSED SESSION    1.  Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel ‐ Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation  pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (one potential case).     Written communications for this item included emails to Council.     Jennifer Griffin spoke on this item.       Mayor Vaidhyanathan announced that Council gave direction to staff for Conference  with Legal Counsel ‐ Anticipated Litigation Initiation of litigation pursuant to  subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (one potential case).    REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING    ROLL CALL    At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan called the Regular City Council meeting to order in  the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of  City Council Minutes June 20, 2017  2    Allegiance.     Present: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul (7:30 p.m.), and  Councilmembers Barry Chang, Steven Scharf, and Rod Sinks.     CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS    1.  Subject: Proclamation for July as National Park & Recreation Month  Recommended Action: Present Proclamation for July as National Park & Recreation  Month    Mayor Vaidhyanathan presented the proclamation to Cupertino Recreation and  Community Services staff for July as National Park & Recreation Month.    2.  Subject: Presentation regarding Fourth of July festivities  Recommended Action: Receive presentation regarding Fourth of July festivities    Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.     Senior Recreation Manager Mariah Dabel and Street Department Supervisor Brad  Alexander gave a presentation via PowerPoint.    Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner Jennifer Shearin spoke in support of this item.    Council received the presentation regarding Fourth of July festivities.    3.  Subject: Proclamation for International Yoga Day on June 21  Recommended Action: Present Proclamation for International Yoga Day on June 21    Mayor Vaidhyanathan presented the proclamation to yoga instructor Sa‐ad Kongboo  and a few students on behalf of the Cupertino Sports Center.     4.  Subject: Presentation regarding Climate Action Plan & Greenhouse Gas Inventory  Recommended Action: Receive presentation regarding Climate Action Plan &  Greenhouse Gas Inventory    Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.     City Council Minutes June 20, 2017  3    Sustainability Manager Misty Mersich introduced the item and Ben Butterworth from  DNVGL gave a presentation via PowerPoint.    Council received the presentation regarding Climate Action Plan & Greenhouse Gas  Inventory.     POSTPONEMENTS ‐ None    ORAL COMMUNICATION    Jennifer Griffin talked about the proposed San Jose Urban Villages development bordering  eastern Cupertino.    Sean Pan on behalf of Squadz, Inc. talked about a new web‐based platform Venue Portal  business development. He distributed written comments.     Muni Madhdhipatla talked about the proposed San Jose Urban Villages development  bordering eastern Cupertino.     Catherine Moore talked about Friendship Cities with Cupertino.     CONSENT CALENDAR    Paul moved and Sinks seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented  except for item number 6 which was pulled for discussion. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul,  Chang, Scharf and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.      5.  Subject: Approve the June 6 City Council minutes  Recommended Action: Approve the June 6 City Council minutes    6.  Subject: Budget appropriation for the funding agreement between the City of  Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for the I‐280/Wolfe  Road Interchange Improvements Project  Recommended Action: Approve the budget appropriation for the funding agreement  between the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)  for the I‐280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project    Senior Civil Engineer David Stillman reviewed the staff report.    City Council Minutes June 20, 2017  4    Jennifer Griffin spoke on this item.    Sinks moved and Paul seconded to approve the budget appropriation for the funding  agreement between the City of Cupertino and Santa Clara Valley Transportation  Authority (VTA) for the I‐280/Wolfe Road Interchange Improvements Project. The  motion carried unanimously.     7.  Subject: 2016 Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Annual  Housing Element Progress Report  Recommended Action: Accept the 2016 Department of Housing and Community  Development (HCD) Annual Housing Element Progress Report    SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES ‐ None    PUBLIC HEARINGS    8.  Subject: Fiscal Year 2017‐18 Fee Schedule (continued from June 6)  Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17‐052 approving the FY 2017‐18 Fee  Schedule (continued from June 6)    Director of Administrative Services Kristina Alfaro reviewed the staff report.    Mayor Vaidhyanathan opened the public hearing. Seeing no speakers, the public  hearing was closed.     Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to adopt Resolution No. 17‐052 approving the FY  2017‐18 Fee Schedule. The motion carried unanimously.     9.  Subject: Public hearing to consider the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP); and a finding  of General Plan conformance; and the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017‐ 18; and the Adoption of the Recommended Budget; and Establishment of the  Appropriation Limit, and related actions  Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 17‐053 establishing a special project  budget for Public Works Traffic Engineering Program for costs related to Apple Pass  through Revenues for FY 2017‐18; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17‐054 establishing an  Operating Budget and Capital Budget for FY 2017‐18; and 3. Approve the  appropriation of $22,000 in Public Works Traffic Engineering for a Senior Mobility Pilot  Program; and 4. Approve the appropriation of $800 to $1000 for City Council  Community Funding for the Iranian Federated Women’s Club Event; and 5. Approve  City Council Minutes June 20, 2017  5    the appropriation of $50,000 for the Creekside Bldg. Roof Modification; and 6. Approve  the appropriation of $779,762 in the Capital Improvement Fund and the appropriation  of $779,762 in transfers out from the Transportation Fund to fund Bike Plan  Implementation costs in the Capital Improvement Fund; and 7. Approve the  appropriation of $3 million in Capital Projects for the Bike Plan Implementation and  the additional appropriation of $3 million in transfers out of the Capital Reserve to  fund Bike Plan costs; and 8. Adopt Resolution No. 17‐055 establishing an  Appropriation Limit for FY 2017‐18; and 9. Adopt Resolution No. 17‐056 amending the  Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation Program    Written communications for this item included two staff PowerPoint presentations.     Director of Administrative Services Kristina Alfaro and Senior Management Analyst  Karen Guerin reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation.    Councilmember Sinks left the dais during the review of the pass through revenues for  Apple Campus 2 and then returned.      Vice Mayor Paul left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.    Director of Public Works Timm Borden reviewed the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan  Implementation via a PowerPoint presentation.    Mayor Vaidhyanathan opened the public hearing and the following individuals spoke:    Jennifer Griffin    Mayor Vaidhyanathan closed the public hearing.    Action item numbers 2‐9 were voted on first followed by action item number 1.    Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to: 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17‐054 establishing an  Operating Budget and Capital Budget for FY 2017‐18; and 3. Approve the  appropriation of $22,000 in Public Works Traffic Engineering for a Senior Mobility Pilot  Program; and 4. Approve the appropriation of $400 for City Council Community  Funding for the Iranian Federated Women’s Club Event; and 5. Approve the  appropriation of $50,000 for the Creekside Bldg. Roof Modification; and 6. Approve the  appropriation of $779,762 in the Capital Improvement Fund and the appropriation of  $779,762 in transfers out from the Transportation Fund to fund Bike Plan  City Council Minutes June 20, 2017  6    Implementation costs in the Capital Improvement Fund; and 7. Approved the  appropriation of $3 million in Capital Projects for the Bike Plan Implementation and  the additional appropriation of $3 million in transfers out of the Capital Reserve to  fund Bike Plan costs with an amendment to use funding allocated to phases of the  Stevens Creek Boulevard Separated Bike Lane project for the McClellan Road  Separated Bike Lane project to be banked for multiple years to ensure project  completion. The McClellan Road Separated Bike Lane project includes the extension  easterly to Cupertino High School, including the Regnart Creek Trail; and 8. Adopt  Resolution No. 17‐055 establishing an Appropriation Limit for FY 2017‐18; and 9.  Adopt Resolution No. 17‐056 amending the Unrepresented Employees’ Compensation  Program. The motion carried unanimously with Paul absent.     Councilmember Sinks recused himself from voting on the adoption of Resolution No.  17‐053 due to a conflict of interest and left the dais.    Chang moved and Scharf seconded to adopt Resolution No. 17‐053 establishing a  special project budget for Public Works Traffic Engineering Program for costs related to  Apple Pass through Revenues for FY 2017‐18. The motion carried unanimously with  Paul absent and Sinks recusing.    Councilmember Sinks returned to the dais.    10.  Subject: 2017‐18 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, General  Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program and Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable  Housing Fund (AHF) funding allocations  Recommended Action: Conduct the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution 17‐057  approving the 2017‐18 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG),  General Fund Human Service Grants (HSG) Program and Below Market Rate (BMR)  Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) funding allocations    Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation.    Senior Planner Kerri Heusler reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation.     Mayor Vaidhyanathan opened the public hearing. Seeing no speakers, the public  hearing was closed.    Scharf moved and Sinks seconded to adopt Resolution 17‐057 approving the 2017‐18  Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), General Fund Human Service  City Council Minutes June 20, 2017  7    Grants (HSG) Program and Below Market Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Fund  (AHF) funding allocations. The motion carried unanimously with Paul absent.     11.  Subject: Development project to consider allowing the construction of a 19 unit  affordable senior housing development with associated parking and landscape  improvements on a vacant parcel including a Heart of the City Exception to allow 100%  of the front and rear of the property to be a non‐retail use (Application No. (s): DP‐ 2016‐02, ASA‐2016‐15, EXC‐2017‐03; Applicant(s): Kathy Robinson (Charities Housing);  Location: 19160 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN(s): 375‐07‐001)  Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Find that the  proposed actions are exempt from CEQA; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17‐058  approving Development Permit (DP‐2016‐02); and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 17‐059  approving Architectural and Site Approval (ASA‐2016‐15); and 4. Adopt Resolution  No. 17‐060 approving Heart of the City Exception (EXC‐2017‐03)    Written communications for this item included a staff PowerPoint presentation,  Stevens Creek Studios design pictures, and letters and emails to Council.    Associate Planner Gian Paolo Martire reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint  presentation.    Director of Housing Development at Charities Housing Kathy Robinson answered  questions from Council.    The following individuals spoke on this item:    Jennifer Griffin  Tracey Edwards on behalf of the League of Women Voters Cupertino‐Sunnyvale    Chang moved and Sinks seconded to: 1. Find that the proposed actions are exempt  from CEQA; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 17‐058 approving Development Permit (DP‐ 2016‐02); and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 17‐059 approving Architectural and Site  Approval (ASA‐2016‐15); and 4. Adopt Resolution No. 17‐060 approving Heart of the  City Exception (EXC‐2017‐03). The motion carried unanimously with Paul absent.    ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS    12.  Subject: Brush abatement for public nuisance and potential fire hazard  City Council Minutes June 20, 2017  8    Recommended Action: Remove this item from the agenda since all parcels on the list  have complied    City Clerk Grace Schmidt noted that all parcels on the list have complied with the  abatement and the item can be removed from the agenda.    13.  Subject: First reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 16.72 of the Cupertino  Municipal Code regarding Recycling and Diversion of Construction and Demolition  Waste  Recommended Action: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 17‐2164: ʺAn  Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Sections 16.72.010,  16.72.020, 16.72.030, 16.72.040, 16.72.050, 16.72.060 and 16.72.070 of Chapter 16.72 of  Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding recycling and diversion  requirements for construction and demolition waste to be consistent with the California  Green Building Standards Codeʺ    Director of Public Works Timm Borden reviewed the staff report.    Environmental Programs Manager Cheri Donnelly answered questions from Council.     City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance.    Chang moved and Sinks seconded to read Ordinance No. 17‐2164 by title only and  that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Ayes:  Vaidhyanathan, Chang, Scharf, and Sinks. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Paul.    REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF    14.  Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments  Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments    City Manager David Brandt reminded Councilmembers that the next Council meeting  would be on July 5 due to the Fourth of July holiday.     Councilmembers highlighted the activities of their committees and various community  events.     ADJOURNMENT    City Council Minutes June 20, 2017  9    At 10:34 p.m., Mayor Vaidhyanathan adjourned the meeting.           _/s/Grace Schmidt________  Grace Schmidt, City Clerk  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Mithun Sheth <mithunsheth@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, September 14, 2019 12:51 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart creek trail - Oppose Respected City Council Members,    I stay in the CUSD school district not near the trail and heard about the Regnart Creek Trail. I will not be able to attend the city  council meeting but I want to voice my opposition. I would like our city budget of 3.5 million dollars to be spent on more critical  areas than just a small section that does not help most of the residents.    Please do not spend city dollars on this trail and use Alternate 4.    Thanks  Mithun Sheth    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Ilango <ilangog@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, September 14, 2019 1:09 PM To:City Council Subject:Confidence on Cost estimates? of RCT at 65% plan review - CC Agenda item #9 Sep 17 Attachments:JuniperoSerraFinalStudyCostEstimate.pdf Dear Council members, As you might have noticed the cost estimates for the proposed Regnart Creek Trail (RCT) project has been changing several times just during the past one week. This shows low confidence that the estimates will stay the same through the next phase design and environmental permitting process (if approved by the Council). What is lacking is a detailed cost estimate with breakdown of individual line items, so the Council and the Public can fully understand where the tax payer dollars would be spent with a plethora of options being presented to get direction from the Council. We should know the reasons for variability in the cost estimates and what line items are getting included, removed, reduced, or moved around to different buckets. Otherwise it is just a black box; to remember the project was estimated at $660K in the 2106 Bike plan. Just to give an example, the Junipero Serra Feasibility Study has detailed cost estimates even at the study phase (see attached pdf and link https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=22915#page=47) and the consultant Calendar associates on that project had prepared a detailed cost estimate with cost breakdown for each line item. So it reasonable to expect that level of details be provided by the consultant HMH working on RCT at the 65% design milestone. If the City already has this information, then these details should be available to the Council and the Public for evaluation. I have been requesting the City to provide detailed cost breakdown since June, when I first reviewed the plans, however no such information is available in the agenda packet for Council consideration. Hence, I request the City to publish detailed cost estimates with individual line items to the public and the Council in order to make an informed decision. Thanks, Ilango Ganga Cupertino Resident on behalf of myself      Estimate of Probable Construction Costsprepared for theCity of Cupertino;<0;,<0/:9  ;<0;,<0/-C!.30.60/-C%&02809>= >080=.<4;>4:9:=>(94>$>C >08':>,7&?->:>,7$>C >08':>,7&?->:>,7$>C >08':>,7&?->:>,7&?->:>,7#<:50.>&>,<> (; :9/492,9/8:-474D,>4:9 !& 77:A  77:A  77:A   :9=><?.>4:9=>,6492  !& 77:A  77:A  77:A   '08;:<,<C.:9=><?.>4:9109.492 !         '<,114..:9><:7  !& 77:A  77:A  77:A   '<00;<:>0.>4:9,9/;<?949277:A !& 77:A  77:A  77:A     $428,76008:74>4:9 70,<,9/2<?- &           3,497496109.0 !     *::/109.0,>",<C@0 !    3,4974962,>0        '<00<08:@,7       $182,600<,/492<,49,20 %:?232<,/492 /0;>3 +           /5?=>8,93:70=,9/@,?7>=>:2<,/0  !& 77:A  77:A  77:A   &:47:113,?7 /0;>3849  +             $487,000<:=4:9:9><:7 '08;:<,<C.:9=><?.>4:909><,9.0  !& 77:A  77:A  77:A   4-0<<:77= !           &*###8,49>09,9.077:A !& 77:A  77:A  77:A     $134,400'<,47&4>0?<94=3492= =;3,7>;,>349.7?/492-,=0<:.6 ,@0<,20A4/>3 &           =;3,7>=3:?7/0< A4/0-:>3=4/0= !           &><4;492 :9 ><,47 !           0.:<,>4@0.:9.<0>0;,@0809>,>><,4730,/ &          %0>,49492.?<- !           %0>,49492A,7730423>@,<40= =00;7,9  !    :9.<0>0=0,>A,77,>><,4730,/ !        &429,7>48492?;2<,/0=,>09D,-,=0;<:50.> 77:A !&    7,=3492-0,.:9,9/.<:==A,76,>&>077492-,=0;<:50.>       9>0<=0.>4:98:/414.,>4:9=,>),77.:#,<6A,C><,4730,/77:A !&        ?<-,9/2?>>0< !      ?<-<,8;        '<,47&02809>'<,47&02809>'<,47&02809>Junipero Serra TrailAlternative #1",<C@0>:09D,7@/09D,7@/>:),77.:A0=>0B>09> ),77.:A0=>0B>09> >:),77.:#6AC    !%"     Cost Estimate for Alternate #1      Estimate of Probable Construction Costsprepared for theCity of Cupertino?@4?0@43>=  ?@4?0@431G$2742:431G*+46<4=BA!B4<4A2@8?B8>=>AB-=8B)BG!B4<,>B0;+C1B>B0;)BG!B4<,>B0;+C1B>B0;)BG!B4<,>B0;+C1B>B0;+C1B>B0;,@08;+46<4=B,@08;+46<4=B,@08;+46<4=BJunipero Serra TrailAlternative #1%0@GD4B>4=H0;D34=H0;D3B>.0;;2>E4AB4FB4=B .0;;2>E4AB4FB4=B B>.0;;2>(:EG !=B4@?@4B8D4A86=         >6E0AB410638A?4=A4@         ,@0A7@424?B02;4         ,@08;38@42B8>=0;A86=064        +42C@8BG0=3?@8D02GE>>354=24   $+ ;;>E  ;;>E  ;;>E 0@@84@@08;8=6  $        708=;8=:54=24  $    .4782C;0@2@0A710@@84@ $    ,@08;<0?A86=         >;;0?A81;41>;;0@3             $2,988,550(;0=B8=6!@@860B8>= +>8;?@4?0@0B8>= 8@@860B8>= ?;0=B8=6 <08=B4=0=24;;>E $+ ;;>E  ;;>E  ;;>E   ,@44 1>F       $154,500>=AB@C2B8>=+C1 ,>B0; 0A4(@>942B      $4,375,810 4A86=>=B8=64=2G$+ ;;>E  ;;>E  ;;>E     $656,370!&,!!(,$'/! 0A4(@>942B      $5,032,180">=AB@C2B8>=>=B8=64=2G$+ ;;>E  ;;>E  ;;>E     $503,220#A20;0B8>=?4@G@5>@G40@A $+ ;;>E  ;;>E  ;;>E     $452,890$,',$'&+,*-,!'&'+,+ +(*'",      $5,988,290%(@>54AA8>=0;+4@D824A 0A4(@>942B ,>?>6@0?782AC@D4G;;>E $+ ;;>E  ;;>E  ;;>E   4>B427=820;A4@D824A;;>E $+ ;;>E  ;;>E  ;;>E   4A86=34D4;>?<4=B $+ ;;>E  ;;>E  ;;>E      !%"     Cost Estimate for Alternate #1      Estimate of Probable Construction Costsprepared for theCity of Cupertino<=2<.=21;:  <=2<.=21/D"0520721/D()2492:?> ?292>0=6<?6;:;>?+:6?'?D ?29*;?.8)@/?;?.8'?D ?29*;?.8)@/?;?.8'?D ?29*;?.8)@/?;?.8)@/?;?.8*=.68)2492:?*=.68)2492:?*=.68)2492:?Junipero Serra TrailAlternative #1#.=DA2?;2:E.8A12:E.8A1?;,.880;B2>?2C?2:? ,.880;B2>?2C?2:? ?;,.880;&7BD ;:>?=@0?6;:1;0@92:?>.:1<2=96??6:4 ") 88;B  88;B  88;B   6116:4.:10;:>?=@0?6;:.196:6>?=.?6;: ") 88;B  88;B  88;B   *2>?6:4.:1><206.86:><20?6;: ") 88;B  88;B  88;B   :A6=;:92:?.81;0@92:?.?6;:#$ .>>@92>:;$&88;B ") 88;B   88;B   88;B       $1,108,250$*%*")&(%!*%)*)      $7,096,540%)?2886:4+:12=0=;>>6:4%<?6;: 82.=.:14=@/ )     5.6:86:732:02=29;A.8 "    *=22=29;A.8     (;@454=.16:4 12<?5 -    );68;33 5.@8 12<?5 -    .==62=32:02 "    ;:0=2?2<.A292:? )     (2?.6:6:4B.88 "    )?=6<6:4 ;: ?=.68 "    )20@=6?D8645?6:4  ") 88;B   2>64:0;:?6:42:0D ") 88;B  88;B88;B ;:>?=@0?6;:0;:?6:42:0D ") 88;B  88;B88;B :38.?6;: ") 88;B  88;B88;B &=;32>>6;:.8)2=A602> ") 88;B  88;B88;B $890,630&2:E.&212>?=6.:=6142=;>>6:4%<?6;: 82.=.:14=@/ )     *=22=29;A.8     )?228@?686?D<;82=28;0.?6;:&         &212>?=6.:/=6142 .<<=;.052> >?.6=> >@<<;=?0;8@9:>.:1=.686:4   ") 88;B88;B    ;C0@8A2=? C  "        "&#        ! Cost Estimate for Alternate #1      Estimate of Probable Construction Costsprepared for theCity of Cupertino8:.8*:.-76  8:.8*:.-+A ,1.,3.-+A%&.05.6<;<.5.;,:28<2767;<(62<$<A<.5'7<*4&=+<7<*4$<A<.5'7<*4&=+<7<*4$<A<.5'7<*4&=+<7<*4&=+<7<*4':*24&.05.6<':*24&.05.6<':*24&.05.6<Junipero Serra TrailAlternative #1!*:A>.<7.6B*4>-.6B*4>-<7)*44,7?.;<.@<.6<)*44,7?.;<.@<.6<<7)*44,7#3?A ;81*4<8*<1;8=:<:*2426,4=-260+*;.:7,3  ?2-. &        &.,=:2<A4201<260  & 447?    .;206,76<260.6,A & 447? 447?     447?  76;<:=,<276,76<260.6,A  & 447? 447?    447?  6/4*<276 & 447? 447?   447?  #:7/.;;276*4&.:>2,.; & 447? 447?     447?      $14,951,550$.6B*'=66.4:7;;260"8<276 4.*:*6-0:=+ &        1*264263/.6,.:.57>*4         (6-.:0:7=6-=<242<A:.47,*<276  & 447? 447?    '=66.4-:*26*0.  & 447? 447?  447?  ':..:.57>*4        &<..4=<242<A874.:.47,*<276#       '=66.4 ;<*2:; *88:7*,1.; :*24260;  & 447? 447?    7@,=4>.:< @          ;81*4<8*<1;8=:<:*2426,4=-260+*;.:7,3  ?2-. &        &3A4201<       1*264263/.6,.        #:78.:<A*,9=2;2<276,7;<; ,:.      &.,=:2<A4201<260  & 447?    .;206,76<260.6,A & 447? 447?    447?  76;<:=,<276,76<260.6,A  & 447? 447?    447?  6/4*<276 & 447? 447?    447?  #:7/.;;276*4&.:>2,.; & 447? 447?    447?      $22,162,260%.6B*< 0:*-.:7;;260"8<276 4.*:*6-0:=+ &        =:+:.57>*4         76,:.<.:.57>*4 &        ;81*4<:.57>*4 &       &*?,=<             "&#        ! Cost Estimate for Alternate #1      Estimate of Probable Construction Costsprepared for theCity of Cupertino68+6'8+*54  68+6'8+*(?).+)1+*(?"#+-3+4:9:+3+9)8/6:/5459:%4/:!:?:+3$5:'2#;(:5:'2!:?:+3$5:'2#;(:5:'2!:?:+3$5:'2#;(:5:'2#;(:5:'2$8'/2#+-3+4: $8'/2#+-3+4:$8'/2#+-3+4:Junipero Serra TrailAlternative #1'8?<+:5+4@'2<*+4@'2<*:5&'22)5=+9:+>:+4:&'22)5=+9:+>:+4::5&'22)5 1=? $8++8+35<'2        $8',,/)9/-4'235*/,/)':/54 # 225= 225=    $8',,/)9/-48+25)':/54  # 225= 225=     96.'2:6'<+3+4: #      54)8+:+6'<+3+4: #      54)8+:+8'36        54)8+:+);8('4*-;::+8        "+:'/4/4-='22 3'>         $8',,/)9:8/6/4- # 225= 225=    "+25)':+/88/-':/54 # 225= 225=    +9/-4)54:/4-+4)?  # 225= 225=   225=  549:8;):/54)54:/4-+4)?  # 225= 225=  225=  4,2':/54 # 225= 225=   225=  85,+99/54'2#+8</)+9  # 225= 225=   225=      $1,295,630$.+'(5<+/:+39 '35;4:9 7;'4:/:/+9 '4*8+2':+*/4,583':/54'8+('9+*54'22'4*+8995)/':+90;*-3+4:'::./92+<+25,*5);3+4:68+6'8':/54'4*/95,,+8+*542?'98+,+8+4)+*':' '22'4*+8995)/':+9.'945)54:8525<+8)549:8;):/547;'4:/:/+9 )59:9'4*8+2':+*,'):589',,+):/4-)59:9 '4*'*</9+9:.+)2/+4::.':9/-4/,/)'4:<'8/':/543'?5));8(+:=++4:./9+9:/3':+5,685('(2+)549:8;):/54)59:9'4*'):;'2)549:8;):/5468/)+9 '9+*54*8'=/4-9+4:/:2+*2:+84':/<+2/-43+4: 2'4 *':+*       !%"     Cost Estimate for Alternate #1 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 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Bill Rassieur <william.rassieur@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, September 12, 2019 8:40 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart Creek Trail Esteemed City Council Members,    As a 19 year resident on De Palma Lane, I want to clearly state my opposition to the Regnart Creek Trail and advocate for  Alternative 4 and or 5, using street bike lanes.    My main personal concerns, briefly:     Liability. I understand the city of Cupertino is providing residents no indemnification for liability incurred due to  pedestrian and bike traffic on my property.  o Note: De Palma Lane where I live is privately owned so the trail plan will necessarily divert more traffic across  my property   Cost to the city, and ultimately my taxes. When the city has other expenses (the $1.7M for storm sewer maintenance is  my favorite), why spend the money on a problematic contentious trail when Alternative 4 and 5 would allow us to  money to spare?   Infringement on Lozano Lane properties. I feel strongly it is morally unjust that the design essentially asks the Lozano  property owners to "take one for the team" by forcing them to endure a trail right in their front yards.   It seems this may be a case of the tyranny of the majority where non‐affected bike riders want to force their desired plans on  the affected property owners against the owners' wishes.    Please vote for the best choice for all: Alternatives 4 and/or 5.    Sincerely,    Bill Rassieur  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Beth Garcia <nickbethg@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, September 13, 2019 12:00 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart Creek Trail Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,    I am writing to you in regard to your upcoming decision on including the Regnart Creek Path in the Cupertino Loop Trail.  Please look at this carefully, as many good Cupertino residents Peace of mind and happiness are at stake.    My husband, Nick Garcia, and myself, Beth Garcia, have lived at 19821 La Mar Drive, the exact middle house on La Mar, between  Blaney Ave. and East Estates Drive, for 56 years.  We have been proud of our city and thought our city made good decisions and took care of us and our neighbors.  Until now.   We are distressed that what we have enjoyed for these many years may be compromised by opening up the path along the  drainage ditch behind our home and 35 others between Blaney and East Estates.  We know the history of this ditch and can’t  imagine that anything good can come of this action.  We see, first hand, the use of La Mar Drive, in front of our home, and  Wilson Park, across the ditch behind our house.  Kids bike to school in both places, in large numbers.   Many walkers, joggers, folks with walkers, wheels chairs, and  baby   strollers enjoy Wilson Park paths every day.  Can the proposed path compare with this?  Hardly!  Please leave lovely Wilson Park  alone.  Keep the closed path behind our homes closed and peaceful, and use La Mar Drive, a quiet and already in use street for  save biking.  I don’t think Cupertino can really afford to wast millions of dollars on a project that will get little use, and has so many Potential  problems, which you all should be aware of by now.  I am sure many other projects can be completed using the money saved by not doing this path, let alone the continued upkeep  which will keep draining money away every year.  Think carefully and hard about this and don’t do something that you, and  everyone involved will later regret.  It’ important!  Sincerely, Beth Garcia  1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: Regnart Creek Trail From: NICK GARCIA <nickbethg@comcast.net>   Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2019 12:20 PM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>  Subject: Regnart Creek Trail    Dear Major Scharf, Vice Major Chao and Council members; My name is Nick Garcia, I live at 19821 La Mar Drive in Cupertino. I am opposed to having the Regnart Creek Trail. The trail costs too much money and comes with too many complicated and costly issues. It is just a narrow trail directly behind private homes on a dry drainage ditch. Without going into the details of what the trail would and would not provide, but looking at the overall picture, the trail has limited entry points, people would not use the trail very much and opt for more open and accessible routes. Another less costly and less complicated solution is an "on-street" approach, that would use Pacific Drive, Blaney Ave. and La Mar Drive. and connecting open spaces and parks. This approach has always been proposed by Cupertino residents instead of the Regnart Creek Trail, but in the Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility Studies (which are biased toward the Regnart Creek Trail), the "on-street" approach was never given a fair chance and always down-played. If you ask yourself the reason why - - - The Regnart Creek Trail is identified by the Bicycle Transportation Plan as a segment of the "The Loop", the Regnart Creek Trail will provide an Off-Street bicycle and pedestrian connection between Pacifica Drive and Creekside Park along Regnart Creek. The Bicycle Pedestrian Plan identified "The Loop" as several segments that when combined together with on-street bikeways, will form a loop bike network around Cupertino. So where does all this lead? The National Bicycle Friendly Community(BFC) rates all bicycle friendly communities from Bronze to Platinum. Cupertino's rating is Bronze. The Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission generated a plan that includes "The Loop" for Cupertino. "The Loop" will be one of the key steps to obtaining a Silver rating for Cupertino. So need it not be said, that is why the Regnart Creek Trail is being pushed. But, you can still will have "The Loop" using the "on-street" approach instead of the Regnart Creek Trail. Sincerely Nick Garcia 1 Cyrah Caburian From:sun.dalvi@gmail.com Sent:Saturday, September 14, 2019 1:53 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart creek trail Respected Cupertino council members,    I stay along the proposed trail and wish to express my opposition to the trail. The trail does not connect to any schools without  multiple road crossings while being an expensive option. While looking at the expenses, please also look at the maintenance fees  per year.     Alternate 4 is a good option and should be used instead. The money saved can be used to make other roads safe for  biking/walking.    Regards  Suraj Dalvi    Sent from my iPhone  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Navid Aberg <navid.aberg@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 8:46 AM To:City Council Subject:September 17 meeting agenda item #9 To whom it may concern,    Please stop the Regnart Creek Trail and choose Alternative 4 or 5. Thanks, Navid 1 Cyrah Caburian From:John Liu <cadenza19811@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 10:52 AM To:City Council Subject:Opposition to the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Council Members,    I am one of the residents on the La Mar drive who diligently made appointment (March/27 2:30 PM) to meet with city engineers  when they came to my house for a neighborhood discussion.    Because the proposed removable bridge from the Willson Park is heading right into my bedroom window I have a great concern  about the intrusion of privacy. During our face to face meeting all 3 city personals on site acknowledged the situation and notes  were recorded on their notepad but they could only say would bring this to the attention of the design. I have never got any  update about the solution to my concerns during the past 6 months while the consultants continue their work. I appreciate that  city has made effort to meet with individual resident who are affect by the project but my concerns were never answered.    I have learned from neighbors that the plan now has reduced 2 removable bridges requirement to one and my concerns still  stand. Can someone please answer my concerns? Why do we need this bridge since the ramp has been relocated. If the reason  is to access the park from the trail why can we just use the park trail and not duplicate this one along the creek?    Thank you for your attention!    ‐ John Liu (19811 La Mar Drive)   1 Cyrah Caburian From:Todd Miyakawa <toddm_30@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 12:06 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart Creek Dear City Council of Cupertino, I do not support opening Regnart Creek for any type of trail. A few questions the city council should have answers for. 1. It was an underhanded political move (potentially illegal) by the other side to print and send out names, addresses, and pictures of Cupertino residents who are opposed to the trail. The city council should publicly respond to the flyer. Why hasn't the City council responded to this yet? This is an invasion of privacy for the residents involved to disparage their reputation. These people are not public figures nor are they part of the city counsel or staff. 2. Why is the trail being fast tracked through the city? Who currently in city hall or former employees will profit (directly or indirectly) from the construction of this trail? One has to wonder due to the short cuts being taken to get this approved. 