City Council and Authorities Concurrent
March 4, 2025

De La Cruz Boulevard, Lick Mill Boulevard,
and Scott Boulevard Bikeway Improvement
Study
Draft
February 2025
Kimley>>>Horn
City of
Santa Clara
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................... 7 Origins of the Project ................................................................................................................... 7 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 7 Project Methodology and Study Area ......................................................................................... 7 Timeline ....................................................................................................................................... 9

2. Study Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 10 Speed and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ...................................................................................... 10 Safety Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 10 Traffic Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 10 Parking Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 11 Travel Time ................................................................................................................................ 12 Vehicles Miled Traveled (VMT) .................................................................................................. 12

3. Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 13 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network .................................................................................. 13 Existing Conditions Overview Summary .................................................................................... 14 Safety ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Traffic ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Parking ....................................................................................................................................... 20

4. Concepts/Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 29 De La Cruz Boulevard ................................................................................................................. 29 Lick Mill Boulevard ..................................................................................................................... 35 Scott Boulevard Between Arques Avenue and Martin Avenue................................................. 39 Scott Boulevard Between Martin Avenue and Monroe Street ................................................. 41 Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue .............................................. 42

5. Evaluation Findings ............................................................................................................................. 47

6. Outreach Process and Results ............................................................................................................. 53 In-Person Outreach Events ........................................................................................................ 53 Table of Contents

1.1. 1.2.

1.3. 1.4.

2.1. 2.2.

2.3. 2.4.

2.5. 2.6.

3.1. 3.2.

3.3. 3.4.

3.5. 4.1.

4.2. 4.3.

4.4. 4.5.

6.1. Kimley>>> Horn 2
Project Voicemail and Email ...................................................................................................... 56 Online Survey Results ................................................................................................................ 57

7. Recommendations and Conclusion .................................................................................................... 61 Figure 1: Study Area Map .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2: Tree Lighting Ceremony Project Booth ........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Project Study Area .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4: Project Timeline .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5: 2018 Bike Plan Update Recommendations .................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6: De La Cruz Boulevard Collision Summary Map ............................................................................................. 15 Figure 7: Lick Mill Boulevard Collision Summary Map ................................................................................................. 16 Figure 8: Scott Boulevard Collision Summary Map 1/2 (Arques Ave to Walsh Ave) ................................................... 17 Figure 9: Scott Boulevard Collision Summary Map 2/2 (Walsh Ave to Saratoga Ave) ................................................ 18 Figure 10: De La Cruz Boulevard Parking Inventory .................................................................................................... 20 Figure 11: De La Cruz Boulevard Weekday Daytime Peak Hour Parking (10 AM to 11 AM) ....................................... 22 Figure 12: Lick Mill Boulevard Parking Inventory ........................................................................................................ 23 Figure 13: Lick Mill Boulevard Weekday Daytime Peak Hour Parking (7 AM to 8 AM) ............................................... 25 Figure 14: Scott Boulevard Parking Inventory ............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 15: Scott Boulevard Weekend Nighttime Peak Hour Parking (12 AM to 1 AM) ............................................... 28 Figure 16: De La Cruz Boulevard – Existing Conditions/No Build ................................................................................ 30 Figure 17: De La Cruz Boulevard – Concept A ............................................................................................................. 31 Figure 18: De La Cruz Boulevard – Concept B ............................................................................................................. 32 Figure 19: De La Cruz Boulevard – Concept C ............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 20: De La Cruz Boulevard – Concept D ............................................................................................................. 34 Figure 21: Lick Mill Boulevard – Existing Conditions/No Build .................................................................................... 35 Figure 22: Lick Mill Boulevard – Concept E ................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 23: Lick Mill Boulevard – Concept F .................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 24: Lick Mill Boulevard – Concept G ................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 25: Scott Boulevard Between Arques Avenue and Martin Avenue – Existing Conditions/No Build ................ 39 Figure 26: Scott Boulevard Between Arques Avenue and Martin Avenue – Alternative H ......................................... 40 Figure 27: Scott Boulevard Between Martin Avenue and Monroe Street – Existing Conditions/No Build ................. 41 Figure 28: Scott Boulevard Between Martin Avenue and Monroe Street – Proposed Alternative I ........................... 41 Figure 29: Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue – Existing Conditions/No Build .............. 42 Figure 30: Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue – Concept J ............................................ 43 Figure 31: Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue – Concept K ........................................... 44 Figure 32: Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue – Concept L............................................ 45 Figure 33: Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue – Concept M .......................................... 46 Figure 34: Community Meeting #2 .............................................................................................................................. 54 Figure 35: Community Meeting #3 .............................................................................................................................. 54 Figure 36: Tree Lighting Ceremony Project Booth ....................................................................................................... 56

6.2. 6.3.

List of Figures
Kimley>>> Horn 3
Table 1: Speed and ADT Summary ............................................................................................................................... 14 Table 2: De La Cruz Parking Utilization ........................................................................................................................ 21 Table 3: Lick Mill Boulevard Parking Utilization ........................................................................................................... 24 Table 4: Scott Boulevard Parking Utilization ............................................................................................................... 27 Table 5: De La Cruz Boulevard Analysis Summary Table ............................................................................................. 49 Table 6: Lick Mill Boulevard Analysis Summary Table ................................................................................................. 50 Table 7: Scott Boulevard Analysis Summary Table (Arques Ave to Martin Ave) ......................................................... 51 Table 8: Scott Boulevard Analysis Summary Table (Martin Ave to Monroe St) .......................................................... 51 Table 9: Scott Boulevard Analysis Summary Table (Monroe St to Saratoga Ave) ....................................................... 52

Appendix A: Existing Conditions Traffic LOS Maps
Appendix B: Existing Conditions Parking Occupancy Maps
Appendix C: Online Survey Alternative Cross Sections
Appendix D: With Project Traffic Analysis Reports
Appendix E: With Project Parking Analysis Maps
Appendix F: Outreach Materials
Appendix G: Online Survey Segment Map
Appendix H: Online Survey Results
List of Tables
Appendices
Kimley>>> Horn 4
$
( )
(
):
)
)
)
:

Executive Summary
On October 10, 2023, Council accepted Federal Community Project Funding in the amount of 2.725 million and established a new project for the De La Cruz Boulevard, Lick Mill Boulevard, and Scott Boulevard Bikeway Improvements Project "Project" . The Project scope of work includes traffic analyses and design concept analysis, public outreach, design, and construction of bicycle facilities on See Figure 1
1 De La Cruz Boulevard from Montague Expressway to Trimble Road 2 Lick Mill Boulevard from Tasman Drive to Montague Expressway 3 Scott Boulevard from the Calabazas Creek Trail to Saratoga Avenue S;inu,C l,1r,11
High School
0 0.25 0. 5
Figure 1 Study Area Map
1 MIies
Santa Clara
U11lvc~ lty
The goal is to enhance safety, improve mobility, and reduce vehicle emissions by implementing high priority bicycle projects identified in the Santa Clara Bicycle Kimley>>> Horn 5 City of
Santa Clara
( )
( )
( )
:

Plan while connecting local residential communities, schools, libraries, and major employers within Santa Clara. The project includes reviewing potential project options such as lane narrowing, parking removal, or travel lane removal on the corridors.

The first phase of the Project, the De La Cruz Boulevard, Lick Mill Boulevard, and Scott Boulevard Bikeway Improvements Study "Study" developed concept alternatives, prepared traffic and parking analysis, conducted two rounds of public engagement Figure 2, and met with the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee BPAC on four occasions. The proposed concepts were developed based on an analysis of the corridors, recommendations in the Santa Clara Bicycle Plan Update 2018, engagement with the City's BPAC, and two rounds of public outreach efforts.

Figure 2 Tree Lighting Ceremony Project Booth
Kimley>>> Horn 6 City of
Santa Clara

( )
( )
( )
:
•
•
• ( )
$
( )

1. Introduction and Background

1.1. Origins of the Project
In 2019, the City of Santa Clara "City" approved and adopted the Bicycle Master Plan Update 2018 "Bike Plan", which identified and prioritized corridors needing bikeway facilities that could generate the greatest benefits to the community at low costs . The Plan identified the following three corridors "Corridors" as high priorities for bikeway improvements
De La Cruz Boulevard between Montague Expressway and W. Trimble Road
Lick Mill Boulevard between Tasman Drive and Montague Expressway Scott Boulevard between Arques Ave city border and Saratoga Ave On October 10, 2023, Santa Clara City Council accepted a federal earmark grant in the amount of 2.725 million and established a new project for the De La Cruz Boulevard, Lick Mill Boulevard, and Scott Boulevard Bikeway Improvements Project "Project" . The goal of the Project is to study, design, and install bikeway facilities along the Corridors per the Bike Plan's recommendations in order to improve safety as well as close gaps in and expand the City's bike network.