3. Why is city hall sharing information about meetings to only one side? Who is doing so? I have been a Cupertino resident for 40 years and I'm sad to say I have lost respect for this great city and its leaders. Todd Miyakawa Cupertino Resident 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 3:59 PM To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; David Stillman; City Clerk Subject:Agenda Item 9, Regnart Creek Trail 65% Design; YES on Option A or B Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear Mayor, Vice‐Mayor, Councilmembers, City Manager and City Staff:    Please decide tonight to support this walkable/bikeable vision of our community!      I am impressed with the work our City Staff has done. They have presented an excellent report, and answered the questions of  residents.    I urge the Council to support Option A or B on September 17.  These are the most robust options. Cupertino must not install a  cheap version of the plans. Going cheap will require more maintenance and repair in the future than a well‐designed and built  trail.    The rest of the plans C,D,E, and F include use of busy city streets. Getting off the streets is what must be done to build the  walkable/bikeable vision of Cupertino.    Important goals:   1. Improving safety—Cars and bicycles do not share the road well.  Pedestrian and bicycle accidents are increasing every year.  2. Reducing traffic—fewer cars on the road—for school children, recreational walkers and recreational bicyclists, including many  active seniors  3. Improving air quality and health—fewer cars means less pollution.  4. Adding much needed recreation space. Although the trail is not a park, it provides walking area for pedestrians in a quiet  neighborhood with many trees.    Please vote Yes tonight on A or B of the Regnart Creek Trail 65% Plan.    Sincerely,  Connie Cunningham  Cupertino Resident, Active Senior Bicyclist and Pedestrian          🔍Watch out for typos; Siri might be on duty.  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jeonghee Yi <jeonghee.yi@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 4:15 PM To:City Council Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:(RCT) Please vote "No" to the 65% design plan and stop the RCT project Dear City Council:    I've reviewed the 65 design plan, the staff report, cost estimation and other documents posted on the city website.   I urge you  to vote for "No" to proceed to 100% design phases because it costs too much for a non‐essential project that the city is not able  to afford and the resource is better spent on more essential, higher priority issues and projects the city has to invest in.    The followings are my comments:  1. The cost is staggering: over 5M, yet it excludes many essential protection measures the city has to provide, including but not  limited to:      1) CIP: security camera, concrete retaining wall to entire affected residents      2) operational: staff cost for trail closure, budget support to the sheriff dept for increased monitoring on the trail area    Please note that protections, including concrete retaining walls, were offered and promised by the city and the mayor to the  residents previously.    2. Other cost‐cutting options B‐F are dangerous ideas.  It compromises not only the mitigation the city needs to provide to the  residents for their safety, security, & privacy, but also the safety of trail users themselves, the very beneficiaries of this RCT  project.    We should give up a non‐essential item if we can't afford, rather than compromising the safety of users and residents.    3. cost‐cutting Options C‐F that do not pave the trail not only makes less accessible, but also make the trail more vulnerable to  erosion that would end up increasing operating maintenance costs.  I know city staffs are downplaying the risk of trail path  erosion, the financial implication could be huge to the city once a major one happens.  And it does happen and it did happen in  the area, too, on Stevens Creek Trail.    4. Constructing retaining curb on resident property line is an absurd demand.  In order to have that happen, all the residents'  fences have to be moved inward of their backyard.  This essentially is the city is limiting residents' private property usage.    5. There are many other higher priority projects than RCT: for example,   ‐ creating protected bike lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd west, Sterling Rd, etc.  This will have much higher impact on bikers safely  than RCT.  ‐ for students' safety, better protection of bike/pedestrian on major collision spots, such as Miller and Calle De Barcellona and  other streets near Cupertino High School (CHS) would make them much more safe than RCT.    ‐‐   Thanks,    Jeonghee  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Dennis Cunningham <BikeC2C@Comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 4:26 PM To:City Council Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk; David Stillman Subject:Approve Regnart Bike Path Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Council Members,    I’m writing to strongly urge you to support the proposed Regnart Trail bike path.    In your role you are asked to make many hard and important decisions.  This one is is important, but not hard.    Cars and bicycles do not play well together.  Signs & painted lines do not separate cars from bicycles.    Cupertino need LOTS more separate bike paths to keep people safe (especially the most vulnerable people).    This proposal uses an existing pathway that the City could never afford to purchase on the open market.  And it connects parts  of the City that should be connected.  This is a true no‐brainer.    Yes, of course some citizens will be unhappy ‐ a few dozen out of a population of about 60,000.  Most decision‐makers would  take those odds.    So...  ‐ Approve the proposed path  ‐ Pave it  ‐ Provide homeowner mitigation as reasonably practical   ‐ Be proud that you have improved Cupertino and made it safer.      Dennis Cunningham      40‐year Cupertino resident     Longtime bicycle enthusiast      Senior citizen wanting more protection than in my younger years     Grandparent      Grandparent     Grandparent     Grandparent      Grandparent     Grandparent          🔍Watch out for typos; Siri might be on duty.  1 Cyrah Caburian From:marci <faralloneme@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 5:14 PM To:City Council Subject:Proposed Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members,    I am writing because I do not support the construction of the Regnart Creek Trail for several reasons.    This is a very expensive project just for the planning and construction.  Added to that will be maintenance costs which will be an  extra burden on the city budget.  With the cost of goods and services rapidly increasing is it wise to add this to the city budget?    Then there is the issue of the De Palma homes.  These units were approved by the city.  Was there no thought that the  maintenance road might be used for recreational purposes?  To plan a route now that runs so close to these homes  compromises the safety and privacy of the residents.  This issue needs to be resolved before any more money is spent on this  trail project.    I also think we need to be conscious of the effect the proposed trail could have on the environment.  Water absorption, run‐off  and drainage possibly might be altered affecting this riparian area.  I have noticed since the large library parking lot was built  that there are fewer varieties of birds in the area so I am concerned that the use of a trail along the creek will impact other  species’ habitat.    These issues would be resolved if bike lanes were along the neighborhood streets.  Pacifica, Rodrigues and La Mar are  reasonably quiet and could be marked for bicycles.  This would cost far less and could be ready much sooner than the proposed  trail.  It would also eliminate the need for the awkward crossing where Regnart Creek meets Blaney which is very close to the  Rodrigues/Blaney crossing and would cause extra traffic issues especially at commute times.    For these reasons I urge you to vote to halt the Regnart Creek Trail project and proceed with a street alternative for a bicycle  route.  Thank you.    Sincerely,  Marcia Underwood  10325 Farallone Dr.,  Cupertino          Sent from Mail for Windows 10    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jennifer Shearin Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 5:57 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart Trail Agenda item September 17 Dear Mayor Scharf and City Councilmembers,  The Regnart Creek Trail, sometimes called the Regnart Library Trail, would be a decided amenity for the city.  It would  provide a great connection to the library and three parks, add additional healthy walking and biking recreational space,  encourage active school commuting to two close by schools, be an important step to fulfilling our city’s Pedestrian, Bicycle  and Parks & Recreation Master Plans, and much more.  Moreover, it has wide resident support from all ages of  residents.  For all these reasons and more, I recommend that you vote to build this trail. The two areas from the September 17 Regnart Trail Agenda Item Staff Report that  I would like to discuss briefly are the  Community Outreach and Engagement, and the Construction and Ongoing Maintenance information. Overall, I find the  Staff Report comprehensive and factually very clear. Construction and Ongoing Maintenance The City Staff is presenting several alternatives: from the ‘gold‐plated Cadillac model’ of high concrete walls along the entire  length (which 16 adjacent residents have already stated they do not want), to a bare‐bones, no frills trail.  As long as the  gates are opened, I would support whatever level of cost the Council deems appropriate. The  option I would call “D minus“ (per the desk item list) seems to be the most cost‐effective solution for our city.  The  “minus” portion is that adding the on‐street portions for $175,000 is not necessary when a trail made of gravel with a binder  can and will still be used by bicycles.  This would bring the total trail cost down to under $2M to $1.925M.  Other benefits  would include the support by the Water District for this option, the ability to construct the trail more quickly, and the  inclusion in the cost of additional fencing and privacy treatments along the length of the trail for adjacent residents. Community Outreach and Engagement As stated in the report, “…the City attempted to meet with all households adjacent to the trail alignment and was  successful in meeting with half of these households between March 18 and April 12, 2019.”  This step of additional individual  outreach of 100+ hours—supported by Councilmembers—was unprecedented for a typical trail of this size and  location.  Residents met individually at their homes with City Staff to “express their concerns, and to ask questions” and  the  hope was they would also give some direction about their wishes to mitigate their privacy, security and noise concerns so  that design could fully incorporate their wishes. Though half of the households (42 out of 84 invited) agreed to meet with  the city staff,  only approximately 35% of the 84 residents were willing to discuss mitigation if the trail was built—including  to say they don’t want to change their current fence— during the design phase. The only reason I am pointing this out is to encourage the Council to make a final decision on Tuesday. Without a final  decision yes or no whether to continue into construction, it seems extremely difficult or impossible for the City Staff to  get the needed input from residents opposing the trail.  More importantly, a final vote will also end the tense atmosphere  surrounding this issue, allowing us to work together as a city again. Thank you for listening to my input on this matter.  The Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans initiated this project and served as a  starting point for my interest; the thousands of residents that I have heard from that wish to have the Regnart Trail built  have solidified my support for the project.  I hope that, as Councilmembers, you also see and hear the many voices of our  residents that wish for this trail.  Thank you for all you do on behalf of our city. Best Wishes, Jennifer Shearin 2 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Raghuveer Kumarakrishnan <kraghuveer@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 7:08 PM To:City Council Subject:I oppose the Regnart Creek Trail Esteemed City Council Members,    I oppose the Regnart Creek Trail for the following reasons:  1.  Alternative routes on road, are cheaper than even finishing the remaining feasibility.  2. The less than 0.95 mile of trail does not provide any school route  3. Crime and safety issues  4. Environmental issues  5. Cost of ongoing maintenance.  Thanks!  Raghuveer Kumarakrishnan  10335 Farallone Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014      1 Cyrah Caburian From:Angelina Gonzales <anyolinagonzales@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 9:31 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnant Creek Bike Trail My address is 10265 South Blaney Ave, Cupertino.  My 33 year old son who has autism lives with me because he knows this city  very well reason that makes it difficult for me to move to a more affordable city.  I am a widow preschool teacher who  struggles to pay taxes, homeowners insurance, and utilities.      I have contacted my house insurance company and the homeowner insurance price will go up to $300.00 per year if the trail is  built.    I oppose building the Regnant Creek Bike Trail for various reasons.    Please respect the habitat and the environment.     Safety: bikers and pedestrian's injuries will have an impact on the City of Cupertino liabilities, injurers will sue the city an the  insurance cost will go which will impact on the city’s  homeowners    My next door neighbor has three huge red wood trees, to build the bike trail, the roots would need to be cut to lay the concrete,  which means the trees would eventually fall possible to my roof or to the side of my house.   My insurance deductible is $5,000.00 which it would be impossible for me to repair a very possible given damage.    Surveillance cameras for safety/security will be needed and its cost will also impact the city’s expenses.    I believe that the City of Cupertino could use the money to upgrade the existing paths, focus on providing more bicycle security  by painting green around school to prevent biker to have accidents.        Please consider the above request .    Restfully,    Angelina Gonzales  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Agnes Pommier <agnes@pommier-family.net> Sent:Sunday, September 15, 2019 9:41 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart Creek Trail Esteemed Council Members,    Let me express to you my sincere concerns about the upcoming vote on the Regnart Creek Trail this coming Tuesday, September  17 2019, although I’m an avid biker in the city and hiker on trails all around the valley.    First of all, as a homeowner on De Palma Lane for 15 years, I’m shocked that the design is still under 65% completion, missing  key and extremely contentious sections, in particular regarding our private street of De Palma and our neighbors on Lozano.  Liability on our private street as well as for properties adjacent to a potential trail will increase, leading to increase in home  owner insurance fee premiums (verified with insurance companies). The ideas and suggestions expressed during our closed  meeting on May 23, 2018 have still not been taken into account.    Second, this trail would not comply with basic width guidelines, making multi‐use biking/walking usage dangerous. I use the trail  access to Creekside park a lot, and I have to say that you cannot bike fast as it is narrow. I had issues several times, as a  pedestrian and a biker, with young cyclists going too fast on that section and in Creekside park as they were late for school. I  cannot imagine a long narrow section of the trail going next to Wilson Park in those conditions with no escape than…down the  creek.     Third, the cost of this less than a mile trail reaches ridiculously high amounts for options A and B. Moreover, the yearly cost of  maintenance, especially in the Wilson Park section with one or two bridges, looks horrific.   Therefore, continuing to improve the bike lanes on the roads like in many European cities (Copenhagen, Berlin, Amsterdam…)  where it feels safe to bike close to cars but with protection and special traffic signs and lights is the way. Many improvements  have been recently made in Cupertino in the last year or so (green lanes, poles on Stevens Creek), so I would strongly encourage  you to vote for alternate 4 or 5 that use our current infrastructures, improve them and do not put the privacy of many residents,  including ours, in jeopardy, not to mention the sustainability of our City financials.    Best regards,     Agnès Pommier  20025 De Palma Lane  Cupertino, CA 95014  1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: My opinion about the RCT From: s hong <shong012@yahoo.com>   Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2019 11:11 PM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>  Subject: Re: My opinion about the RCT  Adding City manager. On Sunday, September 15, 2019, 11:08:37 PM PDT, s hong <shong012@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear City Council members, As a cupertino resident, I am writing to you to express my serious concerns about the Regnart Creek Trail. Among 84 families living along the Regnart creek, more than 90% of them have signed against building this trail. And 50% of them have met with City staffs to discuss about their concerns and/or opposition in details. Besides, many other residents have also signed to oppose the costly RCT (a final number will be provided). If building a 0.75 mile trail needs 5 million dollars, it sends a clear message that something is wrong -- the original path condition must be unsuitable for this purpose. This is not hard to picture for anyone who has a common sense. As we know, in the past 3 months, one to two million Hongkong residents repeatedly go on street to protest for their own rights. It is the voices of Hongkong residents that should have more weight than those of 1.4 billion people from Communist China. In the same way, the voices of Regnart creek residents should prevail. They live next to the trail 24x7 and understand all the issues of this trail, compared to the most cyclists who will potentially use this path at most 20 min a day and might have never seen the entire path by now. It is not about popularity contest, but is about what is right for overall Cupertino urban planning and financial planning. Tax payers’ money should be used to serve our residents on library expansion, across-city bike lane pavement, Senior Center improvement, etc, but not for a particular interest group, nor for a couple of senior City officers. From the past two years’ history of how City handled this project, we have very serious concerns. If City selects to ignore RCT homeowners’ voices and insists on building such a trail, what is the difference between Cupertino City and a Communist government? After spending 5 million dollars to build the trail, annual maintenance fee is not a trivial. We will always be reminded of this unreasonable expense and remember you council members who made this decision in 2019. Do you remember Don Burnett Bridge at HW 280 and Mary ave? This bridge was also promoted by the same cyclist team who advertised for the use of school kids many years ago, but it turns to be a huge waste with very few users every day. But, at least this bridge does not require annual mandatory maintenance in the past several years. We consider it as a onetime waste and a first time mistake. For this trail, we will be reminded when Valley Water services the creek several times a year, and when yearly maintenance is needed. Residents and all future City employees will ask why mistake is repeatedly made for the sake of a particular interest group. Who made this decision in 2019? Finally, let it be clear that I do not oppose building a trail but this path is by no means a good selection. I not only have serious privacy and security concerns about Lozano Lane home owners and whole RCT residents, but also are worried about City’s ability to set correct priority in urban and financial planning, and to listen to its residents who are mostly affected. I strongly suggest using alternative 4 or 5, which is much less expensive and does not disturb Valley Water, nor the residents who invested in their properties in this area a long time ago. It makes more sense! Sincerely yours, Stella 1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: for trail From: 陈勇 <chenyong2310516@163.com>   Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 12:27 AM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>  Subject: for trail  Dear City Council Members and City Manager, As an owner of four Lozano homes facing the proposed Regnart Creek, I am writing to you to express my serious concerns about the plan of building a trial in front of my house. I am not against the ideal of building a trail but this path in front of our houses is not a good selection. The four houses of Lozano HOA community have front yards within 10 feet from the proposed trail. We can not find any trail in the nation so close to home owners’ front yards. Building such a trail seriously deviates from a general guideline which recommends a minimum of 25 feet between a trail and residential homes. This location has the most severe privacy and security concern among all neighboring trail segments. With increased crime records, this issue will definitely get worse. Last month my family just filed a police report for a burglary attempt, where our front window frames were damaged during this incidence. After the trail is built, the four Lozano houses will be an obvious target. At the council meeting of August 2018, former City Mayor, Darcy Paul, asked the City staffs to specially resolve the Lozano Lane issues. But after more than a year, no progress has been made. The 65% plan has actually 0% completion for Lozano segment. Lozano HOA representatives attended biweekly City Council meetings to address their concerns, and communicated with several City staffs multiple times. They requested the City to provide them with several remedies to select from. So far the City’s proposal is 1) to place plastic planters in front of their houses or 2) to raise the existing front yard metal fences to 6-7 feet high. While the City spent so much money/ time and hired consultants working on many other issues and concerns, the simple solutions to Lozano segment was clearly not under a full consideration. As Lozano HOA representatives have expressed many times to the City staffs and City Council, the plastic planners do not solve any privacy and security issues but rather block sunshine and serve as criminals’ hiding zones. Raising existing metal fences also violates general guideline for the max height of front-yard fences, making home owners feel as if living in a prison or a zoo. The high metal fences do not solve privacy and security issues, especially as the sidewalk to their front doors is not enclosed and noises cannot be blocked. When making a go or no-go decision, any smart leader would work on the most critical one first. The Lozano segment issue should have been taken care of as a first priority, even after Mayor Paul did not mention it last August. We do not understand how City can leave this completely behind, cancel this project’s study section on 9/17 and jump to make a go-no-go decision pre-maturely. It should be admitted there is no reasonable solution to the Lozano Lane segment, given the fact that these four houses were built so close to the creek. If the City already planned to build the trail in the beginning of this century, it should not have approved Lozano Lane community plan in 2003. Now that these homes were built with front doors so close to the creek, City should at least let the trail to bypass Lozano Lane. Otherwise, the City is not only lack of overall planning and common sense, but also does not care about its own residents’ basic rights. Please choose alternative 4 or 5! Sincerely yours, Yong Chen 1 Cyrah Caburian From:benaifer dastoor <bddastoor@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 1:09 AM To:Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey; Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks Subject:Regnart Creek Trail- staff options for no/partial railings jeopardizing safety of children Attachments:Lawrence Saratoga Trail- RailingsIMG_20190505_191240.jpg; Lawrence Saratoga Trail-RailingsIMG_20190505_ 191729.jpg; San Thomas Aquino -Railings DAS_8390.JPG; San Thomas Aquino - RailingsIMG_20190423_ 071531.jpg; Regart Creek flooding.JPG Hello Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang, Council members Darcy Paul, Jon Willey and Rod Sinks I am sure as you read through every single page of the agenda packet on Regnart Creek you are :  thoughtfully researching the options, alternatives presented by the staff,  seeking clarifications/rationale on the proposals recommended by them,  looking for facts versus propaganda,  seeking full cost break up of the project since it fluctuates every few weeks from the time it was reflected in the 2016 bike plan starting at $ 6,64,000, peaking at $6,000,000 and now that it is on the agenda from September the cost reduces by a few hundred thousands from week to week I wish to particularly draw your attention to options C, D, E. These options not only call for unpaved path (decomposed granite) but also partial railings along the creek. I am horrified to see these as staff recommendations for a trail which has been pushed heavily by the city ( commissioners and certain council members) as 'safe routes to school' for elementary, middle and high school children. The parents have been urged/persuaded that this trail will keep their children safe as they bike to schools/library. It is unconscionable to strip the trail of railings and paved path to project a lower cost. Here is what the feasibility report (pg 53) approved by the city council states : "Safety Regnart Creek within the project area has creek banks of a 3:1 (H:V) slope or steeper. Protection measures should be implemented to protect trail users from accidentally or deliberately accessing the creek ....... Four-foot tall wood or steel split railing or taller vinyl coated chain link fencing is proposed along the top of the creek bank for the entirety of the trail to act as a barrier between the trail and the creek. " The narrative that there are similar trails without railings or width and so we should go with it for Regnart trail too, is misinformed and full of half truths. First off - This is not a recreational trail in wilderness. None of the other oft quoted trails have been promoted as safe routes to school for elementary children. Regnart is not only very narrow but also is an upstream tributary of Calabazas creek, known for flooding. Secondly - The oft quoted popular trails around us are not only miles long but have railings wherever there is a slope of this magnitude. I have attached a few pictures of all the trails mentioned by the staff. 2 Thirdly - please check the heartbreaking video of the Cupertino High School student whose dad slipped and fell in the creek on the Saratoga creek trail. Sadly he is paralyzed for life. His cries for help went unheard for two hours. This was the year when my oldest was a freshmen in school and so we vividly know the heartbreak that this incident caused to the entire CHS community. Link to video : https://www.gofundme.com/f/6y39q8 Link to the news article: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Cupertino-Teen-Rallies-Community-To-Buy-Wheelchair-For-Best-Friends- Paralyzed-Father-263931511.html Cupertino’s Munson family reaches $25,000 goal for quadriplegic wheelchair All I can say is, that every stage this project defies common sense. I will leave it to the wise souls, to figure this one out :( Thank you for your time, Regards, Benaifer                          1 Cyrah Caburian From:Seema Lindskog <seema3366@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 7:13 AM To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office Cc:Jennifer Shearin Subject:Emails and videos in support of the Regnart Creek trail Attachments:Gary Virshup Video in Support of Regnart Creek Trail.MOV; Emails in Support of the Regnart Creek Trail(1).pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Mayor Scharf, esteemed Councilmembers, Deb, and Grace,    Attached is a document summarizing some of the emails and a video that have been sent in support of the Regnart Creek trail by  Cupertino residents. I'm also attaching another video.    Grace, can you please include these in the written communication for the meeting tomorrow on Sept 17th?    Thanks,  Seema  ___________________________________________________________________    "You must be the change you want to see in the world." ‐ Mahatma Gandhi  These are copies of emails and one video sent in support of the Regnart Creek trail between March 2019 to Sept 2019. ____________________________________ From: "Mona Schorow" <monaschorow@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 5:37 AM Subject: Video for Sept. 17 City Council Meeting Here's a video for the trail. Thank you for your good work on getting this bike trail underway, Mona Schorow https://youtu.be/S9vH7MObhrA ____________________________________ From: Mark LeBlanc <markleblanc32@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 6:39 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I work in City Center 1 a building in Cupertino that is very near to the trail and I support the Regnart Creek Trail being accessible to me. I take long walks on my lunch break and would love to use the trail instead of the busy streets. There have been many times where inattentive drivers do not see me walking and it would be safer and much less stressful for my walks if I could make use of the trail instead. I urge the city of Cupertino to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Mark LeBlanc _____________________________________ On 3/25/19, 6:40 AM, "Rob Tsuk" <rob@tsuk.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. I regularly commute to Mountain View via bike and strongly support any and all additional off-street bicycle routes. Given the strong show of support for this trail at recent City Council meetings I am astonished that you would be considering anything but continuing its development. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Rob Tsuk _____________________________________ On 3/25/19, 6:46 AM, "Chantel Ct" <chantelproperty@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Ron November Dr ________________________________________ From: Kaushal Kanikaram <kanikaramk@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 7:02 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Kaushal Kanikaram ________________________________________ From: Wendell Stephens <wendellstephens@mac.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 7:05 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com>, Wendell Stephens <wendellstephens@mac.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. I love walking and jogging on our trails. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Wendell Stephens Wendell Stephens wendellstephens@mac.com 408-996-8964 (home/fax) 408-489-1759 (cell) _____________________________________ From: Wayne Grubbs <wgrubbs13@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 7:40 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Wayne Grubbs ______________________________________ From: Joel Wolf <jwolf@exponent.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 7:47 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I have lived in Cupertino 33 years and strongly support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. This is a great opportunity to provide alternative, healthy, pollution-free options (walking and biking) to the automobile. I live on Scofield Drive, 0.3 miles from Faria Elementary. The Faria school traffic backs up, down my street and beyond my home, during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times. It is pure congestion. I see no kids walking or riding their bikes to school. I believe that this is because it is difficult to get to this school safely by bike. Don’t miss this opportunity to provide safe biking and walking alternatives to the residents of east Cupertino. If such an opportunity for an alternative trail were possible for my neighborhood I would strongly support it. Best regards, Joel Wolf 20612 Scofield Drive Cupertino, CA ___________________________________ On 3/25/19, 8:13 AM, "David Schorow" <dschorow@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am writing in support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino and a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. I’ve been impressed by the careful planning that has gone into this trail design, fully taking into consideration the people who live near the proposed trail. As evidenced in the City Council meeting where the funding for the detailed design was approved, the proposed trail has widespread support from the community, save for a small set of people whose houses abut the trail. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, David Schorow ___________________________________________ From: Revathy Narasimhan <revnar@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 9:24 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost-efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Revathy Narasimhan 1126, Hollyhead Lane Cupertino _________________________________________ From: Pete Klein <pklein95014@hotmail.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 9:33 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. Please don't let a few hysterical NIMBYs block this great project!! I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Peter Klein _________________________________________ From: Chris Toomey <ctoomey@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 10:01 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Chris Toomey ________________________________________ From: helen wiant <helenwiant@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 10:23 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Helen Wiant ___________________________________ From: Lars Thomsen <admin@trailheadcyclery.