1.2. Project Objectives
Phase 1 of the Project, which kicked off in September 2024, proposed and analyzed the impacts of different design alternatives based on the Bike Plan's recommendations. This memo documents existing conditions, community input, and analysis results.

1.3. Project Methodology and Study Area
Figure 3 shows the three Project corridors.

Kimley>>> Horn 7 City of
Santa Clara
:
( )

Sant:ii Cl:.ra
High School
Figure 3 Project Study Area
o-=o=.25-=0.S==lMlles
S.antaClara
Unlvcrslly
A multitude of data sources including parking data, traffic data, collision records, and in-person site visits were used to understand the existing conditions of the Corridors and estimate the changes associated with each design alternative.

Additionally, the Project gathered extensive input from the Santa Clara community through a multitude of engagement activities as well as multiple meetings with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee BPAC.

Results from the analysis and community outreach are summarized in this memo with additional information included as Appendices . The City Council will consider the design alternatives and decide the best path forward for each corridor based on the analysis results and community feedback .

Kimley>>> Horn 8 City of
Santa Clara

:

1.4. Timeline
The project was initially presented to the BPAC in the Summer of 2024. The Project then conducted data collection to gain an understanding of the existing conditions within the Corridor and develop preliminary project alternatives. After the data collection and alternatives development phase, the project team conducted a technical evaluation of the alternatives . During the evaluation period the Project conducted community engagement to better understand community perspectives on project trade -offs. The community feedback and technical analysis were used to evaluate the preliminary concepts and progress toward a preferred design alternative. This Study will be presented to BPAC on January 27, and posted online for community review and feedback, before the project ultimately advances to the City Council for determination of next steps. Figure 4 shows the project timeline .

Data Collection and Develop
Alternatives
Kimley>>> Horn
Figure 4 Project Timeline
Evaluate Altemalives
9 Prepare ProJect
Report
City of
Santa Clara

( )
(
)

:
( ) ( )
( )

2. Study Methodology
The data collection and analysis methodology are detailed below .

2.1. Speed and Average Daily Traffic ADT
Daily traffic and speed counts were collected at nine locations across the three corridors for a 48-hour weekday period from November 13th through November 14, 2024. For each corridor, the 85th percentile speed the speed at which 85 percent of all motorists travel at or below was averaged over the two collection dates. The ADT counts were aggregated for both directions of travel and then averaged between the two collection dates. It should be noted that count collection sites on Scott Boulevard were only located south of Martin Avenue as this is the only area of the corridor that has proposed travel lane removal.

2.2. Safety Analysis
The City's Traffic Engineering Division provided collision data for the five-year period from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2023, for all three corridors . The safety analysis considered crash level of severity, pedestrian-related crashes, and bicyclist-related crashes to understand collision patterns and safety trends throughout the study area.

2.3. Traffic Analysis
Existing Conditions
Traffic counts for the analysis were provided by the City for two peak hour periods AM 7-9 AM and PM 4-6 PM . Data was collected on weekdays in April and May of 2024. Additionally, the City provided a Vistro model as a base point for the traffic analysis that had existing roadway geometry and signal configurations for major arterials. The traffic analysis evaluated the current Level of Service LOS for each study intersection based on criteria established in the City's Transportation Analysis Policy. Per City policy, intersections on City-owned streets should meet LOS Dor better . Intersections that lie within the County of Santa Clara jurisdiction, including county expressways, should meet LOS E or better.

Kimley>>> Horn 10 City of
Santa Clara
( )

( )
( )

( ) ( )

Project Conditions
Several concepts propose the removal of travel lanes. To estimate the impact of lane removal on traffic congestion, new Vistro model scenarios were built to reflect changes in roadway geometry.

The City also provided its citywide travel demand model, which was used to model how roadway changes affect travel patterns. The analysis found minimal change in delay with lane reductions on project corridors see Section 3.4, thus no significant vehicle diversion to other streets is forecast to occur with the proposed lane reduction.

2.4. Parking Analysis
Existing Conditions
A parking analysis was completed to determine parking occupancy along each of the three Study corridors, as well as adjacent side streets within 500 ft of the three Study corridors. Parking counts were collected on three consecutive weekdays Tuesday through Thursday on October 8, 9, and 10, 2024, and on Saturday, October 12, 2024. Data was collected in 30-minute periods from 7 AM to 7 PM and 11 PM to 2 AM.

Parking inventories, or the number of available parking spaces on a given roadway segment, were estimated in-field using an assumption of 22' to 24' for the average car length. It should be noted that parking inventories near crosswalks were adjusted to account for California's New Daylighting Law AB 413 that took effect on January 1, 2025.

To identify the peak daytime and nighttime parking hours for weekdays, parking occupancy was averaged across the three weekdays for each hour, and the hour with the highest average occupancy was chosen as the peak hour. A peak hour was chosen for both daytime 7AM-7PM and nighttime periods 11PM-2AM. The same process was used to determine weekend peak hour occupancy for the Saturday data.

Project Conditions
Several design alternatives propose the removal of parking on one or both sides of the street. As a result, cars that currently park along the project corridors where parking removal is proposed will need to relocate to available parking spaces on Kimley>>> Horn 11 City of
Santa Clara

( )
( )
( )
( )
(
)
nearby side streets. In this instance, nearby side streets are assumed to be those that are within 500ft of the parking space in question. This parking diversion was estimated for each of the applicable design alternatives . The analysis notes locations where cars do not have nearby available parking spaces to relocate.

Additionally, some of the proposed alternatives include parking-protected bike lanes. These separated bike lanes will require a reduction in the number of parking spots due to required setbacks from driveways for visibility. The full parking analysis results can be seen in Section 3.5.

2.5. Travel Time
Existing Conditions
A travel time analysis was completed to evaluate the time it takes to travel the entire length of each study corridor in a car. Travel time data was obtained from INRIX, a web based software that uses roadway sensors and vehicle data to provide traffic data and visualizations. Data for each of the Project corridors was averaged for both travel directions from 7 AM to 7 PM across typical weekdays Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday from September 1 to September 30, 2024.

Project Conditions
A travel time analysis was also completed for all project alternatives that include the removal of up to one travel lane in each direction on the study corridor.

Changes in approach level intersection delay, derived from the traffic analysis, was averaged for each travel direction, and then added to the existing travel time to arrive at a With Project travel time condition.

2.6. Vehicles Miled Traveled VMT
Project Conditions
Quantifying Reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled from New Bike Paths, Lanes, and Cycle Tracks California Air Resources Board provides a methodology to estimate the reduction in annual vehicle miles traveled VMT as a result of a proposed bike facility . The calculation considers bicycle counts counts taken on the street to be improved with the bike facility, or, in the case of a facility not on an existing street, a parallel street, the corridor length, and a seasonal adjustment factor.

Kimley>>> Horn 12 City of
Santa Clara

:

3. Existing Conditions

3.1. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Existing and recommended bicycle infrastructure per the City's Bike Plan within and connecting to the Study area is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 2018 Bike Plan Update Recommendations
' '
,J; ;. ) • CA,::,B,::::Rl= ::c...._
' t ' ,:l
I ~ ... · .... y~
~ ... ' ~ ................. . ~i S EL CAM,NO REAL
'
~
' '"='
L_. Cunis
Existing Bikeways
o Bridgeor
Undercrossing
- Class I Shared­
Use Path
- Class II Bicycle
Lane
- Class Ill Bicycle
Route
Kimley>>> Horn
Sd1ool
... Class I Shared-Use Path
... Class 11 Bicycle Lane
Class 118 Buffered Bicycl e Lane
••· Class 111 Bicycle Route
... Class 111B Bicycle Boulevard
Class IV Separated Bikeway
13 ..
··,_
: CENTRA EXPY
a
e
L •, \
[\.; : ; ·~ """ ·-~
'
I
' '
/
City of
Santa Clara

:
( ) ( )

%
% %
%
( ) %
De La Cruz Boulevard
Within the Study limits, De La Cruz Boulevard has no existing bicycle infrastructure .