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 10:55 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a business owner in Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Lars Thomsen __________________________________ On 3/25/19, 3:39 PM, "Tom Scannell" <tscannell01@earthlink.net> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. I am sure you are familiar with all the arguments for and against the Trail so I won’t rehearse them here. While I respect the neighbor's concerns about the trail, I think the benefits to the east side of Cupertino will far outweigh any possible downsides. In addition, I believe the downsides are considerably over estimated. What does Scenic Circle access to Blackberry Farm have to do with this? For those of you not around in 2011, this Regnart Trail “discussion" reminds me of the “controversy” surrounding the opening of newly redone Blackberry Farm to Scenic Circle in 2011. Most of the arguments for and against are very similar. As you consider Regnart Trail, please note what a fantastic, great success Scenic access to Blackberry has been the west side neighborhoods. Used by families and children-- it has been great! Note also that none of the concerns expressed by opponents ever came true. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. It will be fantastic addition to the City of Cupertino Best regards, Tom Scannell ________________________________________ From: Jian He <jianhe7@gmail.com> Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 7:09 PM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino for more than 14 years, and I support the Regnart Creek Trail for many great reasons. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I personally spoke in one of the City Council hearing meetings to support this project. You and I have seen so many supporters, including parents, students, community leaders in that meeting, listening to their petitions. The positive votes were given by many and I thought the decision has been made. Please respect the time and effort offered by so many city staff and volunteers in our community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Jian He, Mother of two boys attending Kennedy Middle School _____________________________________________ On 3/25/19, 10:47 PM, "James Takasugi" <jtakasug@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Sunnyvale and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. All communities (Cupertino-Sunnyvale-MV) must pitch-in to provide a much-needed off-street recreation path and a safe and effective alternative to automobile transportation. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, James Takasugi ___________________________________________ From: Sami Laine <sami.laine@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 7:45 AM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com>, "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Yes on Regnart Creek Trail design and build out Dear council members, I saw the project update on the design and build out planning of the trail, and as a long-time resident and homeowner I wanted to ask for your continued support for this project. I have been walking and biking to the Civic Center area for years, often with my kids who are now middle and high school age. This proposed trail would be a great, logical connection with Creekside Park and would make the city even more walkable and bike friendly. We've been using the surface streets along La Mar and Pacifica with problematic T-intersections at Blaney with dangerous left-hand turns for cyclists; this planned alignment would make a much safer crossing and create a great route for the traditionally under-served east side. Yours, Mr. Sami Laine 6189 Shadygrove Dr Cupertino, CA __________________________________ On 3/26/19, 10:47 AM, "Connie Cunningham" <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Connie Cunningham __________________________________ From: Mona <mona@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:04 AM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Please move forward on the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Cupertino City Council, Even though I live on the North side of Cupertino, the Regnant Creek Trail encourages Cupertino and non-Cupertino folks to ride their bikes. Please support the interests of the majority of Cupertino residents in moving forward on the Regnant Creek Trail. Fumi N. Matsumoto 22182 Bitter Oak Street Cupertino, CA 95014 ________________________________ From: Karen LeBlanc <kdc.tubadva@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 12:42 PM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of San Jose but work in Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Karen LeBlanc ______________________________________ On 3/26/19, 1:15 PM, "Christian Frei" <christian.frei@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, As a daily bike commuter 9 miles each way starting and ending in Cupertino I can vouch from firsthand experience, injury, and frustration that the world - and Cupertino - needs every sustainable option to encourage clean transit and protect our children without stigmatizing what is sadly still considered alternative transportation. I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Christian Frei ______________________________________ From: Seema Lindskog <seema3366@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 1:52 PM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, My family and I are 13-year residents of Cupertino and we support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. I am a Safe Routes to School parent volunteer and I hear stories from parents every day of their kids being harassed by cars while biking to and from school, cars driving past too close on purpose to force them to move further to the side of the road, being honked at, being shouted at. Crossing Blaney is a dangerous proposition, even for adults. Cars routinely zip down LaMar at unsafe speeds. This trail is a much-needed safe route for the 450 Eaton kids and 450 Cupertino High kids who would use it every day. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Seema _____________________________________ On 3/26/19, 2:26 PM, "Katriina Laihia" <katriina.laihia@gmail.com> wrote: Dear city council members, As a long time resident of Cupertino and a mother of two now high school age children, I have been using Creekside Park, Wilson Park, and the Cupertino Library a lot over the years. When my children were younger, having a trail next to Regnart Creek would have made our biking trips to the library and to the parks safer and more enjoyable. The proposed Regnart Creek Trail would serve all the non-driving residents well, and even lure some of the driving residents out of their cars to try out alternate commuting options. By ensuring more residents are out and about and keeping an eye out for suspicious activities the trail would also make the neighborhoods safer, contrary to the fears of the nearby residents. I applaud the City of Cupertino for all the improvements it has done to its traffic infrastructure recently, by creating bike lanes, marking shared roads, making crossroads more visible and accessible, etc. Please keep up this important work by funding the Regnart Creek Trail construction. Best regards, Katriina Laihia ______________________________________ On 3/26/19, 9:12 PM, "Adrienne Harber" <adrienneharber@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino, and I support the creation of the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local children. It is a cost-efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life AND the safety of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Sincerely, Adrienne Harber _____________________________________ From: lolak kashyap <lkreadinglist@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 6:57 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Lola Kashyap __________________________________ From: Marge Sung <margesung66@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 8:41 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Marge Sung __________________________________ From: Henry Chen <wc73@yahoo.com> Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 12:08 PM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. I regularly rode bike through the area via various streets, zipzag through Wilson Park and Creekside park. A new trail along Regart Creek will make the ride much safer and more enjoyable experience. I understand some residents might be concerned more traffic around their neighborhood. As a matter of fact, I live in a street which is major bike route. I think the frequent bikers through the street and around neighborhood deter the crimes. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Henry Chen _______________________________________ From: Mark Hlady <markahlady@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 10:03 PM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Support for the Regnart Creek Trail As a longtime parent within the Cupertino Union School District and an advocate of walking and biking to school I would love to see this trail built. One visit to the crazy traffic at any of our CUSD schools at drop-off time shows how few kids are currently able to get themselves to school. In many cases this is because the parents don't think its safe enough to let their kids walk or bike, so when we have such a great (and rare) opportunity to improve access to schools and parks then we can't miss it. --Mark Hlady 408-480-7902 ___________________________________ From: Carol Mattsson <carol.mattsson@gmail.com> Reply-To: "carol.mattsson@gmail.com" <carol.mattsson@gmail.com> Date: Friday, March 29, 2019 at 4:19 PM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. I already enjoy riding the little bit of trail through Creekside Park while heading to Sunnyvale, and taking the Saratoga Creek trail on my way to Saratoga. I look forward to seeing more trails like these built for everyone to safely enjoy, especially along creeks where there can be shady places to rest and view the creek. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Carol Mattsson -- Carol Mattsson Web Developer (408) 255-3767 mattsson@surfpix.net www.surfpix.net/web Mattsson Web Solutions ________________________________________ From: Jano Banks <jano.banks@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 3:40 PM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Jano Banks _______________________________________ On 3/30/19, 6:14 PM, "Jan Panell" <janpanell@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Jan Panell ________________________________________ From: Don Disney <dondisney@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 6:47 PM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I have been a resident of Cupertino for over 20 years. My kids attended Cupertino schools from K through high school. We are fortunate to have a good number of well maintained city parks in Cupertino. However, we are lacking pedestrian and bike friendly paths to connect our parks and schools. I believe that green spaces and green corridors are key to improving quality of life and the value of living in a community. Thus, I am in strong support of the Regnart Creek Trail as a critical starting point, and hope that city council will authorize construction as soon as possible, and continue looking for opportunities to build additional pathways. Best regards, Don Disney _____________________________________ From: BikeC2C <BikeC2C@Comcast.net> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:49 PM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: "dpaul@cupertino.org" <dpaul@cupertino.org>, "rsinks@cupertino.org" <rsinks@cupertino.org>, Scharf Steven <SScharf@cupertino.org>, "LiangChao@cupertino.org" <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, "JWilley@cupertino.org" <JWilley@cupertino.org>, Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Vote "Yes" on Regnart Creek Trail: Bicycles & cars do not play well together. Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and City Council Members, I strongly support the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Bicycles & cars do not play well together. We are fortunate in Cupertino to still have a few reasonable alternatives to on-street bike paths. We need this trail (and others too). Bicycles & cars do not play well together. In August of 2017 I sent a letter to the Council laying out my reason for supporting the Regnart Creek Trail. (attached) Please vote “Yes” on the Regnart Creek Trail Dennis Cunningham 1119 Milky Way Cupertino CA **************************************** August 14, 2017 Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and City Council Members, I am writing this to express my strong advocacy for the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. I am a 40+ year resident of Cupertino and have witnessed Cupertino grow from a city to a City. This trail is important to help reduce traffic congestion, offer a safer way to travel to everyone, especially our children & seniors, and to reduce air pollution for automobiles. We need even MORE trails like this one. Growth In the 1970’s, when I arrived here, we may not have needed bike & pedestrian trails because we and our children could safely ride & walk on regular streets. School buses were readily available to ensure safe transport to school. Places like Seven Springs, Vallco, and Main Street did not exist. Apple was not a major employer; in fact Apple did not even exist - Steve Jobs had just gotten of of high school when I moved here. The center of town was dominated by a feed mill and Stelling Road was lined with greenhouses & horse paddocks. Traffic Today, traffic is one of THE major concerns for the City, and not just because traffic wastes our time in commutes. Traffic is also a safety & environmental problem. The more we can do to encourage biking & walking, the better-off we will be. Child Safety Parents often must either drive their children to school (creating congestion, pollution, and their own safety hazards), or have them bike/walk through an increasingly large and dangerous maze of cars & trucks. Senior Safety Seniors also face the same kind of dilemma: biking & walking can offer gentle ways of getting much-needed exercise. but at what cost? I know MY reflexes and reaction times have slowed over the years. Biking in traffic takes more situational awareness than riding on a well-maintained trail. My Credentials I am very comfortable and experienced riding a bike: I commuted 11 miles (each way) to work for many many years, in all sorts of weather; and once I even rode my bike from here to New York City (no sag wagon) with my son. But even I now appreciate getting off a Boulevard and onto a Trail. Legitimate Concerns I understand that the immediate neighbors of the Trail have legitimate privacy & security concerns. That’s why we need a well-planned, well-constructed, well-maintained trail. These issues can, should and must be addressed. The current process is doing that. (I expect that someday, you will also be asked to approve a bike trail along the railroad track in MY neighborhood. I too will have privacy & security concerns; I will expect you to address them effectively; and I will support that proposal). I’m sorry that I will not be able to attend the Council meeting on August 21st. I have a conflicting obligation. Please vote “Yes” on the Regnart Creek Trail Thank you for your attention, ........................................... Dennis Cunningham¬ ...........................................¬ _______________________________________ From: Mark LeBlanc <markleblanc32@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 1, 2019 at 8:43 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Thank you for reimagining the Regnart Creek Trail Hello Council Members, I am writing to thank you all for taking the considerable time and effort in establishing the future use of the Regnart Creek trail. I sincerely wish to thank all those involved in making the trail walk on Saturday to be possible. I participated in the walk on Saturday and I would certainly make use of this beautiful trail daily and I am in full support of proceeding on this project. Having said that, I understand that there can be a few dissenting views and concerns with large projects such as these. The presenters of the guided Regnart Creek Trail walk handled these concerns with tact and diplomacy. It made the event the success that it was. Kudos to them are in order. I also talked with many like-minded individuals while walking on the trail and hard how it would be of benefit to them. However, I found that while these supporters were numerous, they were not as vocal as the few dissenters. Sometimes the silent majority needs a voice and in that regards, I would like to raise my hand in support of the silent majority. Sincerely, Mark LeBlanc ___________________________________ From: "A. K. S." <abacus3141@gmail.com> Date: Monday, April 1, 2019 at 3:46 PM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Anna Strokova _____________________________________ On 4/1/19, 11:01 PM, "Grace Kong" <kongmida@yahoo.ca> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Grace Kong _______________________________________ On 4/1/19, 11:51 PM, "Lawrence Kwak" <lawrence_kwak@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Lawrence Kwak ______________________________________ From: Tony Stieber <TonyStieber@gmx.com> Date: Friday, April 5, 2019 at 10:05 AM To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear City Council Members, I am a not resident of Cupertino but I travel through the city many times a week. Usually I do this on a bicycle, but sometimes by car. Having good bicycle trails and lanes throughout the city is critical for me as it lowers the threshold for riding a bike rather than driving a car. I support the Regnart Creek Trail and any other trails that can be built – including some day, I hope, a trail along Calabazas Creek which is behind our house. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Tony Stieber __________________________________ On 4/14/19, 1:10 PM, "Marilyn Beck" <beck1739@gmail.com> wrote: Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. I live near the Stevens creek trail extension and what a pleasure it is. I think other Cupertino residents will enjoy having a trail in their neighborhood. Best regards Marilyn Beck Sent from my iPhone _____________________________________ From: MARY ROBSON <marylourobson@comcast.net> Reply-To: MARY ROBSON <marylourobson@comcast.net> Date: Monday, April 15, 2019 at 3:46 PM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Mary Lou Robson __________________________________ On 4/16/19, 8:03 AM, "Andre-Anne Cadieux" <cadieux.aa@gmail.com> wrote: Dear city council members, Since I can’t join the meeting on April 24th, I want to communicate my support to the Regnart Creek Trail project. I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I live in Cupertino with my husband and my daughter and we bike everyday to work, to the school, library, shops... Cupertino’s bike lanes and bike network was one of the reasons that make us choose the city of Cupertino instead of Sunnyvale or Santa Clara. I believe a consistent and safe bike network make the city more attractive for families. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Andre-Anne Cadieux, on Pendergast avenue ___________________________________ On 4/18/19, 4:02 PM, "Peter Huston" <petehuston@att.net> wrote: Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Peter Huston __________________________________ From: Thomas Finet <thomasfinet2000@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:31 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Thomas Finet ____________________________ On 5/8/19, 6:34 PM, "Helen Wiant" <helenwiant@gmail.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Helen Wiant Cupertino resident of 40 years __________________________________ From: Samir Khosla <Khosla.samir@outlook.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:36 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of two CUSD children -- at Murdock Portal and Hyde schools. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Samir Khosla ________________________________ From: Patti Schmidt <4pattischmidt@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:42 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, As a Safe Routes to School advocate and a parent of former CUSD students, I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. If you remember, all of Cupertino's Safe Routes programs began after the tragic death of a Monta Vista student. The safer our routes to and from schools and other community locations, the better our community will be. This trail is an important part of the overall plan. In fact, it will assist CUSD children who take walking field trips to the Cupertino Library. I live near Cupertino High School and see bike after bike coming from the area west of Miller Avenue. These students were once CUSD students who learned about bike safety from School Resource Officers and school personnel. We have to think about where these well-trained CUSD students will later bike safely. Will they be more protected than that Monta Vista student? Biking to school, parks and the library makes for a healthy family and community and is ecological. Health and wellness and ecological treatment of our environment are all taught in Cupertino schools. We must walk the talk. Thank you. Patti Schmidt ________________________________ From: Ashok Natesan <ashok.natesan@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:45 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. I am also personally a committed biker, with many years of bike commuting experience. I speak from a lot of experience having used many trails for biking and walking in the Bay Area and elsewhere. We really (as a Cupertino community and in a even larger context) need to enable walking and biking if we want to have a real solution to this escalating traffic jams, obesity and stressed out drivers. This trail is a simple and effective mechanism to get kids a safe route and make Cupertino a better place. I have also biked through the Stevens Creek trail from Sunnyvale through to Palo Alto for many years and (i did this even yesterday) through trails in Palo Alto. These trails attract folks who are pursuing healthy activities - there is a nice positive vibe to it & in my opinion, having something like this is a community makes Cupertino a more desirable place to live (and probably will be a selling point for home owners). Opportunities like these are transformational if we seize them. Frankly, I think most of the objections by people who are opposed to this trail (in terms of it fostering more traffic, lack of safety etc.) are completely uninformed. To see this, please encourage these folks to go sit in one of the nice benches on the Stevens Creek trail for 30 minutes - you will see a lot of folks biking and walking to work in a safe path, amidst beautiful nature. They are improving their health, reducing their carbon footprint, and commuting with a smile on their face (something you will never see in all those poor souls sitting in their cars and stuck in traffic). Lets do something real to reduce the traffic mess and to encourage our kids to learn healthy habits like walking and biking safely. Please support the Regnart Trail. It will tremendously enrich our community & our lives. Thanks, Ashok Natesan 1215 Stafford Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 ____________________________________ On 5/8/19, 6:50 PM, "Rich Feldman" <richard.feldman@att.net> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. ___________________________________ From: Lars Thomsen <admin@trailheadcyclery.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 6:58 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a child who rides to school every day. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, ____/\__/\_/\__/\_____ Lars Thomsen \ O_]\º Captain \_ O Trail Head Cyclery \ www.trailheadcyclery.com \ 408-369-9666 \ lars@trailheadcyclery.com | ____________________________________ From: Don Disney <dondisney@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:15 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, Please issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. CUSD is very good about teaching our children the importance of environmental stewardship and physical activity, encouraging walking and biking to school. Help us to capture this golden opportunity to provide safe walking/biking routes for our kids. Voice your strong support for this trail. Sincerely, Don Disney ________________________________ From: "Purphekt V." <purphekt@hotmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 7:25 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Joseph Ventimiglia As a retired guy, I'm no longer on the clock. Now I'm just running out the clock. ___________________________________ On 5/8/19, 7:25 PM, "Doron" <dorondru@gmail.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Doron Drusinsky _________________________________ On 5/8/19, 7:25 PM, "Rachel" <rachelcwei@gmail.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of CUSD children at Sedgwick Elementary and Hyde Middel School. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. This is a trail my children frequent often and I believe this will greatly enhance their experience growing up in this area and make the library and their friends on the other side of the neighborhood more accessible to them. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Rachel Wei _________________________________ From: Jeffrey Xiong <xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 8:23 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Regnart Creek Trail is a Must Dear CUSD Board Members, I am former student in the Cupertino Union School District and am now a junior student at Cupertino High School. I have travelled to school by both bike and car. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so students can better access resources. Overall, the Regnart Creek Trail is a must to benefit students and provide safety. Thanks, Jeffrey Xiong ______________________________________ From: Pallavi Rajan <pallavirajan00@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 8:26 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a college student who grew up going to CUSD schools. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Pallavi _____________________________________ From: Gabriela Banks <gabimbanks@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 8:27 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I'm a parent of a three children who graduated from CUSD. My children benefited greatly from using the current shorter Regnart Creek Trail to walk and bike to school safely. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Gabriela Banks _______________________________________ On 5/8/19, 8:39 PM, "Sharon Reichardt Walker" <sharon.r.walker@outlook.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a neighbor of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Sharon Walker _____________________________________ On 5/8/19, 8:41 PM, "Jim Walker" <jimgwalker39@gmail.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a 50 year resident of Cupertino. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. We don’t get chances to save lives very often. We do now. Let’s get our kids safely to school and back home. The trail will improve the safety and is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Maybe their lives will depend upon it. Issue a statement of support for the Regnart Creek Trail. Please. Thanks, Jim Walker and Sharon too! _____________________________________ From: Dan Nater <dnater@salmon.net> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 8:46 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Daniel Nater _______________________________________ From: Jano Banks <jano.banks@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 8:47 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request for a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I'm a parent of three children who graduated from CUSD. My children benefited greatly from using the current shorter Regnart Creek Trail to walk and bike to school safely. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the new, extended Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Jano Banks _____________________________________ On 5/8/19, 9:05 PM, "Anna White" <annamaewhite@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Anna _____________________________________ From: shubha jayakumar <shubhajk@hotmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 9:08 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Jayakumar _______________________________________ On 5/8/19, 9:17 PM, "Christian Frei" <christian.frei@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, [NAME] Christian Frei RBNA/TER-Syv +1 (847) 309 3544 ______________________________________ On 5/8/19, 9:22 PM, "Judy Wilson" <judykwils@earthlink.net> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a 30+ year community member and I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. I am a past parks and recreation commissioner and we worked hard to open up as many trails as we can for our students and residents. Please take a stand Thanks, Judy Wilson _______________________________________ On 5/8/19, 10:13 PM, "Y Thorstenson" <yrthor@gmail.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of two former CUSD children who rode their bikes to school when they were old enough. Having safe bike routes will give more kids a realistic option to get to school. I urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Yvonne Thorstenson _____________________________________ From: Mark Hlady <markahlady@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:29 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child and an advocate for finding safe ways to get kids safely to school on their own. One visit to the chaos at any of our CUSD schools at dropoff times suggests that some things are quite wrong in our infrastructure and attitudes. As a board, please lend your support to an obvious step in the right direction for our kids and families. Thanks, Mark Hlady ___________________________________ On 5/8/19, 10:57 PM, "Catherine G Mack" <catmk@comcast.net> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Catherine Mack Retired 3rd grade teacher. SESD ____________________________________ From: Ming-Zhen Yeh <yehmz1@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:29 PM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards [Ming When Yeh] ____________________________________ From: Pete Heller <peteheller@pacbell.net> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 11:54 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride on the trail to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Pete Heller ____________________________________ From: Jerry Wei <jerrywei@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 5:22 AM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. I anticipate that I will be using this trail with my children at least a few times per week to go to the Cupertino library and surrounding areas. Thanks, Jerry Wei _______________________________________ On 5/9/19, 7:42 AM, "Donald Akimoto" <donaldakimoto@gmail.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Donald Akimoto ______________________________________ On 5/9/19, 7:55 AM, "Karen Hersh" <kehersh@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I was a parent of a CUSD child. I am a friend of many parents that have young children in Cupertino. I am a resident of Cupertino. I am a substitute for CUSD. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. I am surprised that CUSD has not already issued a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail. This trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. Young children should be able to go places on their own with out being driven everywhere but in the current driving climate, it isn’t safe. It would have been a great help to me with three boys who played baseball at Wilson several nights a week and on weekends. They would have been able to visit the library on their own which was out of the question because I didn’t trust the drivers. This trail is needed. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Karen Hersh ___________________________________ On 5/9/19, 8:05 AM, "Mary Edbrooke" <edbrooke@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. As a cyclist I am well aware of the dangers of bicycles sharing the road with cars, even on residential streets. I have witnessed a car reverse on a young person bicycling on the sidewalk in Cupertino. I believe the trail would provide safety, especially for children, encourage parents to allow their elementary age children to cycle which in turn will improve the chances that these kids will continue to cycle independently as young adults in middle and high school. Thank you. Mary Edbrooke _______________________________________ On 5/9/19, 10:01 AM, "Jennifer Sumant" <hoffman291@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I was a CUSD child. When I was a kid, we walked to school and it was an important lesson in independence. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Jennifer Sumant ______________________________________ From: Keith Millar <keithvmill@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 10:10 AM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I have lived in Cupertino for 20+ years (and Sunnyvale before that) and am a parent of 2 CUSD children. Please issue a formal statement from the CUSD board in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Keith and Susanne Millar¬ ________________________________________ From: Kai Wiedman <kaiwiedman@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 1:22 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks,¬ Kai Wiedman¬ ______________________________________________ From: Bob Skyles <wilot122@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 4:14 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a former CUSD children. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Bob Skyles _____________________________________________ From: suma manvi <suma_m@hotmail.com> Date: Friday, May 10, 2019 at 6:21 AM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, SM. ____________________________________ On 5/10/19, 10:02 AM, "Connie Cunningham" <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. The environmental benefit of lowered air pollution from cars, and the health benefit for all people who walk or bike on the trail are two more reasons to support the Regnart Creek Trail project. Sincerely, Connie L. Cunningham Cupertino Resident ________________________________________ From: K Suresh <ksuresh@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Friday, May 10, 2019 at 10:05 AM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of two children who attended CUSD schools. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. Indeed, if the trail had been built from Creekside Park all the way to the library in the early 200's when first proposed, it would have enhanced the safety and independence of my children as they grew up. At least future generations of children should have this advantage. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, K Suresh ________________________________________ On 5/11/19, 9:46 PM, "Deepa Mahendraker (dmahendr)" <dmahendr@cisco.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Deepa ____________________________________ From: M Bapoo <mbapoo62@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 12:36 AM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Mushtaq Bapoo ____________________________________________ On 5/12/19, 1:02 AM, "Victoria Morgan" <hunter@mac.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Victoria Morgan 10450 Miller Ave. Cupertino High student Access to Library would be awesome. This is a NIMBY at its privileged ‘but that’s my Creek’ attitude. ________________________________________ On 5/12/19, 7:27 AM, "Peter Murray" <murraypeter@fhda.edu> wrote: Dear Cuperino Council members, I am a resident of Cupertino for 43 years who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. I ride my bike all around the area. Cupertino is less safe than Sunnyvale and Mountain View for cyclists, especially younger ones. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Peter F. Murray __________________________________________ On 5/12/19, 7:29 AM, "Peter Office" <peter@blueboxer.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and I support the Regnart Creek Trail. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000+ residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for local kids. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life of the community. I urge the city to move forward with the Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Jill Murray ________________________________________ On 5/12/19, 7:50 AM, "David Andrews" <davida1493@gmail.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, My wife does not want me to bicycle for safety. I need a place to ride. Also, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, David Andrews ___________________________________ On 5/12/19, 2:13 PM, "haffrick@gmail.com" <haffrick@gmail.com> wrote: Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. _______________________________________ From: Bhagyashree Bhagwat <shree.bhagwat@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 10:54 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. ___________________________________________ From: shreyas natesan <natesanshreyas@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:10 PM To: "board@cusdk8.org" <board@cusdk8.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Request to issue a formal statement supporting the Regnart Creek Trail Dear CUSD Board Members, I am a parent of a CUSD child. I am writing to urge the CUSD board to issue a formal statement in support of the Regnart Creek Trail prior to the city council vote on May 21, 2019. The trail will improve the safety and quality of life of hundreds of CUSD children who can ride it to school, local parks, and the library. It is very much in line with the CUSD mission to foster a child-centered environment so our children can flourish. Thanks, Shreyas __________________________________________ On 5/15/19, 5:49 PM, "Student 1 Test" <teststudentbystrom1@gmail.com> wrote: Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards, Seng Bystrom 408 464 7840 _________________________________________ On 5/15/19, 5:49 PM, "Patrik Bystrom" <patrik_bystrom@hotmail.com> wrote: Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards John Patrik Bystrom 10134 Parkwood Dr 408 410 7978 ________________________________________ From: <shilpa_m_j@yahoo.com> Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 5:40 PM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Shilpa B. _______________________________________ From: Mimi Ly <mimily@comcast.net> Reply-To: Mimi Ly <mimily@comcast.net> Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 1:05 PM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Support Regnart Creek Bike Safety Trail My family supports the Regnart Creek Bike Safety Trail. Sincerely, Mimi Ly Farallone Drive Neighbor 95014 _________________________________________ From: Sean O'Hayer <saberstrike18@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 2:25 PM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards [Sean O'Hayer] _________________________________________ From: Jian He <jian@shinshinfoundation.org> Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 7:57 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Many good reasons to build the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Staff at the Santa Clara Valley Water District, This is Jian He, a supporter for the Regnart Creek Trail (RCT), a parent for two middle school students at Kennedy Middle, and a resident of Cupertino for more than 15 years. Together with hundreds of residents, I spoke to support the RCT in the city council meeting held last year (all the way past the midnight). We presented to the city a long list of good reasons with petitions and data points, including walk-bike safety, recreation, and traffic reduction. Gladly all the city council members voted YES to support the RCT project. Below is the new list of good reasons for you to make a wise decision to make the RCT a reality for Cupertino and surrounding communities: · The trail has a design width wider than other current trails, such as the Saratoga Creek Trail, and has shoulders adjacent to the trail unlike the Creekside Park path or other local trails. · The trail is not any closer to back fences of homes than the many other paths in local parks, next to schools, or the nearby Saratoga Creek Trail. · Residents opposing the trail wish to keep it for personal use and enjoyment, instead of allowing all the of the public to enjoy it for recreation and as a safer route to school. · The trail will be almost a mile of new recreational walking and biking space, which will benefit a wide variety of resident of all ages, and provide an alternative transportation corridor. It connects three parks, the library and civic center, and several schools, making it a desirable connector. · The City of Cupertino staff have followed all Cupertino applicable regulations (CalTrans trail standards) for designing the trail and have worked closely with the Water District to resolve concerns, including maintenance. · The trail has wide support among neighbors of all ages, schools, and local businesses. Over 1,200 people have signed the petition now, with 700 of those in the past 6 months. Thank you so much for making effort as a great citizen for our Earth and for our community! -- Jian He (忉೺̵) Shin Shin Volunteer 㸦ḠḠ̵⃘ᕤ㸧b IT and Database 㸦ಙᜥᢏ̵㦾/ᩘᤣ̵ㄢ㸧b www.shinshinfoundation.org _____________________________________________________ From: Wil Fluewelling <wil.fluewelling@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 7:58 AM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Cc: Gary Kremen <gkremen@aol.com>, Gary For Water <garyforwater@gmail.com> Subject: Regnart Creek Trail Support My name is Wil Fluewelling. I've lived in Cupertino for the last 11 years. We need more green space on the East side of town especially around the city center. Safer routes to schools by removing kids from roads is a major benefit that will save lives and improve activity levels of all who choose to use the trail, not just the few that love directly on the trail who enjoy private access. Here are a few more reasons why we need to move forward with the trail: The trail has a design width wider than other current trails, such as the Saratoga Creek Trail, and has shoulders adjacent to the trail unlike the ● Creekside Park path or other local trails. The trail is not any closer to back fences of homes than the many other paths in local parks, next to schools, or the nearby Saratoga Creek Trail. ● Residents opposing the trail wish to keep it for personal use and enjoyment, instead of allowing all the of the public to enjoy it for recreation and as a ● safer route to school. The trail will be almost a mile of new recreational walking and biking space, which will benefit a wide variety of resident of all ages, and provide an alternative transportation corridor. It connects three parks, the library ● and civic center, and several schools, making it a desirable connector. The City of Cupertino staff have followed all Cupertino applicable regulations (CalTrans trail standards) for designing the trail and have worked closely ● with the Water District to resolve concerns, including maintenance. The trail has wide support among neighbors of all ages, schools, and local businesses. Over 1,200 people have signed the petition now, with 700 of ● those in the past 6 months. _______________________________________ From: Kathy Disney <kathydisney@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 11:00 AM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org>, Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Support for the Regnart Creek Trail Dear All, I have already sent email messages to the entire city council with no response from any of them regarding my full support of this project. I wish to convey my support to you as well. Please do not let the same 10 vocal opposers stop a project that will benefit hundred of residents. These opposers are very selfishly motivated. This project is not. I support the trail for our schools, for recreation, for safe biking alternatives, and decreased traffic. Their arguments about safety and privacy are ungrounded. The trail design has a width wider than other current trails, such as the Saratoga Creek Trail, and has shoulders adjacent to the trail unlike the Creekside Park path or other local trails. The trail is not any closer to back fences of homes than the many other paths in local parks, next to schools, or the nearby Saratoga Creek Trail. (houses on corner lots have fences immediately adjacent to the sidewalk). Residents opposing the trail knew that this space behind their property did not belong to them. They do not have a right to hold it hostage to insulate themselves from the rest of the community. The trail will be almost a mile of new recreational walking and biking space, which will benefit a wide variety of resident of all ages, and provide an alternative transportation corridor. It connects three parks, the library and civic center, and several schools, making it a desirable connector. The City of Cupertino staff has followed all Cupertino applicable regulations (CalTrans trail standards) for designing the trail and have worked closely with the Water District to resolve concerns, including maintenance. The trail has wide support among neighbors of all ages, schools, and local businesses. Over 1,200 people have signed a petition in support of the trail, with 700 of those in the past 6 months. Let’s support our whole community and not the NIMBYs who will always put their own interests ahead of the good of all. Sincerely, Katherine Disney Resident, Mom, Teacher. ________________________________________ From: Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 11:59 AM To: "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Agenda item 6.1, Board meeting June 11 Dear Valley Water Board, Chief Watershed Officer, Melanie Richardson and Assistant Officer Lisa Bankosh: Subject: Agenda item 6.1, Policy Framework and Outreach Plan for Use of SCVWD Property for Trails, Board meeting June 11 I am Connie Cunningham, a Santa Clara County resident since 1984. I understand that this topic is about the need for clear policy objectives, and is not approving a specific trail project. I support the SCVWD policy to support use of trails on its lands for the reasons that are stated in the Summary, the Trails Policy Framework and the Public Outreach Plan of this agenda item, namely, “the Board wishes to promote trails and access to open space.” I care about safe bike paths to schools and parks, and safe biking for senior citizens and others. These trails improve safety and reduce the number of cars on streets. In addition to safety, these types of projects improve air quality and provide good exercise for youngsters, adults and seniors. Of specific interest to me is the Regnart Creek Bike/Pedestrian Trail proposed in Cupertino. Cupertino City Staff has been working with SCVWD for some time to create a safe trail on a specific piece of SCVWD land in our city, along Regnart Creek. They have worked closely with the Water District to resolve concerns, including maintenance. This trail will be almost a mile of new recreational walking and biking space, that provides a new corridor among schools, the library, the civic center, and parks. This trail has wide support among our residents. I have attended numerous Cupertino City Council meetings at which many citizens, including me, have voiced their support of the project. I urge the Board to continue and strengthen its policy to “promote trails and access to open space.” Sincerely, Connie Cunningham Driver, Bicyclist, Walker - enthusiastic supporter of Regnart Creek Bike Trail _______________________________________ From: Alberto A <alberto.puggelli@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:12 PM To: "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org>, "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com>, Jean Bedord <bedord@gmail.com> Subject: Support for 6.1 Policy Framework and Outreach Plan for Use of Santa Clara Valley Water District Property for Trails Dear Chief Watershed Officer and Board of Valley Water, I am Alberto Puggelli, resident in Cupertino. I am writing in support of the realization of the Bicycle Pedestrian Plan behind the Regnart Creek Library. This section of the trail will create outstanding value for the whole community and create a safe area to be enjoyed by families. This is extremely important in a city with so many high-traffic and high-speed roads, which cannot be used for family activities (for example, I dread biking along the bike lane on Steven's Creek myself, definitely I'll never bring my kid there). The trail design has a width wider than other current trails, such as the Saratoga Creek Trail, and has shoulders adjacent to the trail unlike the Creekside Park path or other local trails. This makes the trail safe and enjoyable by many. I have heard of complains from homeowners along the path. Although I sympathize with them and I understand their reasoning, the truth is that the trail would not be any closer to back fences of homes than the many other paths in local parks, next to schools, or the nearby Saratoga Creek Trail. These residents have already enjoyed the trail for personal use and enjoyment for a long time. Now it is time to instead allow all the of the public to enjoy it for recreation and as a safer route to school. Indeed, the trail will be almost a mile of new recreational walking and biking space, which will benefit a wide variety of resident of all ages, and provide an alternative transportation corridor. It connects three parks, the library and civic center, and several schools, making it a desirable connector. Besides the personal and communal motivations, I'd like to point out that the City of Cupertino staff has followed all Cupertino applicable regulations (CalTrans trail standards) for designing the trail and have worked closely with the Water District to resolve concerns, including maintenance. Overall, the trail has wide support among neighbors of all ages, schools, and local businesses. Over 1,200 people have signed a petition in support of the trail, with 700 of those in the past 6 months. I hope this letter can help in swinging the decision in support to the realization of the project. Sincerely, Alberto Puggelli _______________________________________ From: Chi Yeh <ckyeh@sbcglobal.net> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 1:26 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "richardson@valleywater.org" <richardson@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Support regnart creek trail · I support the trail for our kids can have a safe trail to go to schools plus decrease traffic! · The trail design has a width wider than other current trails, such as the Saratoga Creek Trail, and has shoulders adjacent to the trail unlike the Creekside Park path or other local trails. · The trail is not any closer to back fences of homes than the many other paths in local parks, next to schools, or the nearby Saratoga Creek Trail. (houses on corner lots have fences immediately adjacent to the sidewalk) · Residents opposing the trail wish to keep it for personal use and enjoyment, instead of allowing all the of the public to enjoy it for recreation and as a safer route to school. · Trail will be almost a mile of new recreational walking and biking space, which will benefit a wide variety of resident of all ages, and provide an alternative transportation corridor. It connects three parks, the library and civic center, and several schools, making it a desirable connector. · The City of Cupertino staff has followed all Cupertino applicable regulations (CalTrans trail standards) for designing the trail and have worked closely with the Water District to resolve concerns, including maintenance. · The trail has wide support among neighbors of all ages, schools, and local businesses. Over 1,200 people have signed a petition in support of the trail, with 700 of those in the past 6 months. Chi Yeh Resident of Cupertino in Santa Clara county __________________________________________ On 6/8/19, 1:55 PM, "primadona1@comcast.net" <primadona1@comcast.net> wrote: I am a Santa Clara County Resident My Name is Donna M. Austin 22283 N. De Anza Circle, Cupertino, CA 95014 primadona1@comcast.net Cell 408-499-9031 I support the Regnart Creek-Library Trail! This trail will be almost a mile and will provide new recreational walking and biking space which will benefit the whole community and provide a transportation alternative to many. This is a well planned trail in cooperation with Cupertino City Staff and the Water District's design, and plan for maintenance. This trail connects 3 parks, the library and the civic center and several schools and will provide inter-connectivity. What a wonderful gift to the community a new accessible trail for so many! Thank you for your support for the Regnart Creek-library Trail. This will enable more in the community to interact with nature, and to enjoy the beauty in our community, and enrich our lives. Donna Austin Cupertino resident Santa Clara County resident _________________________________________ From: John Buenz <jbuenz0835@att.net> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: good idea Along with Ann Cleaver, I was a member of the original Stevens Creeks Trail Task force. Thisnew trail sounds like a good idea. so I support it. John Buenz. ___________________________________________ From: Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 2:31 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Subject: Agenda Item 6.1: Policy Framework and Outreach Plan for Use of Santa Clara Valley Water District Property for Trails Dear Valley Water Board Members and Staff, As one of your constituents, I have been impressed by the commitment of the water board to making its public land accessible to the public, since we have so little available land in our urban areas. I've participated in numerous city council and community outreach meetings since Cupertino approved their 2016 Bicycle Pedestrian Plan to implement "The Loop" around the city. There are so many benefits to having more pathways for alternative transportation in our city. Our city staff has done an outstanding job of analyzing feasibility for the Regnart Creek - Library Trail and presenting it to the public for input. Every plan has tradeoffs -- it's more important to get it implemented, rather than seeking a non-existent perfect plan. So I am quite dismayed by the actions of a small group of residents whose homes directly adjoin the water district public land and whose opinions are expressed in the information packet for your June 11 board meeting. These same 6 people have vigorously opposed the Regnart Creek - Library Trail before city council multiple times. The "privacy" and "safety" concerns ring hollow - those concerns have been addressed by trail experts, city staff, and the sheriff's department. Homeowners on corner lots throughout the city have to live with the same limitations with fences along sidewalks. The real issue is that these residents want to keep this public land as their very own "private park", even though it is owned by taxpayers. As a taxpayer, I object to this selfishness. Criticism of the procedural process and debate over various trail standards cloak the true intentions of these property owners. I urge you to adopt policies that are implementable to create trails in our urban environment so the public can access and utilize lands which they own. The Regnart Creek Library Trail will provide a much-needed alternative to access the library, two parks and schools without using a car, so please approve designs that reasonably mitigate any concerns the water district may have with regard to access. Warm regards, Jean Bedord Resident of Cupertino over 25 years ________________________________________ From: Sharon Reichardt Walker <sharon.r.walker@outlook.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 3:09 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: 6.1 Policy Framework and Outreach Plan for Use of Santa Clara Valley Water District Property for Trails To the Valley Water Board, I am a citizen of Cupertino and I am writing you today to let you know I fully support the Regnart Creek Library trail. Biking and walking trails become the heart of a city when it gives citizen old and young an opportunity to safely experience the outdoors. It keeps citizens safely off the streets and away from vehicles and also keeps more vehicles off the roads. I’ve lived near trails and have never had any reason to feel I had given up my privacy. When trails are constructed in such a way as this one, those concerns become a non issue. For the large number of people who could use this trail, the benefits far outway those concerns. This will keep children off the streets where they are in constant danger of traffic in Cupertino. Please put your support behind this project and let's make Cupertino the family friendly city we all want it to be. Sincerely, Sharon Walker 10902 Canyon Vista Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 ______________________________________ On 6/8/19, 3:21 PM, "Dee Buhler" <deebuhler@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, I am sending this email in support of Regnart Creek Project. I had a chance to walk the trail as part of information campaign about the project. I believe that opening the trail will allow a better and safer route for pedestrians and bikers rather than competing with the cars on the street. In addition, there’s not a lot of trails on that side of Cupertino. The trail also connects to two other parks which a lot of kids and families go to. As a city, Cupertino is encouraging its residents to use bikes more and lessen carbon footprints - so this action of opening the trail is definitely aligned to the goal of our city. As of now, this trail is only being used by a small number of residents who are strongly opposed to a wider use. This is not equitable. As a resident of Cupertino, I would also like to have access to this trail. I hope you will consider my input in making your decision on this project. Truly yours, Dee Buhler Cupertino Resident ______________________________________ From: "Luis Buhler (Rockledge Associates)" <luis@rockledgeassociates.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 3:46 PM To: "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com>, "Luis Buhler (Rockledge Associates)" <luis@rockledgeassociates.com> Subject: Agenda item 6.1 Policy Framework and Outreach Plan for Use of Santa Clara Valley Water District Property for Trails To: Valley Water Board, Chief Watershed Officer Melanie Richardson, and Assistant Officer Lisa Bankosh From: Luis Buhler, Santa Clara County Resident Regarding: Agenda item 6.1 Policy Framework and Outreach Plan for Use of Santa Clara Valley Water District Property for Trails The Santa Clara Valley Water district controls access to property that could become valuable assets in the communities in which they are located. I encourage you to enact policies that would benefit communities by allowing for trail access to all residents, not just those immediately adjacent to the trail. By increasing trail access you can make a substantial difference in the quality of life of our county. In particular, broadening access to the Regnart Creek Trail will provide increased opportunities for bikers and walkers to travel within our community without competing with cars and other traffic. It will also provide recreational opportunities for residents of all ages. Having had the opportunity to participate in the walkshop conducted by the City of Cupertino, I am sure that the Regnart Creek Trail will become a valuable community asset that will benefit our city and our residents. Best regards, Luis Buhler Cell: 916-801-1715 Email: Luis@RockledgeAssociates.com ______________________________________ From: barbara chang <barbara.chang@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 4:04 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Agenda item 6.1 Dear Valley Water Board, I am a resident of Santa Clara County. I fully support the Regnart Creek Library Trail. · I support the trail and the reasons (schools, recreation, safe biking, decreased traffic, etc). · The trail design has a width wider than other current trails, such as the Saratoga Creek Trail, and has shoulders adjacent to the trail unlike the Creekside Park path or other local trails. · The trail is not any closer to back fences of homes than the many other paths in local parks, next to schools, or the nearby Saratoga Creek Trail. (houses on corner lots have fences immediately adjacent to the sidewalk) · Residents opposing the trail wish to keep it for personal use and enjoyment, instead of allowing all the of the public to enjoy it for recreation and as a safer route to school. · Trail will be almost a mile of new recreational walking and biking space, which will benefit a wide variety of resident of all ages, and provide an alternative transportation corridor. It connects three parks, the library and civic center, and several schools, making it a desirable connector. · The City of Cupertino staff has followed all Cupertino applicable regulations (CalTrans trail standards) for designing the trail and have worked closely with the Water District to resolve concerns, including maintenance. · The trail has wide support among neighbors of all ages, schools, and local businesses. Over 1,200 people have signed a petition in support of the trail, with 700 of those in the past 6 months. Sincerely, Barbara Chang Cupertino _____________________________________ From: Carol Stanek <carolstaneks@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 4:04 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Regnart Creek Trail Dear Board Members, I want to express my enthusiastic support for the Regnart Creek Trail project in Cupertino. I have been intimately involved in bringing trails into neighborhoods and have seen first hand the positive impact they can have on communities. Cupertino residents are very supportive of connecting trails. This has been identified in the new Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. I was personally involved in working with neighbors to open up a bike/pedestrian access to the Stevens Creek Trail from a residential street on the West side (Scenic Circle). While many immediate neighbors were initially fearful of the access (which was ultimately opened in 2011), the issues they feared never materialized. Many of those same neighbors now use the trail daily and have seen the value of this kind of access. Please know that despite a few vocal opponents, there are many more local residents who are supportive of this trail. I hope you will continue to support this partnership with Cupertino and move forward with this project knowing that it will benefit the community at large, especially students and other bicyclists to remove them from overcrowded streets. Sincerely, Carol Stanek Cupertino resident 37 years. ___________________________________ From: Helen Wiant <helenwiant@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 4:20 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Subject: 6.1 Policy Framework and Outreach Plan for Use of Santa Clara Valley Water District Property for Trails Dear Valley Water Board members, I am a longtime Santa Clara county resident and a 42-year resident of Cupertino and am a strong and enthusiastic supporter of the Regnart Creek Trail. The central location of this trail will provide a convenient, safe and pleasant artery for a large number local residents; it will be widely used by bikers and walkers of all ages to reach frequently used destinations: three parks, library, city center, and schools! This will take a significant number of cars off the street and out of the city center parking lot. And beyond that, it will provide a lovely escape from city streets and enhance the quality of life in Cupertino. We already have some nice trails on the western side of Cupertino but not on the east side. This trail has wide support among its neighbors, schools and local businesses. From a planning perspective, the trail has been carefully and intelligently designed, being wider than existing trails and being no closer to residents’ back fences than existing trails, school properties, or parks. The City of Cupertino staff have gone over and above to communicate plans to residents and to accommodate concerns of residents with issues about the trail. They have followed all Cupertino applicable regulations and Caltrans trail standards and have worked closely with the Water District to resolve concerns, such as maintenance. Those residents who are against the project are few in number and their demands for more restrictive guidelines are not in line with existing trails and don’t really have good rationale; these demands in fact stem from rather narrow and selfish motivations. Today I actually had the opportunity to speak with a resident whose home lies on the trail and he said that he was a strong supporter of the opening the trail to our community and had no concerns. So not everyone living along the trail is against it or fearful of it. The Regnart Creek Trail is a great opportunity to increase recreational space, relieve congestion and improve the quality of life in Cupertino and adjacent communities. I urge you to support it as currently planned. Best Regards, Helen Wiant 10354 Westacres Drive Cupertino, CA ______________________________________ From: kirk vartan <kirk@kvartan.com> Date: Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 4:53 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com>, Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com> Subject: Item is 6.1: Policy Framework and Outreach Plan for Use of Santa Clara Valley Water District Property for Trails Dear Valley Water Board: APPROVE Item 6.1 As a resident of Santa Clara County for over 21 years, I have strong support the trail as it helps everyone in the County (and beyond) with recreation, bike trails, exercise, etc. There is NO reason to oppose this trail unless you want to keep the space for yourself. Note who is opposing this…the private land owners adjacent to this, not really anyone else. Unfortunately, this is public land and will be forever. As an added benefit, it can provide a safe and eco-friendly way to get to school. This expansion will provide connectivity to three parks, provide just under a mile of new walking and biking trails, and is age friendly. The City of Cupertino has followed all CalTrans trail standards as well as the Water District to resolve any issues, including ongoing maintenance. There is massive local and county support for this. I live in San Jose, but support expanding this system. As a resident and taxpayer in this county (and a small business owner of two businesses that also pay taxes to the County), I am asking you to APPROVE the new trail in Cupertino. Kind regards, Kirk Vartan Santa Clara County resident _____________________________________ From: Frank Geefay <fgeefay@yahoo.com> Date: Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 12:34 AM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: The agenda item is 6.1 Policy Framework and Outreach Plan for Use of Santa Clara Valley Water District Property for Trails. Dear Water Board Members, It has been brought to my attention that a few very vocal homeowner along the Regnart Creek Water District right of way are strongly opposed to a new bicycle/pedestrian trail being planned on your right of way based on privacy and safety concerns. Cupertino, like many cities, has a plan for building safe bicycle trails for adults and children to get safety around town largely away from car traffic. These traits provide