The 2018 Bike Plan Update recommends Class II bike lanes north of Montague Park, and Class IV separated bike lanes south of the park.

Lick Mill Boulevard
Within the Study limits, Lick Mill Boulevard is classified as a Class Ill bike route with vehicles and bikes sharing the roadway. The 2018 Bike Plan Update recommends Class IV separated bike lanes throughout the entire corridor.

Scott Boulevard
From Arques Ave to Monroe Street Scott Boulevard has existing Class II bike lanes.

The remainder of the corridor currently has no bike facilities . The 2018 Bike Plan Update recommends Class II bike lanes or Class IIB buffered bike lanes throughout the entire corridor .

3.2. Existing Conditions Overview Summary
Table 1 summarizes the 85th percentile speed, ADT, and travel time for each of the project corridors.

Table 1 Speed and ADT Summary
asth Percentile Average Travel Time
Roadway Posted Speed Speed mph Daily Traffic
ADT
De La Cruz 35 MPH 40 9,949 5 Minutes and
Boulevard 16 Seconds
Lick Mill 35 MPH 43 9,753 6 Minutes and
Boulevard 33 Seconds
Scott 35 MPH 39 15,757 15 Minutes and
Boulevard1 23 Seconds
1 Data for Scott Boulevard includes corridor extents south of Martin Avenue.

On De La Cruz Boulevard, which has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, 39 of drivers drove over the posted speed limit. On Lick Mill Boulevard, which also has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, 62 of drivers drove over the speed limit . Of the 62 of drivers measured to be exceeding the speed limit on Lick Mill Boulevard, 89 were within 9 mph of the posted speed. For the portion of Scott Boulevard with a posted speed of 35 mph south of Martin Ave, 33 of drivers exceeded the speed limit.

Kimley>>> Horn 14 City of
Santa Clara

:

3.3. Safety
De La Cruz Boulevard
De La Cruz Boulevard had 68 collisions in the five-year period, including two pedestrian-involved collisions and two bike-involved collisions . 28 of the 68 collisions resulted in some level of injury or complaint of pain, and each of the four non-motorized collisions resulted in a level of injury. Mapped collision locations along De La Cruz Boulevard is shown in
Figure 6. All collisions within a 150-ft radius of an intersection were assigned to the intersection. These intersections are represented using circles of varying size with a larger circle representing a higher number of collisions.

Figure 6 De La Cruz Boulevard Collision Summary Map
Legend
c:J StudyArea
Collision Type s
o Auto-Only Collision
• Bicycle Collision
• Pedestrian Collision
Locations with Multiple
Colli sions
e
26 Collisions
14 Collisions
2 Collisions
Collision data is shown for
2018-2023 and was provided by
the City of Santa Clara Traffic
Engineering Olvislon.
o__,o=.0=-5 -0=.1 ==O~lles
Kimley>>> Horn
Montague Exr Y
Clyde Av Q
Mon tague
Elem entar y
School
Perry Ct
0 8
23 Auto-Only Collisions @
1 Bicycle Colffslon ~
2 Pedestrian Collisions
Bellwood Dr
OakwoodD'
Aldo Ave
0 Laurelwood Rd
0 0
•
15 I
City of
Santa Clara
:

Lick Mill Boulevard
Lick Mill Boulevard had 47 collisions in the five-year period, including two bike­ involved collisions. Some level of injury or complaint of pain were noted in 13 of the 47 collisions. The two bicyclist-related collisions resulted in a level of injury or complaint of pain. Mapped collision locations along Lick Mill Boulevard can be found in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Lick Mill Boulevard Collision Summary Map
Legend
Study Area
Collision Types
o Auto-Only Collision
• Bicycle Collision
• Pedestrian Coll ision
Locations with Multiple
Collisions
(Q)
11 Collisions
7 Collisions
2 Collisions
Collision data is shown for
2018-2023 and was provided by
the City of Santa Clara Traffic
Engineering Division.

Lick Mill
Park
7 Auto-Only Collisions
1 Bicycle Collision
Agnews Historic
Park
o_ a::::0:::.0:111 _ 0.:::15===::iOJ iles
Kimley>>> Horn
16 Ulistac Natural
Area
0 0
./J-LiveOak ~
Park fl'
J' 0
l'f\Oreland Way
10 Auto-Only Collisions
1 Bicycle Collision
Montague Expwy
City of
Santa Clara
: / ( )

Scott Boulevard
Scott Boulevard had 231 collisions in the five-year period, including seven pedestrian-involved collisions and seven bike-involved collisions. Some level of injury or complaint of pain were noted in 96 of the 231 collisions, including 13 of the 14 non-motorized collisions. Additionally, one vehicular collision at the intersection of Scott Boulevard and Jay Street resulted in a fatality. Mapped collision locations along Scott Boulevard Figure 8 and Figure 9.

Figure 8 Scott Boulevard Collision Summary Map 1 2 Arques Ave to Walsh Ave Legend
Study Area
Collision Types
o Auto-Only Collision
• Bicyc le Collis ion
• Pedestrian Collision
Locations with Mult iple
Collisions
e
27 Coll isions
15 Collisions
2 Collisions
Collisio n data is shown for
2018-2023 and was provided by
the City of Santa Clara Traffic
Engineering Division.

Key Map
,J
- - - - _,I
San Tomas Expwy
(8
(§J
Oakmead Pkwy
Bowers Ave
,?do Dr
e 8 0
0 ~
~
0 Olcott St 0
Jay St
0 Garrett Dr
Lakeside 0(
Mission
Coll ege
~-----~ 9 Auto -Only Collisions
1 Bicycle Collision
1 Pedestrian Collision
8 Auto-Only Collisions
1 Pedestrian Collision
Montgomery Dr
Octavius Dr Santa
Clara Park
26 Auto-Only Col lisions
1 Bicycle Collision
Q0> 00 00 Qo O O
Kimley>>> Horn
1 Auto-On ly Collision
1 Bicycle Collision
17 Sheet 1 of 2
City of
Santa Clara
: / ( )

Figure 9 Scott Boulevard Collision Summary Map 2 2 Walsh Ave to Saratoga Ave !See Sheet 1
Legend
Study Area II
Collision Types
o Auto-Only Collision Ir'
• Bicycle Co llision
• Pedestrian Collis ion
Locations with Multiple
Collisions
e
27 Coll isions
15 Collisions
2 Collisions
Collision data is shown for
2018-2023 and was provided by
the City of Santa Clara Traffic
Engineering Division .

Key Map
1------7
Cab rilloAve
Royal Dr
Warburton Ave
Bt'3YAve
®
Anna Dr
e
U>
0 g
0 9
0 Martin Ave
7 Auto-O nly Collisions
1 Pedestrian Collision
21 Auto -Only Co llisions
2 Bicycle Collision
13 Auto -Only Co llisions
1 Bicycle Collision
1 Pedestrian Collision
2 Auto-On ly Collisions
1 Pedestrian Collision
11 Auto-Only Collisions
1 Pedestrian Collision
eS\
o Cathe{,~
Harriso n St O
f
0 Benton St O
C.W. Haman
Elementary
School ,aO ~
es\e
~o~
0 0.13 0.25 0 .5
--== =--c::: ====:::iMiles
Kimley>>> Horn
0 18
10 Auto-Only Collisions
1 Bicycle Collision
1 Pedestrian Collision
Mission City
Memorial Park
,.

Sheet 2of 2
City of
Santa Clara

( )
&
& &
&
&
& &
&

3.4. Traffic
Detailed traffic modeling was completed at 46 study intersections along the three Project corridors. As noted in the Study Methodology section of this report, the traffic analysis evaluated the current Level of Service LOS for each study intersection based on criteria established in the City's Transportation Analysis Policy. Maps showing LOS at each intersection can be found in Appendix A.

De La Cruz Boulevard
Based on the analysis, 8 of 9 De La Cruz Boulevard intersections operate acceptably under existing conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. The one intersection that currently does not meet the City's LOS standard is De La Cruz Boulevard Laurelwood Avenue, which operates as LOSE in the AM and LOS Fin the PM.

Lick Mill Boulevard
Based on the analysis, 14 of 16 intersections operate acceptably under existing conditions during the AM and 15 of 16 operate acceptably during PM peak hours.

The intersections that currently do not meet the City's LOS standard in the AM period are Lick Mill Boulevard East River Parkway and Lick Mill Boulevard Fitzpatrick Way, which both operate at LOS E. The intersection that does not meet the City's LOS standard in the PM period is Lick Mill Boulevard East Tasman Drive, which operates at LOS E.

Scott Boulevard
Based on the analysis, 20 of 21 intersections operate acceptably under existing conditions during the AM and 18 of 21 operate acceptably during PM peak hours.

The intersection that currently does not meet the City's LOS standard in the AM period is Scott Boulevard Cabrillo Avenue, which operates at LOSE. The intersections that do not meet the City's LOS standard in the PM period are the intersections of Scott Boulevard Cabrillo Avenue and Scott Boulevard Harrison Street which operate at a LOS F and Scott Boulevard Serra Avenue which operates at a LOS E.

Kimley>>> Horn
19 City of
Santa Clara

.
:

3.5. Parking
The existing conditions parking data is detailed for each corridor below. For additional parking occupancy maps see Appendix B
De La Cruz Boulevard
Figure 10 shows De La Cruz Boulevard's existing parking inventory .

Figure 10 De La Cruz Boulevard Parking Inventory
Legend
0 0 .05 0.1 0.2
•--===---====ilv1iles
Kimley>>> Horn
Montague
Elementary
Schoo l
Montague
Park
Golden State
~~ff!~!
...
~ ""'---' ~ --<1?);...----,, -;---1_,,...__ Aldo Ave
PerryCt ~
(1)
r
Ql
(")
2 N
cc
< a.
'N'
j .,., 00) • Lao,. lwood Rd
20 City of
Santa Clara
%

:
% %
% %
% %
% %

On De La Cruz Boulevard, the highest parking occupancy was observed on weekdays from 10 AM to 11 AM. During this hour, 34 of all available parking was used, leaving two-thirds of the parking inventory unoccupied. Table 2 summarizes the weekday parking occupancy for daytime and nighttime conditions on De La Cruz Boulevard .

Table 2 De La Cruz Parking Utilization
On-Street Parking Weekday Daytime Peak Hour Weekday Nighttime Peak Hour Parking Location Inventory Parking Occupancy Parking Occupancy
North of 111 22 17 Montague Park
South of 55 49 0 Montague Park
Side Streets 249 37 22
Total 415 34 18
During the daytime, the industrial area south of Montague Park was observed to have the highest occupancy. During the nighttime, the residential area north of Montague Park was observed to have higher occupancy . The parking occupancy for the daytime peak hour period is shown in Figure 11 . Darker blue segments represent a higher utilization of the existing parking spaces.

Kimley>>> Horn 21 City of
Santa Clara
: ( )

Figure 11 De La Cruz Boulevard Weekday Daytime Peak Hour Parking 10 AM to 11 AM Legend
Average Occupancy
(% of Total Parking Used)
0%-25%
- 26%-50%
- 51%- 75%
- 76%- 90%
- 91%- 100%
Kimley>>> Horn
Montague Expwy
Montag ue
Eleme ntary
School
Montagu e
Park
Gol den State
Baptist
Coll ege
Perry Ct
Bellwood Dr
==:::::. Aldo Ave
0 (I)
r
0)
()
2 N
o:l
< 0.
22 oakWOOdo.,.

City of
Santa Clara
:

Lick Mill Boulevard
Figure 12 shows the parking inventory along Lick Mill Boulevard and adjacent side streets.

Figure 12 Lick Mill Boulevard Parking Inventory
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
Number of
Parking Spaces
Agnews Historic
Park
o_-=o=.0=7-•0c.15====0Jiles
Kimley>>> Horn
QI
!S'-'l>(\
'\'l>°'
Lick Mill
Park
Hope Dr
cc
< 0..

Ulistac Natural
Area
live Oak
Park
Montague Expwy
23 City of
Santa Clara
%

:
( ) % %
( ) % %
% %
% %
%

On Lick Mill Boulevard, the highest parking occupancy was observed on weekdays from 7 AM to 8 AM. During this hour, 46 of all available parking was used, leaving roughly half of the parking inventory unoccupied. Table 3 summarizes the weekday parking occupancy for the corridor.

Table 3 Lick Mill Boulevard Parking Utilization
On-Street Parking Weekday Daytime Peak Hour Weekday Nighttime Peak Parking Location Inventory Parking Occupancy Hour Parking Occupancy North of Laird
Circle South 339 40 13
South of Laird
Circle South 48 46 48
Side Streets 131 60 65
Total 518 46 29
On weekdays, side streets were more highly utilized than parking on Lick Mill Boulevard. It should be noted that portions of Lick Mill Boulevard near Laird Circle were observed to have parking availability less than 10 . Additionally, low parking availability was observed near East Tasman Drive. The parking demand in this location is expected to be temporary, however, as parking patterns suggest that the parked cars are associated with temporary construction north of Lick Mill Boulevard. The parking occupancy for the daytime peak hour period is shown in Figure 13.

Kimley>>> Horn 24 City of
Santa Clara
: ( )

Figure 13 Lick Mill Boulevard Weekday Daytime Peak Hour Parking 7 AM to 8 AM Legend
Average Occupancy
(% of Total Parking Used)
0% - 25%
26%-50%
Agnews Historic
Park
0 0.07 0.15 0.3
--== =--=====M iles
Kimley>>> Horn
Lick Mill
Park
Hope Dr
25 ~
OJ
< 0.

Ulistac Natural
Area
LiveOak_fJ Park
e;,'?><:--o Way (
~o'-
Montague Expwy
City of
Santa Clara
:

Scott Boulevard
Figure 14 shows parking inventory along Scott Boulevard and adjacent to the corridor. On-street parking is not allowed north of Monroe Street.

Figure 14 Scott Boulevard Parking Inventory
Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
CD
Key Map
.,.!
Number of
Parking Spaces
Menzel
Roya
o •--==o=.1=--0=.2====0 .~iles
Kimley>>> Horn
"O >
co
::::
0 (.)
(/)
26 No on-street parking on project
corridor north of Monroe St
1 ADA Space
ena
City of
Santa Clara
% %

:
% %
% %
% %
% %
% %
%

On Scott Boulevard, the highest overall parking occupancy was observed from 12 AM to 1 AM, both during weekdays and on weekends. The occupancy during this hour was 62 for both weekdays and the weekend, leaving less than 40 unoccupied. Table 4 summarizes the weekend parking occupancy for Scott Boulevard.

Table 4 Scott Boulevard Parking Utilization
On-Street Parking Parking Weekend Daytime Peak Weekend Nighttime Peak Location Inventory Hour Parking Occupancy Hour Parking Occupancy Between Monroe Street 96 77 81 and Harrison Street
Between Harrison Street 72 40 42 and Homestead Road
South of Homestead 75 60 59 Road
Side Street 777 60 61
Total 1,020 60 62
All segments of Scott Boulevard and side streets were more highly utilized during nighttime than daytime . It should be noted that portions of Scott Boulevard were observed to have parking availability less than 10 . Parking occupancies are shown by segment in Figure 15.

Kimley>>> Horn 27 City of
Santa Clara
: ( )
Figure 15 Scott Boulevard Weekend Nighttime Peak Hour Parking 12 AM to 1 AM Legend
Average Occupa ncy
(% of Total Parking Used)
0%-25%
- 26%- 50%
- 51%-75%
- 76%-90%
- 91%- 100%
1J
> m
~
(.)
(/)
Key Map
'1101]
ro<S>
St --... ......JL
....!
Menzel Pl
Royal
• BfoY Ave
Harriso n St
Benton St
0 0 .1 0.2 0.4
--===--=====::::J Miles
Kimley>>> Horn 28
Warbu
l"fon A>Je
El Camino Re-a\
•
City of
Santa Clara
/
( )

4. Concepts Alternatives
The Study identifies roadway concepts and a no-build option for each of the three Project corridors. The concept alternatives see Appendix C were developed and modified based on feedback from BPAC. Each concept is summarized by Project corridor below.

4.1. De La Cruz Boulevard
No Build Option
This concept represents a "No Build" scenario and matches the existing condition on De La Cruz Boulevard from Montague Expressway to West Trimble Road. See Figure 16 for a schematic of existing conditions.