a safe haven for children to go to school and other destinations such as the library. They also provide quiet and safe routes for adults to get around town away from traffic without having to drive their cars and as a means to get exercise and fresher air. There are so few opportunities to do this so conveniently and safely near where residents live. It seems to me that the quiet and safety of the many should outweigh the privacy and safety concerns of so few. This is a reoccurring theme where property values are so high. Every time a new trail is proposes going by the property of residents a few residents will strenuously object to it based on concerns over privacy and safety regardless of what the city proposes to make residents feel more comfortable. Cities around here badly need trails safely away from cars so that children and adults can get to schools and other destinations in safety to avoid having to drive and cause even more traffic congestion, produce more greenhouse gases, create unsafe streets, and fill parking lots. This trail conforms to all CalTran trail stands and is wider than the Saratoga Creek Trail and other similar traits. The trail is no closer to the back yards of residents that other public spaces and trails. And existing trail residents do not experience any more crime than other residents. Much careful planning, expense, and energy has already gone into the Regnart Creek Trail. It is unfortunate that the trail has to go behind residence property and inconvenience them but space in our built out city is scarce so we must make the best use of what is available. I hope you will take my inputs into consideration as stewards of these valuable pieces of land. Sincerely your, Frank Geefay Cupertino and Santa Clara county resident _______________________________________ On 6/9/19, 11:03 AM, "Joe Cleaver" <joepacleaver@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Member, My name is Joe Cleaver. I am a 49 year resident of Santa Clara County. My hope is that the Regnart Creek Trail will be approved by the board for many reasons. Among them are: safer routes to schools, reduced traffic, and recreational purposes. Many of my friends share this hope, too. Joe Cleaver 22105 Dean Court; Cupertino (408) 838-5982 ___________________________________ From: Karen Hersh <kehersh@sbcglobal.net> Reply-To: Karen Hersh <kehersh@sbcglobal.net> Date: Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 11:03 AM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Regnart Creek Trail My name is Karen Hersh and I live in Cupertino (in Santa Clara County). The Regnart Creek Trail is vital to the community for several reasons. This trail needed for the safety of the children that must bike on the streets to school, sports events or to the library. We live off of Tantau Avenue and the streets aren’t safe. My children are all in their teens now but even with less traffic, one of my children was hit by a car while riding his bike home from school. The person slowed down after but didn’t even stop to check on him. The traffic is worse now. We want to promote healthy choices for kids like walking and biking but this is not an option because of safety. I would have loved to have them bike to their baseball games at Wilson or even over to the library but I didn’t feel there was a safe route for them, so I drove them. There will be so much less traffic when the trail opens and parents don’t have to drive their children everywhere. The trail will give the children the chance to be more independent. This path will be a beautiful and safe way to travel through parts of Cupertino as the paths are wide and they add new recreational space for residents to use. I only wish that Cupertino had been designed with more possible trails like this back when it had more orchards and open space. By adding the trail, Cupertino will be a model for cities to follow. I would love to see the few residents opposing this trail look at the trail through the eyes of parents, especially those parents of younger children, to see the benefit these trails would be to our community. If these trails trails save a life or an injury of just one child or pedestrian isn’t the trail worth it. The residents that oppose the trail are so focussed on how this trail will effect them negatively. These residents look at the path as bringing in “bad characters and potential crime” to back yards, rather than looking at surveys and data from other communities showing all the benefits that these trails have had for their communities. The population in our city and those around us will continue to skyrocket as the cities must show a certain amount of housing growth each year. Which means more traffic in our already busy residential streets, risking the lives of our loved ones of all ages. The Regnart Creek Trail is one way to help keep all of our community members safe. ____________________________________________ From: Don Disney <dondisney@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 2:13 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Please continue to support the Regnart Creek Trail SCVWD board members, Thank you and the SCVWD for your long-standing commitment to allowing use of your lands for the benefit of the communities in which they are located. I've been a resident of Cupertino for more than 20 years and feel very fortunate to live here. Along with a large majority of the my fellow Cupertino citizens, I am in strong support of increasing the number of bicycle and pedestrian pathways to make our city more livable, to encourage healthy lifestyles, and to mitigate some of our most pressing traffic problems. To this end, our city council developed in 2016 an excellent Bicycle Pedestrian Plan, which was adopted after a long and inclusive process including ample opportunity for public input. An important element of that plan is the Regnart Creek Trail, enabled in part by the generous sharing of land by SCWVD. Although this trail is strongly supported by a vast majority of Cupertino residents, there are about a dozen very vocal opponents, most of whom live adjacent SCWVD's land. This very vocal minority is trying every avenue they can think of to undermine the community and the trail. I understand that their latest tactic is to appeal to you at the SCWVD meeting on June 11. Please do not be deterred by the selfish interests of a handful of wealthy landowners from your commitment to use SCVWD land for greater benefit of the public. Please continue your support for the Regnart Creek Trail. Respectfully, Don Disney Cupertino resident, father, engineer, lover of the environment _____________________________________ From: John Geis <jgeis4401@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 6:16 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Agenda Item 6.1 Policy Framework and Outreach Plan for Use of Santa Clara Valley Water District Property for Trails. Hello Water District Board Members, I reside in Cupertino, Santa Clara County and I support the Regnart Creek Library Trail as it provides safe transportation to schools, recreation, safe biking, decreased traffic and fun. The trail design is wider than other current trails, such as the Saratoga Creek Trail, and has shoulders adjacent to the trail unlike the Creekside Park path or other local trails. Big benefits!The trail is not any closer to back fences of homes than the many other paths in local parks, next to schools, or the nearby Saratoga Creek Trail. (houses on corner lots have fences immediately adjacent to the sidewalk) so there is no conflict. Residents opposing the trail are a small vocal minority. A majority of folks want trails like this! The trail will be almost a mile of new recreational walking and biking space, which will benefit a wide variety of resident of all ages, and provide an alternative transportation corridor. It connects three parks, the library and civic center, and several schools, making it a desirable connector. The City of Cupertino staff has followed all Cupertino applicable regulations (CalTrans trail standards) for designing the trail and have worked closely with the Water District to resolve concerns, including maintenance. The trail has wide support among neighbors of all ages, schools, and local businesses. Over 1,200 people have signed a petition in support of the trail, with 700 of those in the past 6 months. Thank you! John Geis 408-209-6970 mobile jgeis4401@gmail.com _______________________________________ From: GEOFFREY PAULSEN <geoffpaulsen@yahoo.com> Reply-To: GEOFFREY PAULSEN <geoffpaulsen@yahoo.com> Date: Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 9:46 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com>, David Stillman <davids@cupertino.org>, Steven Scharf <sscharf@cupertino.org>, Jennifer Shearin <jshearin@cupertino.org> Subject: Please protect our trails! (SCVWD Board meeting of June 11, 2019 - agenda item 6.1) Hello, honorable board members and dedicated staff of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Please protect the transportation future of Silicon Valley by not acquiescing to the demands of the very few residents of Cupertino who are trying a variety of tactics in a selfish attempt to derail Cupertino's popular Regnart Creek Trail project. As the former Chair of the City of Cupertino's Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission, I understand the importance of creekside trails to safety and recreation. I also understand how a tiny but very vocal minority can feel empowered and entitled to the point where they expect elected and appointed officials to ignore the greater good in favor of their demands. I also understand - and this is an interesting aspect of trails - that opponents often become enthusiastic supporters after the trail is built. I am most grateful to the Santa Clara Valley Water District for working with Cupertino to plan for these trails. So since this trail will benefit the vast majority of Cupertino residents, please don't let the unreasonable requests of a fearful few deprive us all of this valuable resource. Regards, Geoff Paulsen Board Member, Canopy.org (408) 480-7509 _________________________________________ From: "David S. Alessio" <david.s.alessio@gmail.com> Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 at 11:40 AM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: In Support of Regnart Creek Trail. To whom it may concern: I’m a resident of Cupertino since purchasing my home in 2007. I live by the Library and often walk and bike in the area. I’m writing to because it has come to my attention that a small, but vocal, group of residents who enjoy the creekside area as a private extension of their backyard have chosen to attack SCVWD with FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) regarding the safety and reliability of an open creekside trail. I have read and heard their extraordinary and baseless arguments and have this to say: ●Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. ○In fact, all the evidence supports the benefit of open trails to the community at large ○These few creek-backside residents would have you believe that Cupertino is an outlier in the Bay Area with homeless criminals, thieves, and rapists lying in wait at the boarders of your creek fences waiting to pounce on their property. Nothing is further from the truth. ○Mountain View and Palo Alto residents enjoy miles of open trails without any increase in crime or accidents. ●The Regnart Creek trail will benefit school children as well as elderly residents who would much rather walk along a pedestrian path to the library and schools than on a busy road. ●Smart cities, the world over, are opening up green parks, pedestrian paths, and bike lanes; and some even prioritizing them over vehicular traffic. ○Let Cupertino and the Santa Clara County be counted among the "Smart Cities” ○Be part of this effort to improve the quality of life in our city for the overwhelming majority of our residents. Best regards, David S. Alessio 10281 Torre Ave., Unit 815 Cupertino, CA 95014 cell: 650-248-8867 _______________________________________ From: Rich Altmaier <richalt2@yahoo.com> Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 at 2:41 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com>, Rich Altmaier <richalt2@yahoo.com> Subject: Regnart Creek bicycle path Dear Valley Water Board and Ms Richardson, I am writing to provide strong support for the Regnart Creek bicycle path. I understand a set of property owners adjoining the creek drainage area are asking for the bike path to be blocked. This is totally unreasonable and out of line with the public good, including student alternative transportation reducing traffic on our streets. Those property owners now have a kind of private park and no legitimate reason to block the bicycle path. Please do not let their selfishness stop this public benefit. There is no taking of private rights here. Thank you, Richard Altmaier Cupertino, CA ________________________________________ From: Michael Chang <michaelchang22@gmail.com> Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 at 3:23 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org>, Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Agenda item 6.1 Dear Valley Water Board, I am a resident of Santa Clara County. I fully support the Regnart Creek Library Trail. · I support the trail and the reasons (schools, recreation, safe biking, decreased traffic, etc). · The trail design has a width wider than other current trails, such as the Saratoga Creek Trail, and has shoulders adjacent to the trail unlike the Creekside Park path or other local trails. · The trail is not any closer to back fences of homes than the many other paths in local parks, next to schools, or the nearby Saratoga Creek Trail. (houses on corner lots have fences immediately adjacent to the sidewalk) · Residents opposing the trail wish to keep it for personal use and enjoyment, instead of allowing all the of the public to enjoy it for recreation and as a safer route to school. · Trail will be almost a mile of new recreational walking and biking space, which will benefit a wide variety of resident of all ages, and provide an alternative transportation corridor. It connects three parks, the library and civic center, and several schools, making it a desirable connector. · The City of Cupertino staff has followed all Cupertino applicable regulations (CalTrans trail standards) for designing the trail and have worked closely with the Water District to resolve concerns, including maintenance. · The trail has wide support among neighbors of all ages, schools, and local businesses. Over 1,200 people have signed a petition in support of the trail, with 700 of those in the past 6 months. Sincerely, Michael Chang Cupertino _______________________________________ On 6/10/19, 4:27 PM, "Tom Scannell" <tscannell01@earthlink.net> wrote: To the Board of Valley Water I am a resident of Santa Clara County and Cupertino. I am writing in support of the Regnart Creek Trail. I think that it will create a much needed safe path for kids to get to school and to the library. It will also decrease the auto traffic in Cupertino—especially around the library. Finally, I think the trail will meet the needs for more open space on the East side of Cupertino. In my attendance at the many well structured “community meetings" regarding this trail, it seems that the City and trail architects have met all the applicable Cupertino City, Cal Trans and Valley Water regulations. I also believe that the City and architects have worked hard to meet the legitimate concerns of the neighbors. The petition supporting the trail currently has over 1,300 signatures from neighbors, parents of school children and citizens of Cupertino. I think this shows the trail's wide spread community support. I think the trail will provide many benefits for the wider Cupertino community and urge your approval of the appropriate Valley Water regulations that will support it. Best regards Tom Scannell _________________________________________ From: Jian He <jianhe7@gmail.com> Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 at 6:42 PM To: Jerry Liu <jerryjliu@gmail.com> Subject: About the agenda item for Regnart Creek Trail Hi Jerry, How are you doing? So glad to see the Regnart Creek Trail (RCT) is on the agenda of the CUSD Board meeting on Tuesday June 13. I am one of 1200+ supporters who signed the petition. I also serve on the Advisory Board of Walk-Bike Cupertino. Our mission is to make walking and biking easier for our community. Would you mind to spare a few minutes to read this list of good reasons why we need RCT becomes a reality for our community? · The trail has a design width wider than other current trails, such as the Saratoga Creek Trail, and has shoulders adjacent to the trail unlike the Creekside Park path or other local trails. · The trail is not any closer to back fences of homes than the many other paths in local parks, next to schools, or the nearby Saratoga Creek Trail. · Residents opposing the trail wish to keep it for personal use and enjoyment, instead of allowing all the of the public to enjoy it for recreation and as a safer route to school. · The trail will be almost a mile of new recreational walking and biking space, which will benefit a wide variety of resident of all ages, and provide an alternative transportation corridor. It connects three parks, the library and civic center, and several schools, making it a desirable connector. · The City of Cupertino staff have followed all Cupertino applicable regulations (CalTrans trail standards) for designing the trail and have worked closely with the Water District to resolve concerns, including maintenance. · The trail has wide support among neighbors of all ages, schools, and local businesses. Over 1,200 people have signed the petition now, with 700 of those in the past 6 months. Hope you will find these facts are helpful to recognize that RCT will be a good solution to reduce traffic congestion and increase "autonomy" of students' commute. This school year has ended for students, but I know the district and board are still very busy wrapping up tasks. Really appreciate all of your effort to address the safety and traffic issues in this important meeting. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks for your attention! Best regards, Jian _______________________________________ From: Byron <brovegno@sbcglobal.net> Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Proposed Joint Use Agreement with the City of Cupertino for Regnart Creek Trail Reference: Agenda Item 6.1 of Board Meeting June 11, 2019 Dear District Water Board Members: The Cupertino Bike Pedestrian Plan was generated by an outside consulting firm with input from the city employees and interested citizens. The process was open with progress posted on the city website regularly so everyone interested had an opportunity to be heard. Ultimately this plan was adopted by the City in 2016 and was posted on the website. Since then the City Council has funded various elements to make progress against the overall plan. The Regnart Creek Trail and the Junipero Sierra Trail [along the sound wall of I-280] are parts of the plan involving Water District property. A small group of neighbors with property abutting the Regnart Creek have since raised concerns with the Water District and the City. Those homeowners that reside in PUDs received disclosures at the time of purchase that state a pedestrian trail is contemplated along Regnart Creek. This can be no suprise to them. Outside of those relatively few homeowners the broader community including CUSD overwhelmingly support building the trail. We have a petition signed by over twelve hundred citizens in favor of building the trail. I am writing in favor of your proceeding with the pending joint use agreement with Cupertino. One of your goals is to provide use of water district property to promote trails and access to open space, and this is such a use. That goal won’t change when more details are added to your policy at some future date and waivers will be requested by cities for your consideration due to adjacencies existing long before your revised policies. The bottom line is that you should not delay your joint use agreement with Cupertino for the Regnart Creek Trail. Thank you for your consideration. Byron Rovegno Cupertino Resident and Walk Bike Cupertino Advisory Board Member _________________________________________ From: Lola Kashyap <lolakashyap@gmail.com> Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 at 9:36 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org" <clerkoftheboard@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Regnart Creek trail I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Regnart Creek trail. We pay lip service to encourage our students to walk/bike to school...yet we do very little to ensure safe paths for them. As adults it is our collective responsibility to do so. This trail is a small step forward in the right direction. In addition to helping students, the trail gives recreational users a great alternate to walk/jog without constantly worrying about motorists. It will help alleviate the miserable parking situation at the Cupertino library. It will help connect neighborhoods and improve quality of living in Cupertino. To those that are opposed to the trail citing privacy or safety issues, I would like to remind them of similar opposition to the Scenic Circle gate. After what seemed like endless discussion/negotiations, the gate has been open for many years now. None of their fears of increased crime have come true and the gate is a wonderful asset to the entire community giving us a safe path for students attending the local schools - Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High. Thanks for the opportunity to express my views. Regards, Lola Kashyap Cupertino resident ________________________________________ From: Joel Wolf <jwolf@exponent.com> Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 12:30 PM To: "Board@valleywater.org" <Board@valleywater.org>, "mrichardson@valleywater.org" <mrichardson@valleywater.org>, "lbankosh@valleywater.org" <lbankosh@valleywater.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Support for Regnart Creek Trail My name is Joel Wolf and I am a resident of Cupertino. It my understanding that the Regnart Creek pedestrian/bicycle trail in Cupertino is on the District’s June 11 agenda. I would like to express my strong support for this trail. There is also strong support for this trail within the community. I understand that over 1200 have sign the petition in support of this trail. The trail will provide many advantages to the community including exercise, providing a safe route to nearby schools and reducing traffic. I have walked the trail during the open house in March of this year and reviewed the preliminary design plans for the trail. The trail meets the CalTrans trail standards. I am a very experienced cyclist and the proposed trail wider than most similar trails I have biked in the South bay. Please support the Regnart Creek trail! Thank you ________________________________________ On 7/7/19, 5:35 PM, "Ming-Hui Huang" <murdockhuang@gmail.com> wrote: Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Ming-Hui Huang 765 Stendhal Lane Cupertino _________________________________________ On 7/7/19, 5:38 PM, "Ming-Hui & Paul Murdock" <murdockhuang@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Paul Murdock 765 Stendhal Lane Cupertino __________________________________________ On 8/12/19, 12:11 PM, "Pranshu Jindal" <jindalpranshu2003@gmail.com> wrote: Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Pranshu Jindal __________________________________________ On 8/12/19, 12:32 PM, "Ankur Jindal" <ankurj000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Ankur Jindal ____________________________________________ From: Miranda Albracht Reeves <miranda.reeves@gmail.com> Date: Monday, September 2, 2019 at 8:05 AM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Miranda Reeves __________________________________________ On 9/4/19, 5:11 PM, "Nathan Hawes" <nathan.john.hawes@gmail.com> wrote: Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Nathan Hawes _________________________________________ From: Samuel Feldman <js.feldman@outlook.com> Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 3:05 PM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards Samuel Feldman Hermosa Avenue _________________________________________ From: T Chuang <tychuang@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 7:13 AM To: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear city council members, I am a resident of Cupertino who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Best regards TY Chuang _________________________________________ On 9/11/19, 3:15 PM, "Andy Belk" <shop@frogandrosbif.org> wrote: Dear City Council Members, I am a worker in Cupertino (at Apple) who would like to see the Regnart Creek Trail built. It will provide a safe, off-road route for kids going to schools, and an enjoyable walking and biking recreation path connecting the community to Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and the Cupertino Library. I urge the City of Cupertino to move forward with the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Yours fathfully, Andy Belk ________________________________________ From: Jian He <jianhe7@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 4:47 PM To: "SScharf@cupertino.org" <SScharf@cupertino.org> Cc: Friends Regnart Creek Trail <yes@regnartcreek.com> Subject: Please Vote Yes to approve the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Mayor Steven Scharf, I am a resident of Cupertino for more than 14 years and I serve on the Advisory Board of Walk Bike Cupertino. I strongly support the Regnart Creek Trail for many great reasons. It will provide a much-needed off-street recreation path for the 8,000 residents of east Cupertino. It will also provide a safe route to schools, parks, and the library for kids at all ages. It is a cost efficient solution to address the deficit in parks and recreation in east Cupertino and will be a great asset for improving the quality of life for the community. I understand the city may have budget concerns. There are a lot of grants are available to help pay for the trail, once its 100% design is completed. For example, the final spending of the city for the Stevens Creek/Blackberry Farm Trail was less than 15% of total construction due to grants. Thanks so much for your faithful service! Please vote Yes to construct the Regnart Creek Trail, that will be a heritage to be passed on for generations, and you will be the one makes the history. Best regards, Jian He, Mother of two boys at 7th and 9th grades ______________________________________ From: Kathy Disney kathydisney@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: I SUPPORT THE REGNART TRAIL Date: April5,2019at2:17PM To:Jennifer Shearin shearin.jen@gmail.com Not one of my more eloquently written letters (it includes some sloppy grammar and typo-s), but I think the frustration comes through loud and clear, and that's probably more important at this point. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From:Kathy Disney <kathydisney@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:08 PM Subject: I SUPPORT THE REGNART TRAIL To: <sscharf@cupertino.org>, <liangchao@cupertino.org>, <rsinks@cupertino.org>, <dpaul@cupertino.org>, <jwilley@cupertino.org> Dear Cupertino City Council Members, I am writing to you as a frustrated, long-time Cupertino resident. I don't understand why anyone would not be in favor of this trail. It is a cost-effective way to add recreational space to our city, addresses the very real issue of traffic concerns, especially school traffic, provides a SAFE alternative to driving and riding bikes on the busy streets, and increases our trail system that connects open spaces and schools. I am troubled by the number of parents driving their children to school, significantly adding to our huge traffic problem. I am a runner and cycler and would love to have this trail as a safe, relaxing option for enjoying the outdoors and staying active. The vocal minority of opponents are primarily the ones who are not happy having the trail in their back yard. It's pretty obvious based on where the oppositional signs have been posted. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF NIMBY. Every single resident who bought or rents a home along this corridor knew full well that the property behind their home did not belong to them. They will not be harmed by this trail--indeed they will likely the be ones to benefit the most. People often complain about new ideas, only to find later that their biggest worries were completely unfounded. I recall too well the uproar of residents concerned about their children having to attend the new middle school that hadn't even been built yet, and look how that turned out! Lawson is a jewel of a middle school and highly desirable. But you'd think parents were being asked to send their kids to prison when the plans were first presented. DO NOT ALLOW THE LOUDEST IRRATIONAL COMPLAINERS WHO ARE IN THE MINORITY TO DICTATE THE POSITIVE CHANGES THAT THIS CITY SO DESPERATELY NEEDS IN ORDER TO BE A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE IN SILICON VALLEY. I believe that this NIMBY attitude that now identifies Cupertino (in part thanks to the infamously horrific quote "..build a wall and let San Jose pay for it") is going to destroy our community and people will no longer seek to live here. I'm sure you've seen the latest polls that reveal people in Silicon Valley are less happy living here than they were only 5 years ago, and that a significant percentage of those surveyed are planning to leave. Well, Cupertino is at the heart of this crisis. It's time to think creatively. High density housing including below market rate housing options for teachers (like me) IS par of the solution. This, along with creative transportation solutions, and ways for the community to share the space that we DO have is the direction in which we should be heading. Instead, we see a very self- serving, self-centered attitude of "I'VE GOT MINE, NOW GET OUT OF MY BACK YARD AND GO FIND ANOTHER PLACE" that unfortunately seems to have the City Council's sympathy these days. THIS IS YOUR CHANCE, DEAR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THIS CITY. WILL YOU DO IT? Sincerely, Katherine Disney 10208 Toni Ct, Cupertino _________________________________________ From: BikeC2C (Dennis Cunningham) <BikeC2C@Comcast.net> Subject: Vote "Yes" on Regnart Creek Trail: Bicycles & cars do not play well together. Date: March 31, 2019 at 4:48:58 PM PDT To: "citycouncil@cupertino.org" <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: "dpaul@cupertino.org" <dpaul@cupertino.org>, "rsinks@cupertino.org" <rsinks@cupertino.org>, Scharf Steven <SScharf@cupertino.org>, LiangChao@cupertino.org, JWilley@cupertino.org, yes@regnartcreek.com Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and City Council Members, I strongly support the proposed Regnart Creek Trail. Bicycles & cars do not play well together. We are fortunate in Cupertino to still have a few reasonable alternatives to on-street bike paths. We need this trail (and others too). Bicycles & cars do not play well together. In August of 2017 I sent a letter to the Council laying out my reason for supporting the Regnart Creek Trail. (attached) Please vote “Yes” on the Regnart Creek Trail Dennis Cunningham 1119 Milky Way Cupertino CA 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Seema Lindskog <seema3366@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 9:24 AM To:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office Cc:Jennifer Shearin Subject:Fwd: “Yes” to Regnart Creek trail Hi Grace,    One more email to please include in the written communications for tomorrow's city council meeting.    Thanks,  Seema    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Sami Laine <sami.laine@gmail.com>  Date: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 8:26 AM  Subject: “Yes” to Regnart Creek trail  To: citycouncil@cupertino.org <citycouncil@cupertino.org>    Dear City Council members,    TLDR: Please vote Yes to continue the work making the Regnart Creek Trail a reality!    I have been actively following the proposed trail since the beginning, and participated in the previous planning hearings, city  council meetings and the walkthroughs of the alignment. This proposed trail is a great – and rare – opportunity to provide safe  and logically aligned & connected transportation alternative at a very low cost in our compact city with increasing traffic  congestion and little open space for alternatives.     As a homeowner I empathize with the perceived diminishment of privacy to the few residents whose property abuts the  proposed alignment. However,  after hearing the arguments of the opponents and walking the trail myself, it became very clear  that their main argument was “I don’t like it because it wasn’t there before”.  This is not taking anyone’s property away with  eminent domain!     Please disregard the cost‐inflating tactics of opponents asking for unnecessary complications like fencing along the creek, gates  etc. Just like at all the other trails in the cities around the Bay, none of this is necessary.     As a long‐time Cupertino resident and homeowner in the Fairgrove neighborhood, I ask you to continue making Cupertino a  better walk/bike city to benefit every resident, including those who may never personally use the trail!    I would have liked to voice my support in person at  Tuesday’s meeting but unfortunately I will be out of town on business.  Thank you for your consideration and let cooler heads prevail.    