Kimley>>> Horn 29 City of
Santa Clara
: –

Figure 16 De La Cruz Boulevard No Build Option
Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
Removed Parking
------ Segment
-----► Travel Lane
.---,...,,_ Removed
.....__,,...... Travel Lane
==;> Center-Turn Lane
Class 11B Bike Lane
..._ Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • ,..... (separated)
Class IV Bike Lane
■ ■ 11 • (parking-protected)
o- -=o=.0::115- oc.1====0.~iles
Kimley>>> Horn
Montague E.xpwy I
__J Bellwood Dr
Clyde Av~ ,n •--=~" == , _::; •• oakwood o,.
:,... ~
<!I "" ,$ .<!I
0 ' itr !t
Montague {r Elemen tary
School
Montague
Park
Golde n St ate
Baptist
Colleg e
Perry Ct
0 (1)
r
"' (")
2 N
CD
< a.
ll ft
30 ("~,S
t1i,OodCi1
Laurelwood Rd
..

City of
Santa Clara
:
: –

Corridor Concept A Two Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes, Center Turn Lane, Parking on Both Sides
This concept removes one travel lane in each direction to make room for Class 11B buffered bike lanes. It also provides a center-turn lane throughout the corridor. See Figure 17 for a schematic of the alternative .

Figure 17 De La Cruz Boulevard Corridor Concept A
Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
Segmen t
-----► Travel Lane
......----..r-- Removed
------,.....- Travel Lane
C:::::::::::::: Center-Turn Lane
cc cc Class IIB Bike Lane
...._ Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • .,...- (separated)
Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • ♦ (parking-protec ted)
0•--=0=.0=-~-=0.=1 ===q~iles
Kimley>>> Horn
__l Bellwood Dr
Montagu _e E,xpwY ' I
ClydeAvjln
J J :=~" == oakwoOQ' o,.
f $
d* -~ __ ,,..
□
□
□
Q"
Mont ague b
EIS~h:T'Y Greeowoo
<:.;,.St •
i,,OodC1I
=======::; :==== Aldo Ave 0
Perry Ct
" ~
()
2 N
a,
[
31 City of
Santa Clara
:
: –
Corridor Concept B Two Lanes, Buffered and Parking Protected Bike Lanes, Center Turn Lane, Parking on Both Sides
This concept removes one travel lane in each direction to make room for Class 11B buffered bike lanes north of Montague Park and Class IV parking-protected, separated bike lanes south of the park. It also provides a center-turn lane throughout the corridor. See Figure 18 for a schematic of the alternative .

Figure 18 De La Cruz Boulevard Corridor Concept B
Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
Segment
---~ Travel Lane
r--------------Removed
----,......- Travel Lane
~ Center-Turn Lane
Class IIB Bike Lane
..._ Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • 'P"" (separated)
..._ Class IV Bike Lane
■ ■ ■ ■ 'P"" (parking-protected)
0 0.05 0 .1 0.2 .
•--==--~===•Miles
Kimley>>> Horn
Mo,Hague
Par-k
Golden Stale
g~ri!~!
=======::; :==== Aldo Ave c:,
Perry Ct
ct>
r
ll>
Q
C
N
ex,
[
32 City of
Santa Clara
:
: –

Corridor Concept C Four Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes, Remove Parking On One Side
This concept removes parking on one side of the street to make room for Class 11B buffered bike lanes. See Figure 19 for a schematic of the alternative.

Figure 19 De La Cruz Boulevard Corridor Concept C
Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
Segment
--11111•► Travel Lane
.--------J'-..- Removed
---,,.....- Travel Lane
==~> Center-Turn Lane
Class IIB Bike Lane
...._ Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • .,... (separated)
Class IV Bike Lane
■ ■ ■ ■ ♦ (parking-protected
0 0 .05 0 .1 0.2
•-~::::::11--===::i, Miles
Kimley>>> Horn
Montagu -e Expwy \
_l Bellwood Di
Clyde Av~· n··-=~H== J I ,- . oakwood D,-
l :; I \\ TT:
" : ~ <5'
Erre°.::~~~~~y r· {r G,.een>tJol' School I
I cqs
Montague 11 1*ood Cil
Pork I
Golden Stat ' /
~~ff!~~ ,' I
I
I
--=:;=====::; ':==== io - Aldo Ave
1<0
1!;
I n
rn
I S!!
:~
PerryCt 1
I
I
=ll ! ff:
:::::::: 1 Laurelwood Rd
I I
I
I
(
33 City of
Santa Clara
: /
: –
Corridor Concept D Four Lanes, Buffered and Protected Buffered Bikeways, Remove Parking
This concept removes parking on one side of the street to make room for Class 11B buffered bike lanes north of Montague Park and parking on both sides of the street to make room for Class IV separated bike lanes south of the park. See Figure 20 for a schematic of the alternative.

Figure 20 De La Cruz Boulevard Corridor Concept D
Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
Segment
--~~ Travel Lane
r--------------Removed
----,,...- Travel Lane
c:::::=::> Center-Turn Lane
i::i □ Class IIB Bike Lane
...._ Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • 'P'" (separated)
...._ Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • 'P'" (parking-protec ted
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 .
•--==--~===•Miles
Kimley>>> Horn
Montague £J<pWY \
__l Bellwood Dr
Clyde Avj 1n. 11
, =~--== oakwood D,.
lt=u' ht:

I ~ c:S'
E'i!~!~~~:y r· {r 0,.een'J./00'1:, School I
I .t<>s
Mo.,tague 11 ti,..Ood Ci!
Park I
I ,,
Go~i"t~\•te //
c oUege I/ II II
II
--======::;· '·-==== .- Aldo Ave
• 'c:, . •~ I l o,
, 10
I rn I 10:,
I•[
PerryCt I :

I
I
tll !ffr ====:::: 1 Laurelwood Rd
I
' I
I
\~
34 City of
Santa Clara

: –

4.2. Lick Mill Boulevard
No Build Option
This concept represents a "No Build" scenario and matches the existing configuration of Lick Mill Boulevard from Tasman Drive to Montague Expressway.

See Figure 21 for a schematic of existing conditions.

Figure 21 Lick Mill Boulevard No Build Option
Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
Segment
--•► Travel Lane
,..........._._ Removed
~ Travel Lane
Class IIB Bike Lane
...._ Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • .,... (separated)
...._ Class IV Bike Lane
■ ■ ■ ■ .,... (parking-protected
Ag news Hi sto ric
Park
o_-==o.=01_ 0-=.1=5===0 ·Jiles
Kimley>>> Horn
Ulist ac Nahiral
Arec1
Live Oak
Park
"'oWay 7 ~'(;
~o{
Montague Expwy
35 City of
Santa Clara
:
: –

Concept E Two Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes, Parking on Both Sides This concept removes one travel lane in each direction to make room for Class 11B buffered bike lanes. See Figure 22 for a schematic of the alternative.

Figure 22 Lick Mill Boulevard Concept E
Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
Segment
---•► Travel Lane
,.........._._. Removed
---,,....- Travel Lane
=~:> Center-Turn Lane
Class IIB Bike Lane
...._ Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • .,... (separated)
...._ Class IV Bike Lane
■ ■ ■ ■ .,... (parking-protected)
Agnews Historic
Park
o_ -==o.=01_ 0-=.1=5===0.~iles
Kimley>>> Horn
'1>(\~l
'l.'1>°',s,
u[
,;1\~m ~
Ulistac Natural
Area
I tit~
\\I ~ ~
::;, ~ arly~C'-
HopeDr ~~
<"
~'bi \
~''-"' ~ 0'1>{ ~
&-· -::.:o-
000
0 Live Oak
Park
Mon tague Expwy
36 City of
Santa Clara
:
: –

Concept F Two Lanes, Parking Protected Bike Lanes
This concept removes one travel lane in each direction to make room for Class IV parking-protected bike lanes. See Figure 23 for a schematic of the alternative.

Figure 23 Lick Mill Boulevard Concept F
Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
Segment
-~-► Travel Lane
.------i-,..,,. Removed
...____,,..., Travel Lane
c::==> Center-Turn Lane
cc Class IIB Bike Lane
..... Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • .,... (separated)
Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • • (parking-protected)
Ag news Hi sto ric
Park
0_■=0=·=01_0■=.1=5===0.~iles
Kimley>>> Horn
Ulistac Natura l
Arca
Montague Expwy
37 City of
Santa Clara
: /
( )
: –
Concept G Three Four Lanes, Protected and Buffered Bike Lanes, Remove Parking
This concept removes parking on both sides of the street to make room for Class IV separated bike lanes. Parking does not exist today on the east side of Lick Mill Boulevard, south of Laird Circle S , so this concept removes a northbound travel lane for this segment. See Figure 24 for a schematic of the alternative.

Figure 24 Lick Mill Boulevard Concept G
Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
Segment
--•• Travel Lane
,-....--1'. Removed
....__,,..., Travel Lane
==;> Center-Turn Lane
Class IIB Bike Lane
...._ Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • ,..... (separated)
Class IV Bike Lane
• • • • • (parking-protected)
Ag news Historic
Park
o_-=o=.0=-7 _ oc:.15===:::iOJiles
Kimley>>> Horn
Montague Expwy
38 City of
Santa Clara

( )
: –

4.3. Scott Boulevard Between Arques Avenue and Martin
Avenue
No Build Option
This concept represents a "No Build" scenario and matches the existing configuration of Scott Boulevard from Arques Avenue City limit to Martin Avenue.

See Figure 25 for a schematic of existing conditions.

Figure 25 Scott Boulevard Between Arques Avenue and Martin Avenue No Build Option Legend
__ No Parking
Segment
- ... Travellane
.---------J',,. Narrowed
--------v' Travel Lane
=:::O Center-Turn Lane
□□□□ {> ClassllBike l ane
Class 11B Bike Lane
r------.,
.,
I ~
I ~
1! co
L------J.

Key Map
0 0.15 0 .3 0.6
- -===--====Miles
Kimley>>> Horn
- -
39 Walsh Ave
L--- ----.1
City of
Santa Clara
: /
: –

Concept H Four Five Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes
This concept narrows travel lanes to improve the existing Class II bike lanes to Class 118 buffered bike lanes. See Figure 26 for a schematic of the alternative.

Figure 26 Scott Boulevard Between Arques Avenue and Martin Avenue Concept H - -
Legend Key Map
___ No Parking ~-~
Segment
-lllllllllj-~ Travel Lane
r-------J'--... Narrowed
---------,,...- Travel Lane
=,> Center-Turn Lane
0 0 0 0 C> Class II Bike Lane
Class IIB Bike Lane
,-------,
D DO
Ave
Q)
.~ ,,, I ;;;
I i
cc
ID .. ______ _.
o • - =o=.15=-•o=.3====:io~iles
Kimley>>> Horn 40
Walsh Ave
~ :
~ ~ I g I
I
I
- - - - J
City of
Santa Clara

: –
:
: –

4.4. Scott Boulevard Between Martin Avenue and Monroe
Street
No Build Option
This concept represents a "No Build" scenario and matches the existing configuration of Scott Boulevard from Martin Avenue to Monroe Street. See Figure 27 for a schematic of existing conditions.

Figure 27 Scott Boulevard Between Martin Avenue and Monroe Street No Build Option Legend
__ NoPar1<.ing
Segment
__ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
Segment
----► Travel Lane .---"- Removed
--V Travel Lane
e::::==~> Center-Turn Lane
DD D D <> Class II Bike Lane
,------ -----,
1 Martin Ave
! UlU ttti
I "1o/J ,.0
I @.St
Class IIB Bike Lane Cabrillo Ave
Concept I Four Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes
This concept removes one travel lane in each direction to improve the existing Class II bike lanes to Class IIB buffered bike lanes. See Figure 28 for a schematic of the alternative.

Figure 28 Scott Boulevard Between Martin Avenue and Monroe Street Proposed Alternative I ..

Legend
___ No Parking r----- -----,
Martin Ave Segment
___ On-Street Parking 1
Segment ,11,□ iu U)::'.~00> m◊g~
______ Removed Parking
Segment
---► Travel Lane
,-1',... Removed ol/r.
----,,....- Travel Lane 0@ St
==:::::=:> eenter-Turnla ne L ___________ ..i
□ o □ □ i!)> Class II Bike Lane
□□ □ Class 11B Bike Lane Cabrillo Ave
Kimley>>> Horn
41 City of
Santa Clara

: –

4.5. Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and
Saratoga Avenue
No Build Option
This concept represents a "No Build" scenario and matches the existing configuration of Scott Boulevard from Monroe Street to Saratoga Avenue. See Figure 29 for a schematic of existing conditions.

Figure 29 Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
__ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
Segment
-....i•► Travel Lane
r--1'-.. Removed
.____,....,.. Travel Lane
Kimley>>> Horn
Martin Ave
42 No Build Option
City of
Santa Clara
:
: –
Concept J Four Lanes, Standard Bike Lanes, Remove Parking on One Side This concept removes parking on one side of the street to make room for Class II bike lanes. See Figure 30 for a schematic of the alternative.

Figure 30 Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue Concept J Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
"C > iii
Martin Ave
Segment
-...ij•~ Travel Lane r- - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - "
===;> Removed I 11?011 CfJ ,.0
Travel Lane I is> .St
c=;> center-Turnlane 1 =...1~
□ □ □ □ {> Class II Bike Lane I J:

Class 118 Bike Lane ,:86 . ~
nlloAve ~ r
Menzel Pl ......JJ I
Key Map Royal Dr :
g ll _J~ War6vr
g y nznA-Je
,,?A~ 4L ~
1 El Cam ino Re\Jo\
Harrison St
JU
!...-:::-: .....---
1--
I
·--·'==nl JU g
7 ,
: I
---JC-
\),0 \'l.O ~ C:: De ~v~ena
~ 0 ~•" Jt\'r \\~
"'< \\ \&\\t
◊◊ZJ\ll r
.,,_0
~
~ ,.9
0 0.1 0.2 Q 4 /!'
--===:ll--== ===~LM~ s - - - 0: - - - - - - - -
Kimley>>> Horn 43 City of
Santa Clara
:
: –
Concept K Two Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes, Parking on Both Sides This concept removes one travel lane in each direction to make room for Class 11B buffered bike lanes. It also provides a new center-turn lane south of Homestead Road. See Figure 31 for a schematic of the alternative.

Figure 31 Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue Concept K Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment ~
______ Removed Parking 00
Martin Ave
Segment ______ {;
---t-► Travellane • - - - - - - - ,
~ Removed I '1?011 UJ
'"o Travel Lane I ~ St
===--=."> Center-Turn Lane 1 =.. ~
□□□□ (> Class II Bike lane I JI~ \
Class 118 Bike Lane s:.:~;~~:~le ~L~
Key Map Royal Dr _J
all r w.,,,,%, A<•
Kimley>>> Horn
.~,~ 4m_l1J!
I El Cam ino Rea\
F: ,_ i=
•==ru1
44 City of
Santa Clara
:
: –

Concept L Two Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes, Standard Bike Lanes This concept removes a SB travel lane to make room for Class II bike lanes north of Homestead Road and removes one travel lane in each direction to make room for Class 11B buffered bike lanes south of Homestead Road. It also provides a new center-turn lane south of Homestead Road. See Figure 32 for a plan view of the alternative .

Figure 32 Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue Concept L Legend
.,..,
~
it o 0 .1 0 .2 ct~ lf
--=====--= ====i._ ~ s - - - <-o-:_ - - - - - - - -
Kimley>>> Horn 45 City of
Santa Clara
: /
: –

Concept M Two Three Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes
This concept removes a SB travel lane and parking on one side of the street north of Harrison Street and removes one travel lane in each direction south of Harrison Street to make room for Class 11B buffered bike lanes. See Figure 33 for a plan view of the alternative .

Figure 33 Scott Boulevard Between Monroe Street and Saratoga Avenue Concept M ,.

Legend
___ No Parking
Segment
___ On-Street Parking
Segment
______ Removed Parking
"O
>
ai
Martin Ave
Segment
---•► Travel lane r - - - - - 0 - - - - - - - .,
===:> Removed I 1110// u, ,.a
Travel Lane I ~ St
==:;:> center-Turnlane 1 ~,~
□□□□ C> ClassllBikelane I Ji
Class 11B Bike Lane ,:::ilbrillo Ave ~~
Menzel Pl ,:=tJ I
Key Map Royal Dr j
, M _J~ w,,,,,
.. :,.~ ~ nt"
1 El Cam ino Rea\
!.,,=
:== •=
C
0 \1,0 [=: De ~v~ena
-..'o(('esW'3
: ,.,.,••:o~ /..~t
.t0
ft
~ 0 0.1 0.2 (1.4 ,_0
- .:::::::::::11- c::::==:::::::::j LM~ s ___ ~~ _______ _ Kimley>>> Horn 46 City of
Santa Clara

De La Cruz Boulevard
( )
(
)
Lick Mill Boulevard
( )
(
)
Scott Boulevard
( )
(
)
&

5. Evaluation Findings
Traffic Analysis Overview
A detailed traffic analysis was conducted for all project alternatives that include the removal of up to one travel lane in each direction on the study corridor. The analysis evaluated the With Project LOS for each study intersection against the same LOS thresholds noted above in Study Methodology section of this report .