Sincerely,    Sami Laine    1 Cyrah Caburian From:garywong@ix.netcom.com Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 10:59 AM To:City Council; Lauren Sapudar Subject:Agenda 9/17/19 - Regnart Creek Trail Attachments:Valley Water to Cupertino - Comments to Feasibility Study 18_0821.pdf; VW Letter 65% Plan 19_0711.pdf Dear Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao and Council Members, On tomorrow's Agenda there will be an update on the Regnart Creek Trail, the 65% Plan. We noticed that the Council Material did not include Valley Water's comments to the 65% Plan nor the City's reply to it. As you recall, Council did not receive a letter from Valley Water dated August 21, 2018, asking not to adopt the Feasibility Study until its issues were addressed. Since tomorrow is perhaps a "go-no go" consideration, we did not want history to repeat itself. Attached is a copy of the original letter from Valley Water, its remarks to the 65% Plan and the City staff reply. We recognize the Council receives a large of volume of information to review. In consideration of your time, we have highlighted certain sections in Yellow which merits review, as they address certain issues raised in the August 21, 2018 letter that still seems to be unresolved one year later. A summary of the key ones are: 1. VW letter, Aug 21, 2018 - Page 1, item 2. Alternative 1 has the most adverse impacts to the District's maintenance access and operations. [Addressing these impacts has driven up the cost of the trail materially] 2. VW letter, Aug 21, 2018 - Page 1, item 3. Designating trail as transportation corridor increases risk of loss and adverse impacts to VW, which the City accepts full liability and indemnity to VW. 3. VW letter, Aug 21, 2018 - Page 2, item 4. Boundaries and ingress and egress rights for utilities - Title documentation and boundary survey, still not completed 1 year later. VW and residents have been requesting a boundary survey from the outset. Trail design at the 65% plan still show errors in boundaries and a curb is requested to be placed on resident property, not VW. This survey is not mentioned in Staff Report, and will likely require resident consent to have a curb, wall or fence on resident property. Getting consent or resolution with residents may be long in duration and 100% consent may not be achievable. This issue should be resolved before spending more money. 4. VW letter, Aug. 21, 2018 - Page 2, Item 6. VW states there is significant bank erosion throughout the Creek. By installing railings, City has taken on additional repair and maintenance costs for further erosion. If the trail is left unpaved, an option for consideration, further erosion can be significant and costly. 5. VW letter, Aug 21, 2018 - Page 2, Item 12. Staff reports states significant public outreach was conducted but VW stated it received no notifications. 6. VW letter, Aug 21, 2018 - page 3, item13 - VW requests detailed information on the proposed bridges. Similar questions remain, see VW letter dated July 11, 2019. 7. VW letter, Aug 21, 2018 - Page 4, Item 21 - Details on trail surface requested, issue remains at 65% Plan. 8. VW letter, Aug 21, 2018 - Page 4, Item 22 - VW states trail security with local police has historically been limited, supporting resident concerns. 65% budget should include security measures, not as an option. 9. VW letter, July 11, 2019 - Page1, Item 1 Details on the "curb" appear to be incomplete. This matter should not be an open item at the 65% stage, 10. VW letter, July 11, 2019 - Through out VW's 8 page letter, they request identifying VW easement and fee title right of way. This should not be an open item at 65% stage. 11. VW letter, July 11, 2019 - Page 2, Item 7 City has a fence on VW easement and needs to be moved. This action item and cost would have been discovered if a boundary survey had been conducted. 12. VW letter, July 11, 2019 - Page 4, First bullet, VW states all fences shall be installed on property line and resident property. A wall would take up resident property, Is there consideration for this? a taking? The financial implication is silent in Staff Report, plus HMH and City staff stated they will comply. This condition has enormous implications, staff should not agree without disclosure and approval form Council 13. VW letter, July 11, 2019,- Page 5, item 11. Paving must comply with H-20 loading guidelines, or a 32,000 lb truck, adding material cost to trail design. 14. VW letter, July 11, 2019 - Page 7, Item 26 - Land swap. There is consideration of swapping city park land for VW maintenance trail. Implications and cost not quantified in Staff Report. 15. VW letter, July 11, 2019 - Page 7, Item 28. VW asks for details for Alternate Routes when trail is closed. Staff report and 65% Plan is silent on the Alternate Routes. 2 16. VW letter, July 11, 2019 - Page 8, Item 30. VW is requesting full EIR, not Mitigated Negative Declaration City is pursuing. This will add time and cost, not fully quantified in 65% Plan. Respectfully, Gary Wong Citizens for Responsible Trails Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 1 July 11, 2019 Subject: Regnart Creek Trail Dear Ms. Dullu: Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) staff has reviewed the 65 percent drawings for the subject project and has the following comments: 1. Sheet 3 (DT01) • Please provide a legend for the abbreviations used in the detail references 1 thru 7. Will comply. • Please provide a typical cross section for “R1” 30+93.3 to 35+50.78. Will comply. • Please specify the diameter of the perforated HDPE pipe in material 1. Please relocate the perforated HDPE pipe so that it is under the portion of trail furthest from the top of bank. Will comply. • Please provide the dimensions of the retaining curb—this curb, if necessary, needs to be installed under the property line fences, on the adjacent property. Will evaluate. Moving this retaining curb to the property line would affect approximately 8 property line fences which are not otherwise replaced for the project. At the proposed locations with retaining curb as shown, the 12’ minimum width for maintenance vehicles is preserved. • Drainage appears to be directed towards the creek. Please provide additional surfacing information including infiltration rates or adjust drainage to be away from the channel with a drainage capture feature. It appears there is opportunity to drain the trail away from the creek from Pacifica Drive to Blaney Avenue, using swales/adjacent landscape areas, adjacent City property, and existing outfalls and/or storm drain facilities. Drainage is directed toward the creek to match existing conditions and provide resiliency for ponding and flooding in the event of drainage system failure. By creating a ditch at the property line away from the creek, any storm drain clogging will cause ponding and inundate the trail and adjacent property prior overland releasing over the top of bank. Additionally, the limited right-of-way restricts our ability to regrade the access road. Literature available for porous asphalt indicates that an underly soil permeability between 0.1 and 10 in/hr are acceptable. Because the project has an underdrain system, it does not rely on underlying soil infiltration to pass the rainwater. The link below to an empirical analysis of constructed gap-graded pavements in North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware found infiltration rates between 5 and 8 cm/hr or 2 and 3 in/hr. (https://www.icpi.org/sites/default/files/techpapers/984.pdf). • The current trail section shows an 8’ pavement section. Often the leading edges of pavement section are damaged the most in operations and maintenance applications, consider adjusting the paving section to allow for vehicles to travel completely on or straddling the pavement section. Will revise trail section to include 10’ paved where feasible by using a 1’ decomposed granite shoulder. To meet Class I bikeways standards, will add Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 2 July 11, 2019 shoulder stripe 1’ from edge of pavement to preserve 2’ shoulders. 2. Sheet 4 (DT02) • The typical cross section that includes the retaining curb must show the Valley Water property line and be modified that retaining curb is on the adjacent property, not protruding into the maintenance road and Valley Water property. Will add the property line to the detail. Placing the retaining curb on private property may not be feasible based on the adjacent resident. Moving this retaining curb to the property line would affect approximately 8 property line fences which are not otherwise replaced for the project. At the proposed locations with retaining curb as shown, the 12’ minimum width for maintenance vehicles is preserved. • Typical sections for the R2 line should be provided for Stations 56+30.7 thru 60+36.9 to show the bridge sections and the sections on the north side of the creek. Drainage for the trail on the north side of the creek should be directed northerly into the park, not towards Regnart Creek. Will comply. 3. Sheets 3 and 4 (DT01 and DT02) • Please number each typical detail and then cross reference the applicable detail on the profile sheets (for example specify the station limits above the profile view, referring to the typical detail applicable for those station limits). Will comply. • Please show the Valley Water property line on the detail where a new fence will be installed/replaced. Will comply. • The fence installation/replacement should be on the property line. Will comply. 4. Sheet 6 (DT04) Detail 2 should be modified such that the minimum gate width will provide a 12-foot wide clear opening (not 12 feet from center of post to center of post). Will comply. 5. Sheet 7 (DT05) • Detail 5 states that the railing will be removable in one view, but the other view detail appears to show a non-removable footing. The fence detail design should be clear that the railing will be removable. Will add sleeve in concrete to make railings removable in this detail. • The concrete footing on detail 5 must not be attached/connected to the retaining wall. Please revise the design of the footing so that it will not be connected to the retaining wall. The concrete is not intended to connect to the retaining wall, will add felt or expansion joint filler to isolate the existing retaining wall from the concrete footing. 6. Sheet 8 (lP01) • The plan view shows a new section of fence near the wingwall. The detail reference appears to be incorrectly referring to detail 2/DT04 for a gate. Please reference the correct fencing detail. Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 3 July 11, 2019 Will comply. • The trailhead detail references sheet L1.2; however, there is no sheet L1.2. There is a sheet L07 which appears to show more details of this trailhead. Please reference the correct trailhead detail sheet. Will comply. • The plan should specify the proposed gate width since detail 2/DT04 says the gate width will be “as specified.” Will comply. • Please label Valley Water’s easement and fee title right of way lines. Will comply. 7. Sheet 10 (lP03) • The trailhead detail references sheet L1.3; however, there is no sheet L1.3. There is a sheet L08 which appears to show more details of this trailhead. Please reference the correct trailhead detail sheet. Will comply. • Valley Water requests the chain link fence be modified to be on the westerly edge of our easement in the area it veers to the east of the easement. The original intent of the 5 foot wide easement was to provide additional width for maintenance access and our files show the fence was to be relocated at that time. Moving this fence alignment may affect a number of trees lining the property and trigger additional environmental and political concerns. Additionally, since this is an easement and not a fee title to Valley Water, Cupertino should still have underlying rights to use the land as long as it doesn’t encumber Valley Water’s easement rights. Relocation of the fence may negatively affect Cupertino’s legal uses. Additional research and discussion is needed. • Please move the trail as far west as possible, into the District’s easement area and away from the top of bank. In this area we will strive to shift the trail as close to the property line as feasible. Grading constraints to conform at the property line with reasonable slopes will prevent placement of the trail against the property line. • Please label Valley Water’s easement and fee title right of way lines. Will comply. 8. Sheet 11 (IP04) • The trailhead detail references sheet L1.4; however, there is no sheet L1.4. There is a sheet L09 which appears to show more details of this trailhead. Please reference the correct trailhead detail sheet. Will comply. • The plan should specify the proposed gate width since detail 2/DT04 says the gate width will be “as specified." Will comply. Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 4 July 11, 2019 • The two proposed wood privacy fence replacement areas shown on this sheet should include a note to specify that the fences will be replaced/installed on the property line. Will comply. • Valley Water’s 5-foot wide easement does not appear to be shown correctly in the area near Rodrigues Avenue. Please revise. APN map 369-31-033 is unclear (shown below). Please provide additional record documents that shows the easement. • Valley Water requests the chain link fence be modified to be on the westerly edge of our easement. The original intent of the 5 foot wide easement was to provide additional width for maintenance access and our files show the fence was to be relocated at that time. See response above. • Please move the trail as close to the easement or fee title property line, away from the top of bank, as much as possible. See response above. • Please label Valley Water’s easement and fee title right of way lines. Will comply. 9. Sheet 12 (IP05) • The label showing fencing as detail 1/DT05 should instead be detail 1/DT04. Please revise. Will comply. • The proposed wood privacy fence replacement area shown on this sheet should include a note to specify that the fence will be replaced/installed on the property line. Will comply. • There are existing gates located approximately near trail station 27+30. Please show the gates on the plans. Will comply. • The plan should specify the proposed gate width since detail 2/DT04 says the gate width will be “as specified.” Will comply. Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 5 July 11, 2019 10. Sheet 13 (lP06) • Please delineate clearly the limits of retaining curb to be installed in accordance with detail 4/DT05. Will comply. • Please add a note that fencing installed per detail 4/DT04 is to be placed on the property line, and retaining curbs installed per detail 4/DT05 and are to be installed on the adjacent property (not on Valley Water right of way). See response above. • There should be maintenance gates on each trail entrance at South Blaney Avenue. Existing gates at S Blaney Ave and E Estates Dr are to remain and to be protected in place. These will be labeled as such on the plan/profile sheets. Modifications will be made to the existing gates such that they can be locked into the open position. 11. Sheets 14 and 15 (IP07 and IP08) • The 12.9% grades over 12’ are too severe of a drop for maintenance vehicles. Adjust the grades to be a smoother and more traversable maintenance roadway. The existing maintenance ramp slopes are approximately 12%. Our intent is to match these grades. Flattening the grades will length the curbs required at top of bank to retain the longer fill above existing grade. We will fillet the smooth out the 13% grade and make the grade more easily traversable. The total grade difference introduce by the project is approximately 18” so these grades will feel like an extra-long driveway. • Please delineate clearly the limits of retaining curb to be installed in accordance with detail 4/DT05. Will comply. • • Please add a note that fencing installed per detail 4/DT04 is to be placed on the property line, and retaining curbs installed per detail 4/DT05 and are to be installed on the adjacent property (not on Valley Water right of way). See response above. • Please add detail references for the bridges and retaining walls for the bridges. Will comply • The plan should specify the proposed gate widths since detail 2/DT04 says the gate width will be “as specified." Will comply. • There is a reference to detail 1/DT06, but there is no sheet DT06. Please provide this sheet. Will revise plans to eliminate DT06 references. • It is not clear why railing is needed adjacent to the existing fencing on the northwest side of the westerly bridge. Please remove this duplicative railing and tie the chain link fence into the bridge. • Will comply. Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 6 July 11, 2019 12. Sheet 16 (IP09) • Please delineate clearly the limits of retaining curb to be installed in accordance with detail 4/DT05. Will comply. • Please add a note that fencing installed per detail 4/DT04 is to be placed on the property line, and retaining curbs installed per detail 4/DT05 and are to be installed on the adjacent property (not on Valley Water right of way). See response above. • There should be a maintenance gate at East Estates. Existing gates at S Blaney Ave and E Estates Dr are to remain and to be protected in place. These will be labeled as such on the plan/profile sheets. • What is the structure labeled R1-1? If it is a sign, please provide the detail sheet and relocate so that it is not in the minimum 12-foot wide maintenance access path. “R1-1” is a proposed “STOP” sign. Will include this on a detail sheet. The sign will be placed as to not impede maintenance access. 13. Sheet 17 (lP10) • Adjust the driveways to allow for a vehicle to turn straight onto the maintenance path. Currently the ramp does not align with the path of travel and there is an angle that does not allow a truck to turn smoothly onto the maintenance path without making a wide turn against oncoming traffic from a single direction. Will comply. • 12 foot wide driveway entrances are very difficult to maneuver with large equipment. Widen the aprons, as able, in all locations to allow for vehicles to make this turn without damaging pedestrian features. Valley Water frontage property at each road should be available for use by maintenance vehicles to access existing maintenance roads. Will comply. • Place gates at each entrance onto the trail that can be closed during maintenance work. Existing gates at S Blaney Ave and E Estates Dr are to remain and to be protected in place. These will be labeled as such on the plan/profile sheets. Modifications will be made to the existing gates such that they can be locked into the open position. • There is a “half sun" symbol referencing detail 5/DT05 — this is a detail for a split rail fence. Is this meant to be detail 6/DT05? Please clarify this structure. Regardless, this structure is currently directly in the path of travel for a maintenance vehicle turning onto the trail and needs to be relocated (this is for both sides of the crosswalk). This symbol refers to Detail 6/DT05, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB). RRFBs will be placed in a manner as to not impeded maintenance access. • What is the structure labeled R1-1? If it is a sign, please provide the detail sheet and relocate so that it is not in the minimum 12-foot wide maintenance access path. This is applicable for all proposed signs. “R1-1” is a proposed “STOP” sign. Will include this on a detail sheet. The sign will be placed as to not impede maintenance access. Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 7 July 11, 2019 The proposed removable railing on the west side of Blaney Avenue should stop and connect to Valley Water’s existing chain link fencing along the wing wall of the box culvert, not be installed adjacent to it. The proposed additional railing will further narrow our access. Will comply. • Please identify the small square symbols located at the trail entrance on both the east and west sides of Blaney Avenue, south side of the trail and north side of the trail respectively. Will comply. These are trail wayfinding signs details on sheets L14 and L15. • There is an existing electrical pole and guy wire located on the west side of Blaney Avenue. Please show clearly its location to ensure no conflicts with a vehicle entering the maintenance road. Pole and guy wire are shown per field survey. • Please show Valley Water property lines. Will comply. 14. Sheet 18 (lP11) • Add a gate on the west side of East Estates Drive that can be closed during maintenance activities. Existing gates at S Blaney Ave and E Estates Dr are to remain and to be protected in place. These will be labeled as such on the plan/profile sheets. Modifications will be made to the existing gates such that they can be locked into the open position. • 12 foot wide driveway entrances are very difficult to maneuver with large equipment. Widen the aprons, as able, in all locations to allow for vehicles to make this turn without damaging pedestrian features. Valley Water frontage property at each road should be available for use by maintenance vehicles to access existing maintenance roads. Will comply. • For all signs, please provide the detail sheet and locate/relocate so that it does not obstruct the minimum 12-foot wide maintenance access path. Will comply. • There are multiple references to a sheet DT06, but this sheet is not in the plan set. Please provide. Will revise plans to eliminate references to DT06. • There is a “half sun" symbol referencing detail 3/DT06. Please clarify this structure. This structure is currently directly in the path of travel for a maintenance vehicle turning onto the trail and needs to be relocated (this is for both sides of the crosswalk). This symbol refers to Detail 6/DT05, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB). RRFBs will be placed in a manner as to not impeded maintenance access. Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 8 July 11, 2019 • Is there additional fencing proposed on the east side of East Estates Drive? The plan appears to show new fencing. Please clarify. No work is proposed beyond the sidewalk on the east side of East Estates. Plans will be revised accordingly. • Please show Valley Water property lines. Will comply. 15. Sheets 19 thru 23 (D Sheets) • Please relocate the perforated HDPE pipe so that it is under the portion of trail furthest from the top of bank. Will comply. • There are multiple locations where longitudinal drainage is being directed towards the channel, including producing some low points. Adjust the grades to drain away from the channel. Drainage patterns match existing conditions, minimize grading of the project and provide resiliency for the system discussed in the comments above. With cross slopes of 1.5% and very flat longitudinal slopes, large drainage areas should not be concentrating on the isolated low points. • It appears there is opportunity to drain the trail away from the creek from Pacifica Drive to Blaney Avenue, using swales/adjacent landscape areas, adjacent City property, and existing outfalls and/or storm drain facilities. Additionally, drainage for the trail on the north side of the creek, in Wilson Park, should be directed northerly into the park, not towards Regnart Creek. See response above. 16. Sheet 30 (L07) • Widen and align the trail entrance to allow a through path for vehicles. The project retains the existing maintenance ramp and will install a 12’ clear gate opening. No landscape improvements further restrict VW’s access, please clarify your concerns with the proposed configuration. • There should be no pedestrian paving on the north side of the “roundabout"/trailhead feature. Please clarify VW’s concern with these pavers if they can resist H-20 loading. • The vehicular paving must be designed to handle H-20 loading. Will comply. • Please label the Valley Water’s easement and fee title right of way lines. Will comply. 17. Sheet 31 (L08) • Please label the Valley Water’s easement and fee title right of way lines. Will comply. • Please remove all pedestrian and vehicular paving within Valley Water’s right of way. Please clarify VW’s concern with these pavers if they can resist H-20 loading. Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 9 July 11, 2019 18. Sheet 32 (L09) • Please provide the width of the gate at this location. Will comply. • There is a proposed “landscape wall." Please relocate outside the width of the maintenance gate and access path. Will comply. • Valley Water requests the existing fencing in the area adjacent to the City’s property be relocated to the west of Valley Water’s easement. See response above. • Please remove the pedestrian concrete sections located southerly of the maintenance access gate. See response above. 19. Sheet 33 (L10) • For all signs, please provide the detail sheet and locate/relocate so that it does not obstruct the minimum 12-foot wide maintenance access path. Will comply. • The RRFB structure is currently directly in the path of travel for a maintenance vehicle turning onto the trail and needs to be relocated (this is for both sides of the crosswalk). RRFBs will be placed in a manner as to not impeded maintenance access. 20. Sheet 35 (L12) • Please label the Valley Water’s easement and fee title right of way lines. Will comply. • The RRFB structure is currently directly in the path of travel for a maintenance vehicle turning onto the trail and needs to be relocated (this is for both sides of the crosswalk). RRFBs will be placed in a manner as to not impeded maintenance access. • For all signs, please provide the detail sheet and locate/relocate so that it does not obstruct the minimum 12-foot wide maintenance access path. Preferably, signs should be close to fencing, such as along the wing wall, out of potential vehicle maintenance paths. Will comply. 21. Sheet 44 (L2) All pruning and maintenance of newly installed vegetation on the street frontage will be the responsibility of the City. Vegetation/maintenance responsibilities will be defined in the joint use agreement. 22. Sheet 45 (L22) • Please label the Valley Water’s easement and fee title right of way lines. Will comply. Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 10 July 11, 2019 • The RRFB structure is currently directly in the path of travel for a maintenance vehicle turning onto the trail and needs to be relocated (this is for both sides of the crosswalk). Will evaluate RRFB locations as to not impede maintenance vehicle access. • For all signs, please provide the detail sheet and locate/relocate so that it does not obstruct the minimum 12-foot wide maintenance access path. Preferably, signs should be close to fencing, such as along the wing wall, out of potential vehicle maintenance paths. Will comply. 23. Sheet 47 (L24) • Please label the Valley Water’s easement and fee title right of way lines. Will comply. • The RRFB structure is currently directly in the path of travel for a maintenance vehicle turning onto the trail and needs to be relocated (this is for both sides of the crosswalk). RRFBs will be placed in a manner as to not impeded maintenance access. • For all signs, please provide the detail sheet and locate/relocate so that it does not obstruct the minimum 12-foot wide maintenance access path. Preferably, signs should be close to fencing, such as along the wing wall, out of potential vehicle maintenance paths. Will comply. 24. Sheets 50 thru 57 (WPC01 thru WPC08) Provide additional detail on how the silt fence and fiber rolls will be installed. A cross section showing the layout would be preferred. There may be inadequate space to install these features during construction without installing them below the hinge point at the top of bank of the channel, which may require regulatory approvals. Will comply. Two potential options to address water pollution control are under consideration: 1) Lay a burlap (or equivalent) mat on the soil which will not be staked or otherwise disturb the banks which will minimize the transportation of sediment during a rain event. Conceptual detail shown below: 2) Hydroseed (with minimal overspray) the embankment prior to post installation. Will identify the proposed treatment in discussion with regulatory agencies. Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 11 July 11, 2019 25. Sheets 58 thru 63 (S-1 thru S-6) • Provide additional details on how the bridge will be removed, including time estimates and required equipment needed. Will provide. • Provide notes on the plans indicating the structural aspects of the bridge design where/how the bridge can be removed and any other necessary information for the City’s use to remove the bridges (i.e. instructions for removal and replacement of the bridge). Instructions for removal and replacement will be subject to the manufacturer the contractor chooses. A bridge placement and removal plan is required by the Contractor as part of their construction submittals and can be shared with VW at that time. Conceptual exhibits have been provided to the city for review and can be shared with VW. General Comments: 26. Land swap locations for the portions of the ballfield located on Valley Water right of way are to be further determined based on the City’s calculation of impacted Valley Water right of way area and suitable replacement land. Will comply. 27. Please provide time estimates for the removal of the removable split rail fencing sections. Will provide prior as part of the JUA. 28. Although Valley Water is providing general comments on trail signage placement, all trail signage shall be confirmed acceptable by the Valley Water’s construction inspector and staff prior to placement, if the joint use of Valley Water’s land is approved by our Board of Directors. Additionally, the plans will need to include signage informing the public that the trail is also a Valley Water maintenance road that will subject to closure for flood protection work and that the public should be aware of the potential presence of maintenance vehicles at all times. The City will need to establish detour routes prior to entering into the Joint Use Agreement. The detour routes will be used for trail users during the period Valley Water maintenance roads are closed. Will add sign details to be displayed year-round depicting the potential for trail closure. Will include detour concepts for inclusion in the joint use agreement. 29. On the plan sheets, please indicate the limits, on the plan view, of the different pavement sections (i.e. permeable pavement versus asphalt), which are referenced only by detail number. Please clarify comment. Mr. Prashanth Dullu Page 12 July 11, 2019 30. The City has indicated that they will request a determination from applicable regulatory agencies (California State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board) on whether the project will require permits from those agencies. The request for regulatory permit determinations for the project should include the entire project plan set, including railings, retaining walls, bridges, water quality control plans, etc. so that it is clear to the regulatory agencies what the entire scope of the project includes for determination on applicable permits that may apply. Valley Water would like to see copies of the written determinations from each agency and a description of the information provided to each agency when responses are received. Will comply. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Linda Wyckoff <lwyckoff2@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 12:30 PM To:Liang Chao; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey Subject:Youth speakers at City Council tomorrow Dear esteemed City Council Members Chao, Paul and Willey, I would like to take a direct quote from a much-circulated flyer authored by a path proponent that involves the use of children and teens to speak at the City Council meeting in support of Regnart Path tomorrow. At the bottom of this email is the exact text from the flyer. I am sure you will recall kids speaking as well before a City Council vote on this path on August 21, 2018. The very young are reading words mostly written by their parents and are too young to be able to form an opinion based on the facts that surround this issue. One might assume that their parents may also turn in a speaker card as well. These speakers are very appealing and I enjoy seeing them too. I am glad for them to get the public speaking experience. But do keep in mind that many of the teens who spoke 13 months ago were from Monta Vista High School recruited by Rod Sinks to speak. They would gain absolutely no benefit from this particular path. You might want to try and find out if the student speakers tomorrow night are well situation to actually take advantage based on where they live. Most importantly, I would also like to remind you of one particular student speaker from CC meeting last May 21st. His name was Casper, and he was a young cyclist and recent Cupertino High graduate who had recently embarked upon an objective and thorough study of the pros and cons of the Regnart Creek trail for a class assignment. He ended up coming down decidedly against the trail, and was able to articulate his reasoning quite well. Casper's family does not live among the impacted homes and he had no skin the game. I would just like to remind you all of his powerful testimony to consider along with the other kids. I would also like to inform you that we have heard from many path opponents who would like to speak at the meeting tomorrow. We face a bit of a dilemma as we want to see our side well-represented but we also want to avoid a situation where the meeting just goes on and on with the same points made again and again, and everybody's eyes just glaze over at some point. Anyway, please keep in mind that we will likely be trying to hold back a significant number of speakers to avoid such a scenario if possible, but that our opposition remains both firm and deep. Also please recall that anti-path speakers greatly outnumbered pro-path speakers during the summer CC sessions, for what it's worth. Thank you and best regards, Linda Flyer Text: "If your children or teens can come to speak, that makes even a bigger impact. The City Council loves hearing from our students, and they really listen to them. It's a great learning opportunity for kids on civic participation and we've seen how proud it makes them to stand up and speak for something they value. There will be other children speaking, some as young as 6-8, and the city will let kids speak early so they can go home early and go to bed. Please let us know if you have a child who plans to speak and we will put in a speaker card so they get to speak early. If your child would prefer not to speak, another option is to have your child stand with you when you speak, or at least attend and wear green and a sticker to show their support. Everything makes a difference!" 1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: Regnart Creek Trail - an asset for the ENTIRE community (even for those who now oppose it). From: GEOFFREY PAULSEN <geoffpaulsen@yahoo.com>   Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:04 PM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission <PlanningCommission@cupertino.org>;  City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission <ParksandRecreationCommission@cupertino.org>; Jennifer Shearin  <shearin.jen@gmail.com>; Larry Dean <ldean95014@comcast.net>; Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>; David Stillman  <DavidS@cupertino.org>; Jeff Milkes <JeffM@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Friends of Stevens  Creek Trail <exec‐dir@stevenscreektrail.org>; City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission <Bikepedcommission@cupertino.org>  Subject: Regnart Creek Trail ‐ an asset for the ENTIRE community (even for those who now oppose it).    Hello, all. You've heard from me before about the Regnart Creek Trail. But this time, I want to emphasize a key point: Even those who oppose the trail will likey end up enjoying it. Therefore, it will be an important asset for the ENTIRE community - even for those who currently oppose it. Here's why (based on experience and data): - Their property values will go up. - Crime along the trail will go down. - They will have a very conventient way to get exercise or enjoy a peaceful stroll. - Their children will be safer. - Car traffic on their streets may be reduced - Many former opponents of other trails end up supporting them. ... I could go on and on. My key point is that, unlike the freeway at the end of my block, there is virtually NO DOWNSIDE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAIL. As our City Manager recently wisely wrote, we need to look ahead - in this case, look ahead to the time when even the former trail opponents become supporters. So, I urge you - look ahead and vote "yes" on the Regnart Creek Trail. Thanks, Geoff Geoffrey Paulsen     Board member, Canopy.org Founding member, Cupertino Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission Former Board member, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail  Former Planner, Midpensula Regional Open Space District Former Park Ranger, National Park Service & City of Palo Alto Former Chair of the Cupertino Parks & Recreation and Planning Commissions 408/480-7509 cell 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Nancy Burnett <nanwalks2@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 1:25 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart Creek Trail My vote in favor of the trail is being sent by me, Don Burnett's widow, Nancy Burnett. The area belongs to all of us, not just the small minority living next to the area. Former bicyclist and Cupertino City Mayor, with out a doubt D...   1 Cyrah Caburian From:Rich Altmaier <richalt2@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 3:11 PM To:City Council Cc:Rich Altmaier Subject:Regnart Creek - Library Trail Dear City council members,  Please support this trail plan built through the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement. It will benefit the entire community and provide a safe path for our children.  Property owners along this easement can be aided with backyard fencing to address their issues. Their loud voices do not make their problems more important than the trail value.  Thank you,  Rich Altmaier   Cupertino, CA       Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Joe Cleaver <joepacleaver@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 3:47 PM To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject:Regnart Trail Dear Councilmember,  I am strongly encouraging you to vote to approve the Regnart Trail.  It not  only helps fulfill  "off road" transportation needs, but provides bicycle access  to the library for both children and adults. I recommend option "B" for privacy  purposes.     Joseph Cleaver  22105 Dean Court  Cupertino, 95014    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Ann Cleaver <anncleaver@mac.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 4:10 PM To:Steven Scharf Subject:Vote in favor of the Regnart Trail I strongly encourage you to vote in favor of the Regnart Trail. I live adjacent to the Stevens Creek Trail and it’s the best  enhancement to our neighborhood. A walk/bike trail is the best way for kids and adults to get around.   Option B seems to make the most sense.    Ann Cleaver  22105 Dean Court  Sent from my iPad  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Ann Cleaver <anncleaver@mac.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 4:17 PM Subject:In favor of the Regnart Trail I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of the Regnart Trail. I live adjacent to the Stevens Creek Trail which has been a huge  enhancement to our neighborhood. Not only does it provide a safe route to three schools, but also a recreational trail for  exercise. Let’s take some cars off the roads!  I prefer Option B for privacy.    Ann Cleaver  22105 Dean Court    Sent from my iPad  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Seema Lindskog <seema3366@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 4:52 PM To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office Cc:Jennifer Shearin Subject:Letter from Silicon Valley Bike Coalition in support of Regnart Creek trail Attachments:190903 Cupertino Regnart Trail Support letter.pdf Hi Mayor Scharf, esteemed Council members, Deb, and Grace,    Attached is a letter from the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition in support of the Regnart Creek trail.     Grace, can you please add it to the written communications?    Thanks,  Seema  ___________________________________________________________________    "You must be the change you want to see in the world." ‐ Mahatma Gandhi  September 13, 2019 David Stillman, davids@cupertino.org Transportation Manager City of Cupertino Re: Letter of support for Regnart Creek Trail Project Dear Mr. Stillman, I am writing on behalf of Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, a non-profit organization that exists to create a healthy community, environment, and economy through bicycling. SVBC supports Cupertino proceeding with the Regnart Creek Trail project. The Regnart Creek Trail has been recognized as a vital connector of the neighborhood to local destinations in the vicinity of the creek, including the Cupertino Library and Civic Center, Wilson Park and Creekside Park. Importantly, the Regnart Creek Trail will also serve as a critical link for school children in their route to school and to access the above destinations. It is also identified as a planned improvement in the Cupertino Bicycle Master Plan, helping to create “The Loop” in the Bicycle Master Plan. The funding and implementation of this project will greatly benefit people walking and biking who use the trail for commuting, running errands, and recreation. Creating this new off-street class one bike path will provide multiple benefits to Cupertino. It will promote the use of alternate transportation, walking and bicycling as a means to reduce traffic congestion, and improve safety, especially for children. We understand there are concerns that building the trail would increase people traveling along Regnart Creek, affecting its quality as a riparian corridor. We hope Cupertino will mitigate the impact of having more use along the creek with riparian improvements. Cupertino has a unique opportunity to dramatically improve the quality of its active transportation infrastructure by building this multi-use trail. While SVBC is acutely aware of the cost benefit analysis between investments in an on-street network versus a trail. We strongly encourage you to move forward with this project given the inarguable superior safety benefits an off-street multipurpose trail provides. Sincerely, Shiloh Ballard President and Executive Director 1 Cyrah Caburian From:The Yuens <sixyuens@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 8:48 PM To:City Council Subject:Bike path - YES Honorable Council Members,     I hope you will approve the bike/walking path between the library and Wilson Park. Infrastructure upgrades like this path will be  a benefit for years‐decades to come! This seems similar to the issue of opening g the bridge and gate through BlackBerry Farm.  Although the neighbors may be inconvenienced,  the benefit and joy of everyone who use it are so grateful for the convenience  as they can leave their cars at home and easily bike or walk across town.     The Little League in Cupertino was commenting that the kids cannot safely get from one side of Cupertino to the other. There  are so many great things that the city is doing to make Cupertino more bike‐able ‐ the protected bike lanes on McClellen, the  posts along Steven's Creek  and in front of the high school. All of these are great enhancements that benefit the population  rather than the cosmetic enhancements like spending a million dollars for the trellises in the median on DeAnza.     Thank you so much for all you do!    Warmly,  Ione Yuen     Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Lola Kashyap <lolakashyap@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 9:44 PM To:City Clerk; City Council; David Stillman; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey; Liang Chao; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Rod Sinks; Steven Scharf Subject:Support for Regnart Creek Trail I am writing to express my strong support for the Regnart Creek Trail. I am sure you have heard plenty about the trail providing  safe paths to schools etc but I would like to focus on another important safety benefit that the proposed trail would provide the  Cupertino community that I haven't yet seen being part of the debate.     I was at a presentation by County Fire in May of this year where an officer from the sheriff's department also spoke. They talked  about how all of Cupertino was at a high risk for wild fires being at a Wildland Urban interface. The officer emphasized how  important it was to evacuate early in the event of a wild fire because our roads could quickly get gridlocked with everyone trying  to get out. Trails such as the proposed Regnart Creek Trail would provide an important evacuation route in such a scenario.  Starting with the Oakland hills fire we all have seen harrowing images of people being trapped and perishing in their cars unable  to evacuate. Neighborhood trails could give residents an escape route by foot or bicycle.     I am sure the neighbors that are opposing this trail would appreciate it if they stopped focusing on their narrow vision and  considered the value it would bring to their neighborhood.     In my opinion all of Cupertino should be linked with an interconnected network of trails. I strongly urge you to take advantage of  this opportunity to vote in support of the Regnart Creek trail which I hope will be one part of such a network.     Thanks!    Lola Kashyap  Cupertino resident for almost 20 years       1 Cyrah Caburian From:Rena Takahashi <rena@videoi.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 10:49 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart Creek Trail comment Honorable Cupertino City Councilmembers,    I am a 15 year resident of Cupertino, and a homeowner on Vicksburg Drive. My house is about 2 blocks north of the E Estates  end of the proposed trailhead. My property does not border the proposed trail. My three kids and I regularly bike and walk  between Cupertino High School and the Cupertino Library, cutting through Wilson Park to avoid cars.    It worries me that I cannot find any needs/use case for this trail ‐ how many students already bike through Wilson Park or down  La Mar? How many kids have been hit by a car on La Mar while walking or on a bike? How many more students would bike if this  trail went in? I appreciate that turning the land adjacent to the creek is low‐hanging fruit, and lets our city claim another family‐ friendly trail that will further green our community. But to claim that this trail improves safety for our commuting children is not  based on any evidence. There are so many other simple and cheaper things we can do first, and I appreciate that you will spend  my tax dollars frugally and wisely, based on hard data.    If you are looking for ways to improve pedestrian and bike safety, please examine the Blaney / La Mar and Calle de Barcelona /  Miller intersections. These two intersections are the real pinch points of the safe route to school, not the straight shot down La  Mar. Please address the red light runners and stop‐sign runners at the aforementioned intersections and add more defensive  biking support ‐ more green lanes, more blinking lights at crosswalks. Use my tax dollars to continue bike safety outreach classes  for our kids. Use my tax dollars to give out free clip‐on bike headlights and reflectors. These are frugal and measurable ways to  make our biking citizens safer.    Thank you for your time,    ‐Rena Takahashi    10312 Vicksburg Dr, Cupertino    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Dave Wyckoff <dcwyckoff@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 11:44 PM To:City Council Subject:Say No to Ragnart Trail Alternate 1 Esteemed Council Members:    Instead of taking up additional time at tomorrow night’s CC meeting, I thought I would provide my thoughts on Regnart Creek  Trail to you via email.  We adjacent neighbors find ourselves burdened with all the negative byproducts of the planned trail, while seeing very little  benefit for ourselves or other city residents. Here’s what we get out of it: Brand new liability exposure (as we are private  entities), increased Insurance premiums, compromised privacy (especially for those for whom the path routes directly in front of  their homes, not just behind), removal of the gate locks that protected us at night, increased risk of home invasion and noise and  nuisance offenses, plus the loss of real estate value in comparison to our neighbors who do not abut the path. Not to mention  the animosity of neighbors and far‐flung advocacy groups who call us NIMBYs and smear us personally in public forums and on  social media.   And one, wonders... why has this been going on so long? It’s rare to find a small city project like this engendering such pushback.  And after encountering one engineering obstacle after another, many still unresolved, proponents and staff just keep pushing  on. It seems to me that people join political campaigns for one of two reasons... either they find just cause, or they simply relish  the fight. By this time, it’s clear that certain path proponents and staff fall into the latter camp. It is this fight, and its  accompanying division that they thrive on. This whole thing is really kind of hard to understand otherwise... why is this short and  expensive 8/10th of a mile path, with viable, often shorter alternative routes already in existence, so crucial to them? Perhaps  it’s to set a precedence in allowing additional intrusive thoroughfairs within urban and suburban settings that will compromise  the rights of additional homeowners. Advocacy groups can then point to this project to later steamroll additional unsuspecting  neighborhoods. If you councilmembers enjoyed THIS process, you can expect to see it repeated again and again if it’s successful  here.  Instead, let’s concentrate on bike trails and infrastructure improvements that address key problem areas, especially near  schools, in high accident locales, and where we lack sidewalks.  I ask the city, please spend our limited funds wisely to address  problem areas, giving preference to projects that address specific existing trouble spots and also lack significant controversy.  Refrain from projects that alienate huge swaths of your neighbors, most of whom are also voters. Opt for a combination of  alternatives four and five, and vote to end this wasteful project now. Thank you.    Sincerely,    Dave Wyckoff  LaMar Drive Resident  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Tim Oey <oey@post.harvard.edu> Sent:Monday, September 16, 2019 11:44 PM To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Regnart Creek Trail needed for our kids Attachments:Regnart Trail Preso.pptx Honorable Cupertino City Council,    Attached are a few slides I'll use when I speak at the City Council meeting on Tuesday Sept 17 regarding the Regnart Creek Trail.     In brief here are my key points:    The future of an Earth that can support our kids is in jeopardy due to human caused climate change.    Earlier this year I bicycled 5000 miles across the US to talk with people about what we can do to save our world for our kids.    Cupertino can think globally and act locally to build a trail to protect kids from being hit by cars as well as climate change. Kids  across the world are speaking out about how adults today are killing their kids' future.    In Silicon Valley as well as across the US, trails are often opposed by 90%+ of the people who live along them before they are  built. However a few years after a trail is built that totally flips around and 90%+ of the people along the trail love the trail. This  has been the local experience with the Stevens Creek Trail.    After trails are put in, many people build paths and staircases from their backyards to such trails like in Providence Rhode Island  and Boston Massachusetts. Some people even build houses with their front yards directly on trails like in Bloomington Indiana.    Trails provide a safe route to schools as well as a safer route to our kids' future.    Thank you.      Cheers,  Tim  9/17/2019 1 w 9/17/2019 2 9/17/2019 3 9/17/2019 4 9/17/2019 5 9/17/2019 6 9/17/2019 7 w 9/17/2019 8 ZeroW.org 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Krishnapriya Raghuveer <priya.raghuveer@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 9:23 AM To:City Council Subject:Opposing regnart creek trail Good morning Dear Cupertino City Council members,    I am writing to let you know I oppose the   REGNART CREEK TRAIL, it is not helping our Children who are in Elementary and middle school Lawson.     We would rather request city to consider options 4 and 5.    Many thanks for your time and attention to this matter.     Priya  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Helene Davis <helene@crewdavis.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 9:59 AM To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk; David Stillman Cc:Jeff Milkes Subject:Regnart Creek Trail Dear Council, City Manager and Staff, I am planning on attending the council meeting tonight but just in case I am unable I wanted to make sure I get my thoughts to you in writing: I am writing to you about the Regnart Creek Trail as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner but also as a private citizen who has lived in Cupertino for almost 60 years. The Regnart Creek Trail does not exist in a vacuum - it is a part of the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Transportation Plan. It is an integral east-west link in a chain that will connect our citizens to our civic spaces. These plans, as well as the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, were developed over the past four years by City staff, council, the respective commissions, and with extensive input from the community. Important themes that came out of community outreach on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan were Trails and Connectivity - to parks, neighborhoods, schools and other civic spaces, and Nature Experience - the importance of connection to riparian corridors, meadows, and other natural open spaces. Please consider the needs of the entire community when making your decision tonight. I am confident that the City can mitigate any issues that the residents near the trail might have. I predict these residents will end up enjoying and treasuring the trail. I urge you to vote yes, tonight, to fund 100% of the Regnart Creek Trail and to build the trail at whatever price point you find acceptable. I also challenge you to be brave, to be bold, and have a vision for what kind of community you want to live in and to leave for our youth and future generations. To quote from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan mission: “Cupertino: CREATES a safe, connected, walkable and welcoming community.” Helene Davis 1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: Green streets infrastructure & Bikeways - CC Agenda item 9 Sep 17 2019 From: Ilango <ilangog@yahoo.com>   Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 11:19 AM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>  Subject: Green streets infrastructure & Bikeways ‐ CC Agenda item 9 Sep 17 2019    Dear Council members, I was reviewing the letter submitted by 4 environmental groups including Sierra Club that strongly encourage the City to pursue on street alternatives outside of the Street Corridor and restore creek riparian ecosystem (instead of pursuing the proposed Regnart Creek Trail). What intrigued me in that letter is their proposal to incorporate green storm water infrastructure into the design of bike lanes. This is a great idea that integrates green infrastructure into on-street biking and walking facilities for the benefit of the entire community. I did further research on this topic; cities like Berkeley, Palo Alto and San Jose are integrating this in their plans. City of Cupertino's Green infrastructure framework adopted in 2017 has defined strategies on urban forest but we can do more by proactively integrating bikeways, pedestrian and traffic safety treatments into the Green infrastructure framework. When the Council is deciding on Proposed Regnart Creek path and Alternate options tonight, I encourage the Council members to step back and look the big picture at city wide high priority bike and pedestrian projects and evaluate how to integrate GSI and bike-ped facilities and make the City streets greener for the benefit of the entire Cupertino community instead of investing millions of dollars on this 3/4th mile trail. Let the riparian creek corridor be left alone in its natural form to enhance the riparian ecosystem, wild life linkages and pollinator corridors. Green infrastructure and bike facilities As per the national association of city transportation officials, on‐street bicycle facilities provide an opportunity to integrate storm  water treatment facilities, street trees, and public gathering spaces with traffic speed and volume management treatments.   Green streets include treatments such as sidewalk widening, landscaping, and traffic calming to prioritize pedestrian and bicyclist travel. These improvements are ideal for bicycle boulevard corridors, due to the mutual benefits of speed and volume management and prioritizing non-motorized transportation options. Here is an illustration from NACTO below: Example of GSI in Berkeley traffic calming treatment 2 Excerpts from City of San Jose GSI plan: 3 City of Emeryville example City of Berkeley has successfully integrated Bike boulevard projects as part of their biking infrastructure. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/bicycleboulevards/ I am sure the Cupertino can use these neighboring cities as role models to successfully implement Green infrastructure into on-street Citywide biking and walking facilities to benefit the of community across the City, instead of spending millions of dollars into the Regnart Creek path. Thanks, Ilango Ganga Cupertino Resident On behalf of myself 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Scott Fitinghoff <sfitinghoff@cornerstoneearth.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 12:26 PM To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office Cc:yes@regnartcreek.com Subject:I support the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Honorable Council Members and City Manager:    I am Scott Fitinghoff who lives at 6790 John Drive in Cupertino, CA.  I have addressed the council on two occasions on this issue, I  am unable to attend the meeting tonight.    Please consider this email as confirmation that I am in support of this project.  Thank you also for listening to both sides of the  issue(s).  While you deliberate the topic tonight please consider:    1) The trail design has followed as close as practical to an accepted design standard, the Caltrans Standard for designing  such trails.  There are other design standards for trails but claims by opponents that this trail project  does not meet  those standards or has not been designed to any standard should not be justifications as a reasons to reject the design  work performed by HMH.  2) Please make a “Go” or “No Go” decision tonight, this issue has been kicking around too long to postpone a decision.  3) Assuming that the decision is a “GO”, pick an alternative that is in line with a Budget you are comfortable with (I  understand there are now six different cost options), the people who support the tail (1,500 or more residents have  signed a petition supporting the trail) just want the ROW opened up the use during reasonable daylight hours, it can be  as simple as a gravel path that is ready in existence to and elaborate construction project with fancy paved surfaces and  top of the line privacy walls to protect the existing homeowners privacy, we just want some trail project constructed.    Thank You.    Scott    Sincerely, Scott E. Fitinghoff, P.E., G.E. Principal Engineer 408-747-7503 (cell) 1259 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale | California 94085 T 408-245-4600 Ext. 103 | F 408-245-4620   1 Cyrah Caburian From:Erik Lindskog <eriklindskog@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 12:39 PM To:City Council Cc:Deborah L. Feng; David Stillman; City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:In support of Regnart Creek Trail Dear Mayor and esteemed City Council members, (Grace, please add this letter to the written communication for tonights city council meeting.) I am a member of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, but I am here writing you as a resident. The Regnart Creek Trail is a very important project for our city. It opens up a route that has always been there but that curently is closed for public access. This route is a trail that would run along Regnart Creek from Library field to Creekside park, passing by and conneting to Wilson park. As such it uniquely connects three parks, the library, creates a route from City Center to Cupertino High School and in the extension to Main Street, as well as provides a more direct route for some of the Eaton Elementary students. This route along the creek is for the most part entirely separated from cars, thus creating a unique connection in our community. This trail will be an immense resource to all sorts of users, people that walk, run, bike, young and old, and will be vary valuable for families with children as it creates a route were they can travel by bicycle for long stretches without having to worry about getting hit by cars. Such facilities are indeed very value for forming habits for children that they carry with them all through their life. This trail will also provide direct backdoor access for many residents along the trail to the above parks. This feature will be very valuable, not the least again to families with children living in those neighboring houses. A huge benefit with this project is that it can be realized very inexpensively. The reason for this is of course that the trail already exists in form of a water district service road. In one extreme the gates to the trail essentially just needs to be openened and in another extreme many improvements of various sorts can be added. However, even a very simple design would make a very nice trail. An example of such a simple design could include cross-walk treatments where the trail crosses the two streets, possibly - though not strictly required - a simple treatment of the trail surface, short sections of fencing at the trail heads and a simple solution for bypassing/navigating the water districts service ramp on the trail. This can be done at a very affordable cost and should be considered. Another benefit of a trail project like this is that one usually sucessfully can apply for various grants to fund it. It is also very clear that this project has rather unique large public support. So many residents has passed by this now closed off trail and asked themself questions like. "Why can't we walk and 2 bike there?", and "Would it not be great if we could go there and what destinations would it connect us to?" For this reason, for most residents it is obvious that we should open up this trail for public access. This is demonstrated by the 1600+ signatures that Walk-Bike Cupertino has collected with very little effort during a limitied time period. Even more signtures would easily have been collected with just a tiny bit more effort. I doubt we have many projects in our city that can show this level of support. I therefore urge you City Council members to approve this project, one of the lower cost alternatives would be perfectly fine, waste no more time and clear the project for contruction so that we can start applying for grants for it. Sincerely, Erik Lindskog 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Erik Lindskog <eriklindskog@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 12:48 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Fw: In support of Regnart Creek Trail Grace, Can you please add this letter to the written communication for tonights city council meeting. Best Regards, Erik Erik Lindskog +1-408-410-8857 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Erik Lindskog <eriklindskog@yahoo.com> To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>; David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org>; City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission <ParksandRecreationCommission@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>; manager@cupertino.org <manager@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 12:38:55 PM PDT Subject: In support of Regnart Creek Trail Dear Mayor and esteemed City Council members, (Grace, please add this letter to the written communication for tonights city council meeting.) I am a member of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, but I am here writing you as a resident. The Regnart Creek Trail is a very important project for our city. It opens up a route that has always been there but that curently is closed for public access. This route is a trail that would run along Regnart Creek from Library field to Creekside park, passing by and conneting to Wilson park. As such it uniquely connects three parks, the library, creates a route from City Center to Cupertino High School and in the extension to Main Street, as well as provides a more direct route for some of the Eaton Elementary students. This route along the creek is for the most part entirely separated from cars, thus creating a unique connection in our community. This trail will be an immense resource to all sorts of users, people that walk, run, bike, young and old, and will be vary valuable for families with children as it creates a route were they can travel by bicycle for long stretches without having to worry about getting hit by cars. Such facilities are indeed very value for forming habits for children that they carry with them all through their life. This trail will also provide direct backdoor access for many residents along the trail to the above parks. This feature will be very valuable, not the least again to families with children living in those neighboring houses. 2 A huge benefit with this project is that it can be realized very inexpensively. The reason for this is of course that the trail already exists in form of a water district service road. In one extreme the gates to the trail essentially just needs to be openened and in another extreme many improvements of various sorts can be added. However, even a very simple design would make a very nice trail. An example of such a simple design could include cross-walk treatments where the trail crosses the two streets, possibly - though not strictly required - a simple treatment of the trail surface, short sections of fencing at the trail heads and a simple solution for bypassing/navigating the water districts service ramp on the trail. This can be done at a very affordable cost and should be considered. Another benefit of a trail project like this is that one usually sucessfully can apply for various grants to fund it. It is also very clear that this project has rather unique large public support. So many residents has passed by this now closed off trail and asked themself questions like. "Why can't we walk and bike there?", and "Would it not be great if we could go there and what destinations would it connect us to?" For this reason, for most residents it is obvious that we should open up this trail for public access. This is demonstrated by the 1600+ signatures that Walk-Bike Cupertino has collected with very little effort during a limitied time period. Even more signtures would easily have been collected with just a tiny bit more effort. I doubt we have many projects in our city that can show this level of support. I therefore urge you City Council members to approve this project, one of the lower cost alternatives would be perfectly fine, waste no more time and clear the project for contruction so that we can start applying for grants for it. Sincerely, Erik Lindskog 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Leeyin Liu <LeeYinLiu@msn.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 1:03 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart creek trail project To Whom It May Concern:    I am writing this email to express my disagreement upon the regnart creek trail project.    