Analysis results per corridor can be seen in Table 5 through Table 9. Vistro LOS worksheets for each intersection can be found in Appendix D.

Based on the analysis, 8 of 9 intersections will continue to operate acceptably during the AM peak hours no change from existing conditions and 8 of 9 will continue to operate acceptably during the PM peak hours no change from existing conditions. The average increase in delay was 1.1 seconds per intersection in the AM period and 0.7 seconds per intersection in the PM period.

For Lick Mill Boulevard, 14 of 16 intersections will continue to operate acceptably during the AM peak hours no change from existing conditions and 15 of 16 will continue to operate acceptably during the PM peak hours no change from existing conditions. The average increase in delay was 9.8 seconds per intersection in the AM period and 2.3 seconds per intersection in the PM period.

For Scott Boulevard, 20 of 21 intersections will continue to operate acceptably during the AM peak hours no change from existing conditions and 19 of 21 will continue to operate acceptably during the PM peak hours one more intersection operating acceptably than existing conditions . In the PM peak hour, Scott Boulevard Serra Avenue sees an improvement with the project due to the introduction of a center-turn lane in conjunction with the travel lane removal. The benefits for side street turning movements associated with the center-turn lane offset the reduced capacity on Scott Boulevard with the through lane removal, providing a net benefit to LOS at the intersection . No intersections that operate acceptably in No-Build conditions deteriorate below established LOS standards with the lane reduction.

Kimley>>> Horn 47 City of
Santa Clara
ll
De La Cruz Boulevard
%.

Lick Mill Boulevard

Scott Boulevard
%
%

Parking Analysis
A parking analysis was completed for all project alternatives that include the removal of parking lanes or provision of parking-protected bike lanes. Using existing parking inventories and parking counts, parking diversion, or reallocation of cars parked on-street, was estimated for each corridor. Analysis results per corridor can be seen in Table 5 through Table 9. Maps showing parking utilization for a time periods can be found in Appendix E.

While Concepts B, C, and Dall propose a reduction in parking, the estimated availability for all proposed concepts remains greater than 50 For each of the alternatives, all diverted cars have nearby, available side street parking to relocate to.

For Lick Mill Boulevard, Concept F has minimal impact on parking availability, and Concept G has a larger impact on availability. With Concept G, there is far more parking demand than available parking. Additionally, with this concept a total of 121 vehicles would not have nearby and available on-street parking to relocate to.

However, this includes 98 vehicles that are assumed to be associated with temporary construction parking. Besides the parking demand on the north side of the corridor, the additional vehicles that do not have nearby and available side street parking are located near Laird Circle . Even by excluding the demand for the temporary construction parking, there is more parking demand than available parking with Concept G.

For Scott Boulevard, Concept J and M propose a reduction in parking with Concept J having an estimated parking availability of 31 and Concept M having an estimated parking availability of 36 . In both concepts, it is estimated that 11 vehicles will not have a nearby, available side street location to relocate to. This is due to high parking utilization on side streets between Monroe Street and Warburton Avenue .

Travel Time Analysis
A travel time analysis was completed for all project alternatives that include the removal of up to one travel lane in each direction on the study corridor. With Project travel times are noted for each corridor in Table 5 through Table 9.

Kimley>>> Horn 48 City of
Santa Clara
:

/ % :
: /
:
/
:
% /
:
% /
:
/ % /
( ) :
( )
Table 5 De La Cruz Boulevard Analysis Summary Table
Collision Estimated Number of
Project Reduction Parking Deficient Corridor Estimated VMT Corridor Concept Potential Availabilitv 1•2 Intersections Travel Time3 Reduction No Build O1:2tion NA 66 AM 1 5 Minutes NA PM 1 16 Seconds Corridor Conce1:2t A Two
Lanes, Buffered Bike Yes Same as No Build Same as No Build 5 Minutes and 9,782 miles Lanes, Center Turn Lane, 28 Seconds year
Parking on Both Sides
Corridor Conce1:2t B Two
Lanes, Buffered and 5 Minutes 9,782 miles Parking Protected Bike Yes 62 Same as No Build De La Cruz 28 Seconds year Boulevard Lanes, Center Turn Lane,
Parking on Both Sides
Corridor Conce1:2t C Four
Lanes, Buffered Bike Negligible 55 Same as No Build Same as No 9,782 miles Lanes, Remove Parking On Build year
One Side
Corridor Conce1:2t D Four
Lanes, Buffered and Negligible 51 Same as No Build Same as No 9,782 miles Protected Buffered Build year
Bikeways, Remove Parking
1 Reflects average parking availability total parking minus utilization for the peak parking hour during observations Weekdays, 10AM- 11AM
2 Includes parking availability of side streets within 500ft of the study corridor 3 Reflects change in delay at signalized intersections only. Additional travel time may occur with lane removal due to increased friction in remaining lane s .

Kimley>>> Horn City of
Santa Clara
:

/ % :
: /
: /
: % /
: /
(
)
/
( ) :
%
%
( )
Table 6 Lick Mill Boulevard Analysis Summary Table
Collision Estimated Estimated
Reduction Parking Number of Deficient Corridor VMT
Segment Concept Potential Availabilitv 1•2 Intersections Travel Time4 Reduction No Build Option NA 54 AM 2 6 Minutes NA PM 1 33 Seconds Concept E Two Lanes, Same as 6 Minutes 16,095 miles Buffered Bike Lanes, Parking Yes Same as No Build on Both Sides existing 36 Seconds year
Lick Mill Concept F Two Lanes, Yes 53 Same as No Build 6 Minutes 16,095 miles Boulevard Parking Protected Bike Lanes 36 Seconds year
No Parking
Concept G Three Four Lanes, Available 6 Minutes 16,095 miles Protected and Buffered Bike Yes 121 Cars with Same as No Build Lanes, Remove Parking No Available 34 Seconds year
Parking 3
1 Reflects average parking availability total parking minus utilization for the peak parking hour during observations Weekdays, 7AM-8AM 2 Includes parking availability of side streets within 500ft of the study corridor 3 A total of 121 cars would not have nearby and available on-street parking to relocate to, resulting in an availability of -80 . This includes 98 cars that are assumed to be associated with temporary construction parking . Excluding the cars associated with temporary construction, the estimated parking availability would be -5 . 4 Reflects change in delay at signalized intersections only . Additional travel time may occur with lane removal due to increased friction in remaining lane s .

Kimley>>> Horn City of
Santa Clara
: ( )
(
)
/ / / /
:
/

/ /
: ( )
(
)
/ / / /
:
/ /
Table 7 Scott Boulevard Analysis Summary Table Arques Ave to Martin Ave Collision Estimated Number of
Reduction Parking Deficient Corridor
Segment Concept Potential Availability Intersections Travel Time NA NA NA 8 Minutes
No Build OQtion 50 Seconds Scott Boulevard
Arques Avenue to Concei;:2t H
Martin Avenue Four Five Lanes, Negligible NA NA Same as No Buffered Bike Lanes Build
Segment
Scott Boulevard
Martin Avenue to
Monroe Street
Kimley>>> Horn
Table 8 Scott Boulevard Analysis Summary Table Martin Ave to Monroe St Collision Estimated
Reduction Parking
Concept Potential Availability
No Build OQtion NA NA
Concei;:2t I Four
Lanes, Buffered Negligible NA
Bike Lanes
51 Number of
Deficient
Intersections
NA
NA
City of
Santa Clara
Corridor
Travel Time
1 Minute
43 Seconds
Same as No
Build
Estimated
VMT
Reduction
NA
Same as No
Build
Estimated
VMT
Reduction
NA
Same as No
Build
: ( )
(
)
% :
:
: %
/
: :
: ( ) /
:

:
: ( ) /
: / % :
: ( ) /
( ) :
( )
Table 9 Scott Boulevard Analysis Summary Table Monroe St to Saratoga Ave Collision Estimated Number of Corridor Estimated
Reduction Parking Deficient Travel VMT
Segment Concept Potential Availability 1•2 Intersections Time4 Reduction None 38 AM 1 4 Minutes No Build Option None PM 3 50 Seconds Concept J Four Lanes, Standard Bike Lanes, Negligible 31 3 Same as No Same as No 18,117
Remove Parking on One Side Build Build miles year
Scott Concept K Two Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes, Yes Same as No AM 1 5 Minutes 18,117 Boulevard Parking on Both Sides Build PM 2 -1 18 Seconds miles year Monroe
Street to Concept L Two Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes, Same as No Yes AM 1 5 Minutes 18,117 Saratoga Standard Bike Lanes Build PM 2 -1 16 Seconds miles year Avenue Concept M Two Three Lanes, Buffered Bike Yes 36 3 AM 1 5 Minutes 18,117 Lanes PM 2 -1 18 Seconds miles year
1 Reflects average parking availability total parking minus utilization for the peak parking hour during observations Weekends, 12AM-1AM 2 Includes parking availability of side streets within 500ft of the study corridor 3 A total of 11 cars would not have nearby and available on-street parking to relocate to. 4 Reflects change in delay at signalized intersections only. Additional travel time may occur with lane removal due to increased friction in remaining lane s .