Lee‐Yin Liu    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Nagapriya K Tiruthani <nagapriyak@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 2:19 PM To:City Council Subject:Reject further funding and approval for Regnart Creek trail Hello Councilmembers, I am a Cupertino resident who uses a lot of parks and trail in and around Cupertino. Also, my kids bike to Cupertino High now and used to bike to Lawson middle as well. I am following the whole Regnart Creek discussion and also attended the "walk the trail" event to experience the path along the trail. Like with every project, there will be pros and cons and when one out-weighs the other, the decision becomes clear on what needs to be done. As with many Cupertino projects in the past, this Regnart Creek trail project discussions are losing its objectivity and is being pushed by some advocacy groups. So, i would like to bring to your attention the concerns on why this Regnart creek trail is not a good option for Cupertino residents: 1. The trail is not continuous even though it is only 3/4 of a mile. 2. Only open from dawn to dusk. So, the high school kids have after school activities esp between Nov and March will have to use the alternate routes as the trail is closed. Why spend so much money for a limited use trail when we can fortify the existing trails. 3. There are 2 intersecting streets: Blaney and E.Estates. And both intersections are just few steps away from a stop sign and it is going to cause a lot of frustrated driver esp on Blaney that handles a lot of middle school and elementary school traffic. 4. The trail is so narrow to accommodate both bikers and walkers 2-way. And one side drops off into the creek which is going to have some kind of barricade based on the option approved. When a kid falls into a creek, who is liable? city, parents? 5. Between Cupertino library and Cupertino High, we have perfectly viable alternatives 4 & 5 on street, like rest of the bike trail around Cupertino, Rodrigues/Wilson park Ave and Pacifica/La Mar. The most risky path for bikers is the intersection of Calle de Barcelona and Finch. 6. For elderly and small infants to walk, we have a good trail in Wilson park which is just few feet away from the creek path. If residents ont live close-by, they can park their car in the parking lot (ample parking) and use the trail in Wilson park. It is safe, lighted and has ample open space for walking and strolling which actually runs parallel to the trail. 7. Trail head causes traffic issues as kids will want to cross the street at Pacifica and Rodrigues. So do we propose kids go against traffic (not biking rule) to meet the next intersection? With so many drawbacks, why push so much for this trail when we have perfectly viable alternative 4 & 5 to accommodate traffic from library to Cupertino High. Don't we have any high priority project that needs the money spent on? Also, proposing decomposed granite as the surface for a path that is considered for biking esp for kids with a creek running next to it, is just irresponsible and inconsiderate? How is this safer than riding on streets which has a sidewalk to take walkers away from bike path. Also, in the agenda packet, the city staff proposes different options for the trail to happen. But there's not an option for not having the trail. So, the option presented in front of you is one-sided. Please remember, the 2 whole trail's feasibility study was approved when the city staff withheld the letter from the land owner of the trail, Water district, objected to approving that item that day. So, the whole process on this trail has been one-sided without due merit. Hope you all make the right decision for the city and also a decision that is fiscally responsible on where the money is being spent. One great proposal that the city can consider is having a trail along Calabazas creek like Los Gatos creek trail and Guadalupe river trail which runs across cities and a has bike path for people who chooses alternate commute paths to avoid crowded roads and traffic. Thanks, Priya Tiruthani 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Priya TVS <tvspriya00@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 2:30 PM To:City Council Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Reject Regnart Creek trail proposal   Hello Councilmembers,    I am a Cupertino resident who uses a lot of parks and trail in and around Cupertino. Also, my kids bike to Cupertino High now  and used to bike to Lawson middle as well.    I follow the Regnart Creek trail discussion and also attended the "walk the trail" event to experience the path along the trail.     So, i would like to bring to your attention the concerns on why this Regnart creek trail is not a good option for Cupertino  residents:  1. The trail is not continuous even though it is only 3/4 of a mile.   2. Only open from dawn to dusk. So, the high school kids have after school activities esp between Nov and March will have to  use the alternate routes as the trail is closed. Why spend so much money for a limited use trail when we can fortify the existing  trails.   3. There are 2 intersecting streets: Blaney and E.Estates. And both intersections are just few steps away from a stop sign and it  is going to cause a lot of frustrated driver esp on Blaney that handles a lot of middle school and elementary school traffic.   4. The trail is so narrow to accommodate both bikers and walkers 2‐way. And one side drops off into the creek which is going to  have some kind of barricade based on the option approved. When a kid falls into a creek, who is liable? city, parents?  5. Between Cupertino library and Cupertino High, we have perfectly viable alternatives 4 & 5 on street, like rest of the bike trail  around Cupertino, Rodrigues/Wilson park Ave and Pacifica/La Mar. The most risky path for bikers is the intersection of Calle de  Barcelona and Finch.   6. For elderly and small infants to walk, we have a good trail in Wilson park which is just few feet away from the creek path. If  residents ont live close‐by, they can park their car in the parking lot (ample parking) and use the trail in Wilson park. It is safe,  lighted and has ample open space for walking and strolling which actually runs parallel to the trail.     With so many drawbacks, why push so much for this trail when we have perfectly viable alternative 4 & 5 to accommodate  traffic from library to Cupertino High. Don't we have any high priority project that needs the money spent on?     So, the whole process on this trail has been one‐sided without due merit.     Hope you all make the right decision for the city and also a decision that is fiscally responsible on where the money is being  spent.    Thanks,   Saravanakumar Tiruthani  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jim Walker <jimgwalker39@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:33 PM To:Steven Scharf Subject:Support for the Regnart Creek Trail Approval Tonight Dear Mayor Scharf,    As a fifty‐year resident of Cupertino, I love my adopted City where I raised my family.  We have many City provided benefits, but  a well‐planned biking and walking trail system is a much needed improvement.      Tonight we have the Regnart Creek Trail proposal up for approval.  Now is the time to take a positive step forward for our  current and future citizens, especially our children who deserve the best and safest route to school, libraries and recreation.  We  look forward to City Council's approval of starting construction of the Regnart Creek Trail.    In Support of the Regnart Creek Trail,    Jim Walker  10902 Canyon Vista Drive  Cupertino, Ca 95014  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jim Walker <jimgwalker39@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:34 PM To:Liang Chao Subject:Support for the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Vice Mayor Chao,    As a fifty‐year resident of Cupertino, I love my adopted City where I raised my family.  We have many City provided benefits, but  a well‐planned biking and walking trail system is a much needed improvement.      Tonight we have the Regnart Creek Trail proposal up for approval.  Now is the time to take a positive step forward for our  current and future citizens, especially our children who deserve the best and safest route to school, libraries and recreation.  We  look forward to City Council's approval of starting construction of the Regnart Creek Trail.    In Support of the Regnart Creek Trail,    Jim Walker  10902 Canyon Vista Drive  Cupertino, Ca 95014  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jim Walker <jimgwalker39@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:38 PM To:Rod Sinks Subject:Support for the Regnart Creel Trail Dear Rod,    As a fifty‐year resident of Cupertino, I love my adopted City where I raised my family.  We have many City provided benefits, but  a well‐planned biking and walking trail system is a much needed improvement.      Tonight we have the Regnart Creek Trail proposal up for approval.  Now is the time to take a positive step forward for our  current and future citizens, especially our children who deserve the best and safest route to school, libraries and recreation.  We  look forward to the City Council's approval of starting construction of the Regnart Creek Trail.    In Support of the Regnart Creek Trail,    Jim Walker  10902 Canyon Vista Drive  Cupertino, Ca 95014  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jim Walker <jimgwalker39@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:39 PM To:Darcy Paul Subject:Support for the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Council Member Paul,    As a fifty‐year resident of Cupertino, I love my adopted City where I raised my family.  We have many City provided benefits, but  a well‐planned biking and walking trail system is a much needed improvement.      Tonight we have the Regnart Creek Trail proposal up for approval.  Now is the time to take a positive step forward for our  current and future citizens, especially our children who deserve the best and safest route to school, libraries and recreation.  We  look forward to the City Council's approval of starting construction of the Regnart Creek Trail.    In Support of the Regnart Creek Trail,    Jim Walker  10902 Canyon Vista Drive  Cupertino, Ca 95014  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jim Walker <jimgwalker39@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:41 PM To:Jon Robert Willey Subject:Support for the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Council Member Willey,    As a fifty‐year resident of Cupertino, I love my adopted City where I raised my family.  We have many City provided benefits, but  a well‐planned biking and walking trail system is a much needed improvement.      Tonight we have the Regnart Creek Trail proposal up for approval.  Now is the time to take a positive step forward for our  current and future citizens, especially our children who deserve the best and safest route to school, libraries and recreation.  We  look forward to the City Council's approval of starting construction of the Regnart Creek Trail.    In Support of the Regnart Creek Trail,    Jim Walker  10902 Canyon Vista Drive  Cupertino, Ca 95014  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:16 PM To:Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Darcy Paul; Rod Sinks; Jon Robert Willey Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Public Comment, 9/17/2019 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Regnart Creek Trail 65% Design Review Honorable Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Chao, and Council Members Paul, Sinks, and Willey: Please include my letter as part of public comment for the 9/17/2019 Council meeting, Item 9, Regnart Creek Trail 65% Design Review. I oppose the opening and renovation of the Regnart Creek Trail for public use with one exception. Exception: Provided that the Water District and the neighbors whose homes abut the proposed trail along Farallone Dr could agree, I do support moving or removing the cyclone fence that separates public use spaces at library field and at the library/civic center area from the creek access north-south from Rodrigues Ave to Pacifica Dr ONLY. Possibly the cyclone fence could be moved east to permit trail use on the eastern edge of the Water District/City easement. Added trail access from Rodrigues Ave to Pacifica Ave could encourage more people to walk or ride their bikes to the library and to events hosted in civic center plaza. Ideally, the City could come to a shared use agreement with CUSD that would allow overflow library/civic center area parking at Eaton School after hours and on weekends, alleviating some of the parking need that cannot be accommodated by existing city lot parking spaces. With parking at Eaton School and a trail opening on Pacifica Dr, the walk to activities in civic center plaza would be short and pleasant. I do not support encroachment on library field to allow for diagonal or vertical parking on Pacifica Dr. I do not support the construction of a trail that would reduce the usable space and shade at library field today. If we were to pave over the area between the double trees abutting Pacifica Dr, then groups who set up their picnic blankets and buffets to support sporting events will be pushed out. But, where could they go? Into the grassy play space? Crowded tightly under the remaining shade and space abutting Torre Ave? Please preserve every existing and usable square foot of library field. For a small patch of grass, library field is an incredibly popular space for volleyball, cricket, pick up soccer, and casual free play. I do not support public access to Regnart Creek (except north-south from Rodrigues Ave to Pacifica Dr as mentioned above) for the many reasons you have heard from residents already. I will not attempt to restate the all the reasons that for its price and for the unintended-but-predictable consequences it will bring, the Regnart Creek Trail, as proposed, is a solution in search of a problem. I do have one other item to share, however. My family lives in the southwestern corner of the CHS attendance area. Arguments in favor of the trail identify the trail as a safe route to CHS and other area schools. So, I asked my high school senior who has been commuting to CHS for the past 3+ years by walking, skateboarding, cycling, and VTA bus, what they perceived was the most dangerous part of their commute. The response? (1) Crossing Blaney "anywhere". And, (2) cycling along Calle de Barcelona where cars and cyclists are competing for road access and the opportunity to cross Finch Ave. Now, you may be thinking that the trail has a solution for crossing Blaney--and it does--except the solution is not practical for students living south of Pacifica Dr. The proposed trail is a long overshoot for anyone living south of Pacifica Dr or even south of Somerset Dr. Few will travel so far out of their way to catch a trail that offers a crosswalk with "bulb outs" at Blaney Ave. Of course another feature of the road bulb outs is that 2 they do push cyclists who are traveling along Blaney Ave into the vehicle lane. Are we doing enough to educate drivers and new cyclists how to share lanes safely? Or, will bulb outs make crossing Blaney Ave safer in one place at the same time as they make cycling along Blaney Ave more dangerous? Thank you for your consideration of what I have shared. Sincerely, Liana Crabtree Cupertino resident representing myself only "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require." - Article II, Section 1, California State Constitution 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Joe Pereira <joeppereira@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:16 PM To:City Council; City Clerk Subject:Regnart Creek and Bike routes Dear Council,    I have surveyed bike routes and Regnart Creek extensively over last months.  Here are my conclusions:     1. Regnart Creek proposal is expensive, and waste of public money especially         ‐‐ building a bridge         ‐‐ unsafe gaps         ‐‐ safety of young riders     2. There are many segments of Regnart Creek and other areas than can be worked on to provide easy access to people         ‐‐ Creekside Park to Cupertino HS: a short stretch would be used by many more people and students, and relieve daily traffic  congestion around school     3. The proposal to make McClellan Rd as major artery of West Cupertino bike path is simply ridiculous        ‐‐ the stretch is used as major transit artery and is dangerous to riders        ‐‐ As I a parent I and many other parents would never let their kid risk riding on that stretch        ‐‐ There are many safe paths (interior roads with low traffic) that can be developed as alternate bike tracks to encourage and  promote bike riding across Cupertino.    4. Bike and pedestrian paths should be promoted in areas around schools and other areas of traffic congestion.        ‐‐ Ensure low speed traffic and lower volume traffic around bike tracks      I am sure you will pay close attention to these points, and work towards safe bike paths, and promote biking and walking in  Cupertino.    Best Regards    Joe Pereira  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Peggi Jewett <pjewett@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:21 PM To:City Council Subject:Re: Regnart Creek Trail - Proponent of Complete Streets Attachments:Trail Alternatives.pdf Dear Esteemed Council Members: As a proponent of Complete Streets, I encourage you to support and select alternatives 4 an 5 to provide safe routes for walkers and cyclists in our city. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and representation of the best interests for all our residents. Respectfully, Margaret (Peggi) Jewett Trail AlternativesPeggi Jewett20030 De Palma LaneCupertino, CA What is a Complete Street?XA Complete Street is a street that has been designed for safe access for everyone, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. XTraditional traffic engineering designs streets primarily for vehicles, a Complete Streets Policy directs transportation planners and engineers to design, build, and operate complete streets. There are many community benefits to complete streets!XA Complete Streets Policy: XEncourages walking and active lifestyles among residents of all ages and abilities, and reduces risk to pedestriansXCreates safer routes for children to reach school and activities, giving them more opportunities to exercise and gain self-confidenceXCreates a street network that is better and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclistsXCreates a cost-effective way to improve safety and accessibility for everyone using the roadsXHelps the vitality of town centers by allowing everyone, whether on foot, bike, or public transportation, to reach community hubs and businesses.XHelps reduce congestion & carbon emissions Build Complete StreetsXChoose alternatives 4 and 5XBenefits all city walkers, bikers and wheel chair usersXSafe and usable at all hoursXLighting provided before dawn and after duskXCost effective when compared to the off street trail Back-upThis material is the product of a partnership between America Walks and Sam Schwartz EngineeringOriginally published by Walkingspree 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Hans-Christoph Haenlein <hchaenlein@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:46 PM To:City Council Subject:YES to Regnart Creek Trail Hello City Council members,    I would like to add my support to the YES to Regnart Creek Trail voice, and will be at the City Council Meeting this evening to do  so in person.    We have lived in Cupertino for 21 years. For many great reasons, Cupertino is becoming increasingly populated and congested,  and any measures that support safe biking should be encouraged.    Sincerely,  Hans Haenlein  937 Brookgrove Lane,  Cupertino  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Cupertino ForAll <cupertinoforall@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:47 PM To:Steven Scharf; Rod Sinks; Jon Robert Willey; Liang Chao; Darcy Paul; City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject:Re: City Council 9/17/19 Meeting; Item No. 9 - Regnart Creek Trail Mayor Scharf and members of the City Council,    Cupertino for All strives to make Cupertino a more inclusive, vibrant, equitable, and connected community. The Regnart Creek  Trail accomplishes that goal by geographically binding separated parts of the community, and by providing an attractive, safer,  low‐carbon, no‐cost transportation option in an otherwise car‐dependent city. We support the trail and urge you to vote in favor  of completing the trail design and to select Option B. We believe this strikes the best balance between competing interests. We  also recommend that you reject Alternatives 4 and 5 as being inconsistent with the 2018 Pedestrian Plan.    Thank you for your attention. I hope that the decision you make tonight is the best one for everyone in our city.    — Marie L    Cupertino for All    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jean Pommier <pommier@us.ibm.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:54 PM To:City Council Subject:Regnart Creek - Incomplete design Esteemed Council Members,    With your day jobs and all your elected member duties, I don't know how you can keep up with emails but I've been told that it was important your citizens voice their concerns through this channel, so hoping you read this, and thank you in advance for your consideration.    1. Would it be possible for you to bring some reason into the decision process around this initiative and only make a decision about this initiative on a complete design, finally addressing the most contentious point, right in the middle of this trail layout. I trust you understand that the City cannot support an option in which the public would be led to wandering on private properties (Lozano Lane and De Palma Lane). If you persist in proceeding with a public path there, then it will have to be 100% fenced to avoid users on foot or wheels end up on De Palma Lane, where there is not right of way.    2. Could you please exemplify the fiscal responsibility we are expecting from our leaders by prioritizing projects and alternatives which serve similar purposes (citizen security) but a the fraction of the cost of Options A and B? It would be so much simpler, faster and cheaper to make dedicated bike lanes, like it is done in many other places in the world, without all the drama to touch on natural habitat, infringe residents privacy or even increase security issues on a section which has been opened in the 1970s only to get close again after serious incidents occurred.    3. Could you please bring back some partiality into the discussion and decision process, instead of fueling such a divisive issue which lost track of the initial goals and cost balance. So many supporters live blocks away and will unlikely go the distance just to walk for a few hundreds yards, something they could already do on current paths today.    We are so lucky to have among our City Council several engineers and scientists, who know what reasonable alternatives are, a lawyer, who can foresee all the liability issues that the most expensive options will create, additional legal costs which are not accounted for, and business entrepreneurs, who know that the current cost estimates, both CAPEX and OPEX, will keep rising as the design progresses and finally or eventually addresses the contentious issues which it has long avoided so far.    My neighborhood and I count on your wisdom to ask your staff to focus on Alternatives 4 and 5, both addressing the priorities of bikers and walkers for a fraction of the cost of options A or B.  If not such a decision tonight, at least a postponement until the design of all options is 100% complete, so everybody knows about the real costs and consequences.    Again, counting on your ethics, reason and wisdom tonight. And beyond/always.    Jean Pommier  20025 De Palma Lane  Cupertino  ---------------------- Jean Pommier Distinguished Engineer & CTO, Lab Services Digital Business Automation (BPM, ODM, ECM, RPA) - IBM Hybrid Cloud E: pommier@us.ibm.com  1 Cyrah Caburian From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence Subject:FW: I oppose the Regnart Creek Trail From: Megha Ilango <megha.ilango@yahoo.com>   Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:57 PM  To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>  Subject: I oppose the Regnart Creek Trail    Dear Cupertino City Council,    I am writing this email in order to voice my opposition against the proposed Regnart Creek Trail project that is being voted on tonight.    I will begin by introducing myself. I am a third‐year student at UCLA, majoring in computer science and minoring in public affairs. I  attended Eaton Elementary School, Lawson Middle School, and Cupertino High School. In that time, I walked to/from each of those  schools and home or friends' homes, most frequently during high school. I still use the residential sidewalks when walking to Cupertino  High School or Main Street Cupertino to visit teachers and friends, and when walking to friends’ houses.    In high school, when I walked to Tino from my house on Farallone Drive, I would walk on the sidewalks of the residential streets such  as Farallone and La Mar Drive. The most dangerous part of this journey was when I crossed Blaney on my way to La Mar Drive, a  crossing that would still be necessary even with the construction of the proposed trail. Looking back, I can’t imagine a situation where I  would take a narrow trail that I would have to walk around and behind my house to access rather than using the sidewalks on the  roads that my friends and I lived on.    Some advantages of walking on residential roads to/from school, the library, or other nearby locations are:  ‐ wide and uncrowded streets where I could fast walk or run when I was late without worrying about running into anyone  ‐ being spotted by neighboring friends’ parents who would stop at the side of the street and offer me a ride  ‐ being able to take an alternate route when I felt that I was being followed  ‐ being able to walk together with a group of friends without overcrowding the sidewalk and preventing others from passing    Some reasons I think the Regnart Creek Trail would not be a path that I would take:  ‐ it would be a nuisance to walk to the trailhead and then take what would be a longer path in walking distance to reach Blaney when I  could take shorter, safer residential sidewalks  ‐ if there were other children and bikers on the trail and the trail was very narrow, it would be hard to rush past them when getting to  school  ‐ like other trails, it would probably be open only during daylight hours, which wouldn’t be feasible before 7:00 or 7:30am start times  or after school activities  until 4 or 5pm in the winter    I’m sure these reasons aren’t just unique to me, and highly doubt that the trail would be used by many students even if it did open.  And if it was hypothetically frequently used by students who walked and biked, the risk of collisions on such a narrow 6‐8 ft path when  students are trying to get to school seems inevitable.    Spending $5‐6M on opening a narrow path by a creek just doesn’t seem reasonable for our community. Accidents would be better  prevented by investing in bike lanes and projects on main roads and school intersections. Even when it comes to making the city  greener, so much more effort could be spent thinking of how to better incorporate sustainability in development proposals (such as  the proposed Vallco development!).    I strongly encourage you to oppose the Regnart Creek Trail proposal. Thanks for your time.    Sincerely,  Megha  1 Cyrah Caburian From:spiritsprite_anita@yahoo.com Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 5:18 PM To:City Council Subject:I Oppose the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Cupertino City Council, I am writing this email to voice my opposition to the Regnart Creek trail project. I believe that this trail is a waste of taxpayer dollars for the city when students like me are able to comfortably use roads like La Mar to walk to Cupertino High School. Sincerely, Anita 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jehannaz Dastoor <jehannazdastoor2021@u.northwestern.edu> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 5:27 PM To:City Council Subject:Opposing the Regnart Creek Trail I am writing this email to voice my opposition against the Regnart Creek trail project.    I believe this trail is a waste of taxpayer dollars when safe paths to Cupertino schools are already available.    Thank you for your time.  1 Cyrah Caburian From:Revathy Narasimhan <revnar@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 5:38 PM To:Rod Sinks; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Steven Scharf; Liang Chao Cc:Larry Dean; Jennifer Shearin; Seema Lindskog Subject:Please approve the Regnart Creek Trail Dear Cupertino City Council Members, I am a Cupertino city resident for the past 8 years and have children attending the local schools. I am very proud about how accessible the city is for our walkers and bikers and have volunteered to further that cause with Walk-Bike Cupertino in the last 5 years. I strongly believe that we need exclusive walk-bike routes for our youngest citizens and our seniors for safety. By keeping kids and cars away from each other, we increase the likelihood for kids biking/walking to schools, leading to healthier lifestyles and raising independent kids. Further, opening up a trail allows for better safety within the neighborhood since it becomes a city-managed and promoted path for residents to use. I strongly support the Regnart Creek trail and urge you to vote in favor of it today. Many thanks, Revathy Narasimhan Advisory Member, Walk Bike Cupertino. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Jasmine Till <jasminetill@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 5:48 PM To:City Council Subject:Oppose the regnart creek trail     Dear Cupertino City Council,    I am a Cupertino High school alumni,   I am sending this email to voice my opposition against the Regnart Creek Trail proposal that is being voted on tonight at the city  council meeting.  I strongly encourage you to vote NO on the proposal.    Thanks,  Jasmine Till  ‐‐   Jasmine Till   California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo Business Administration, June 2021  (408) 332-3272  jasminetill@gmail.com  LinkedIn    1 Cyrah Caburian From:Laura Chin <lauraachin@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 7:25 PM To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office Cc:yes@regnartcreek.com Subject:Concerned Citizen Taking Action FOR Opening Regnart Creek Trail To the City of Cupertino, I want the City of Cupertino to open the Regnart Creek Trail. Two years ago, I was struck by a negligent driver the intersection of Stelling and Stevens Creek. I was just trying to get home. I was doing everything right, I was not jay walking or distracted by my cellphone, I was looking both ways and I had the right of way. I was only mere blocks from my house. I want to speak on behalf of all the vulnerable residents of Cupertino - students & school children, dog walkers like myself, the elderly, the cyclists. We need a safer environment to exercise, to commute, to enjoy our walkable, bike-able city. Having grown up in Cupertino, I have seen and experienced firsthand the immense changes that our city has experience with an increased population which means more cars, hotter tempers and more fear than ever. I am not the only person who has become a victim to these new times of traffic and increased accidents involving cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. I wince every single time I see a person jaywalking, a child without a helmet or a car slamming on their breaks narrowly avoiding a collision with a pedestrian. I have had to consider new changes to my lifestyle in my efforts to reduce the chance that I could be hit again. Nobody in our city should fear for their safety or the safety of their loved ones when we step out of the door and walk to the park or to the store or school, that we might be hospitalized or worse. I can only imagine the fears that parents' must have when allowing their children to walk or ride their bicycles to school, knowing what kind of drivers we have on the roads. I worry about my family friends who are avid cyclists and frantically check in whenever I hear that a cyclist was hit by a car. I am horrified seeing elderly folks unable to cross unprotected streets where there are no lights because no cars will stop for them or worse yet, seeing them jaywalk. Opening the Regnart Creek Trail would provide a completely protected area for our Cupertino residents to cycle, jog and walk. Given environmental concerns from the amount of drivers on the road at all hours of the day, this trail would enable people of all ages a safe way to commute and exercise without risk to harm. Not opening the trail, not utilizing this amazing space would be an immense opportunity lost. I urge the City Council members of Cupertino to consider the perspectives of those most vulnerable. Our city is walkable, our city is cycle-able - but let's make it better for our Cupertino, let's make it safer. Thank you, Laura C. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Gary Latshaw <glatshaw@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 17, 2019 9:19 PM To:City Council Subject:Sierra Club recommends full Process on Regnart Options Councilpersons:    As a member of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club, I would like to emphasize that the letter request a full EIR in the  decision making process.  Defining Alternatives 4 & 5 should be treated as equals along with the lettered Options. Some of the  degradation to the habitat could be offset by shrinking the trail to six‐feet in width. This was done in Mt. View.    Since the number of options is very large, you might request that the Bike‐Ped commission look at the information and analyses  that has been compiled by the staff's hard work and perhaps the commission could aid you in narrowing the number of options.    Thank you all for your service on a night like tonight when there are so many conflicting forces.    Good Night, Gary    ‐‐   Fight for Renewable Energies! Save the global ecology; create jobs; eliminate dependence on foreign oil; reduce military  requirements    Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.  408‐499‐3006