Kimley>>> Horn 52 City of
Santa Clara

;
/
;
/

6. Outreach Process and Results
Community engagement was a major component of advancing the Project and a variety of outreach strategies were used to seek input from stakeholders. Residents were provided with multiple opportunities to share feedback on the project, including corridor surveys, pop-up events, and community meetings . Project information, including how to share input, was distributed via the project webpage, road signs, and a mailer sent out to approximately 12,000 addresses near the three project corridors . To promote community meetings, the City of Santa Clara shared social media posts, e-newsletters, and flyers via various communication channels. The project team also reached out to five local schools near the corridors to raise awareness, with Don Callejon School, Montague Elementary School, and CW Haman Elementary School distributing project materials to their school networks. Digital copies of outreach collateral can be found in Appendix F.

6.1. In-Person Outreach Events
Outreach began with a virtual project kick-off meeting on November 14, 2024, via Zoom, to introduce the project and share potential road diet options there were 11 community members in attendance. Two pop-up events were then held at Santa Clara's Tree Lighting Ceremony and Farmers Market on December 6 and 7, 2024, to raise awareness of the corridor surveys and corridor-specific community meetings, reaching almost 100 community members. This phase of outreach concluded with the second and third community meetings for De La Cruz Lick Mill Boulevard and Scott Boulevard, respectively, which presented corridor-specific bike facility designs and corridor collision analyses. These hybrid meetings took place on December 10 and 11 via Zoom and in-person at City Hall there were 7 community members in attendance at the De La Cruz Lick Mill Boulevard meeting and 12 community members in attendance at the Scott Boulevard meeting .

Kimley>>> Horn 53 City of
Santa Clara
: #
: #3
Feedback from First Community Meeting
Community members expressed concerns about parking impacting bike facilities, including parked vehicles occupying the bike lane and a high volume of game-day parking around Lick Mill Blvd. There were also questions raised about changes to traffic flow, streamlined bike traffic to schools and parks, and the feasibility of intersection infrastructure improvements, including improving the crosswalk and Kimley>>> Horn 54 City of
Santa Clara
:

 :
 :
 :
 :
 :
 :
modifying signalized intersections. Some community members were also curious about whether repaving would be included in the installation of new bike facilities, and there was a question about the City and Caltrans collaborating to improve the El Camino Real and Scott Boulevard intersection.

Feedback from Second and Third Community Meetings
Across all three project corridors, community members expressed concerns about proposed changes to parking availability, citing both commercial and residential needs for parking. Some community members were also worried about potential impacts to existing school pick-up and drop-off zones. There were several comments about including a floating parking lane, with the bicycle lane closest to the curb and parking in between the traffic and bicycle lanes.

Community members also had comments and questions about the impact of proposed bike facilities on reducing speeding and congestion, which included support for lane narrowing and travel lane removal. While some attendees expressed hesitation about parking removal, others were very supportive of the project and of City efforts to balance the needs of cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians.

Feedback from Farmer's Market Pop-Up
Key themes from feedback received during this pop-up included Protected Bike Lanes Many people advocated for physical barriers, such as poles or dividers, on De La Cruz Blvd to enhance cyclist safety.

Traffic Flow Concerns Residents questioned how removing a lane for bike infrastructure might impact side street traffic patterns.

Parking Availability Concerns were raised about reducing parking availability, particularly given the area's growing population.

Lick Mill Blvd Safety Participants expressed support for bike lanes on Lick Mill Blvd, emphasizing their potential to improve safety for both drivers and children .

Community Involvement On Jefferson St., the implementation of a bike lane without prior resident notification caused frustration . Suggestions included increasing transparency and engagement in future projects .

Road Sharing Education Several suggested initiatives to educate drivers and cyclists on safely sharing the road .

Kimley>>> Horn 55 City of
Santa Clara
 :
 :
:

;
Helmet Enforcement Participants highlighted the need for better enforcement of bicycle helmet laws.

San Tomas and Homestead Concerns On San Tomas, the bike lane's routing away from the mall raised concerns about the removal of trees and increased light pollution on nearby homes along Homestead Rd.

Feedback from Tree Lighting Ceremony
The project team gave out 35 project flyers and engaged with an estimated 50 people, encouraging them to attend the upcoming hybrid community meetings on December 10 and 11. Most community members were excited for the project and to take the surveys, with only a handful of community members expressing concern over parking or lane removal.

Figure 36 Tree Lighting Ceremony Project Booth

6.2. Project Voicemail and Email
Community members were able to share feedback by recording a voicemail or sending the project team an email a total of 2 voicemails and 27 emails were received, as of January 10th, 2024.

Kimley>>> Horn 56 City of
Santa Clara

:
;
( %)
( %)
( %) ( %)
( %) ( %)
;
%
% (
) %
( )
( % )
%

6.3. Online Survey Results
Three corridor surveys, one each for De La Cruz Boulevard, Lick Mill Boulevard, and Scott Boulevard, were administered to Santa Clara community members from December 5 to December 22, 2024. The surveys received 551 public responses 140 for the De La Cruz Boulevard survey, 180 for the Lick Mill Boulevard survey, and 231 for the Scott Boulevard survey. Each survey included a question allowing respondents to select their preferred alternative, including the no-build option, for each segment of the study area roadways. A map showing each of the corridor segments used in the survey can be found in Appendix G. Each survey included the same three demographic questions the first question asked for respondents' connection to the study area, the second question asked for what modes of travel respondents used, and the third question asked how often respondents biked along the roadway . The first two questions allowed respondents to select all options that applied. Complete survey data is available in the Appendix H.

De La Cruz Boulevard
There were 140 responses to the De La Cruz Boulevard survey. Respondents primarily travel through the corridor to a destination outside the study area 51 , live along or near the area 39 , and shop or visit recreational destinations in the study area 35 . Respondents also primarily drove alone 80 , carpooled with others 42 , and used bicycles or scooters 34 to travel along De La Cruz Boulevard.

For De La Cruz Boulevard, there was no clear consensus between parking removal or lane removal in order to provide bike lanes however, respondents overwhelmingly supported one of the two in order to add protected or buffered bike lanes. Throughout the corridor, approximately 80 of respondents preferred an alternative that provided a bike facility by removing parking or travel lanes, with the remainder preferring the No Build Option.

North of Montague Park, 44 of respondents preferred parking removal Concept C and D to create space for the bike lanes, while 35 of respondents preferred lane removal Concept A and B. Therefore, while there was a clear preference to add bike lanes 79 of respondents supported a Build alternative, there was not clear preference between removing travel lanes or removing a parking lane. Only 21 of respondents preferred the No Build Option.

Kimley>>> Horn 57 City of
Santa Clara
(
%) (
%) ( %
)
%
/
( % )
( %
)
( %)
( %)
( %) ( %) ( %)
( %) ( %)
;
%
( ) %
( ) %
( )
%
South of Montague Park, lane removal was slightly preferred Concept A and B received a total of 42 over parking removal Concept C and D received a total of 38 . Therefore, while there was a clear preference to add bike lanes 80 of respondents supported a Build alternative, there was not clear preference between removing travel lanes or removing a parking lane. Only 20 of respondents preferred No Build Existing Conditions. The separated bike lane options Concepts Band D received a total of 56 of the votes were much more supported than the buffered concepts Concepts A and C received a total of 24 of the votes .

In the open response section, respondents were concerned about traffic and parking lane reduction worsening congestion and accessibility. There were also some hesitations about the need for a bike lane along De La Cruz Boulevard, while others were supportive of bike lanes and advocating for more physical bike lane separation . In the southern section, some respondents said off-street parking lessens demand for street parking, but others wanted to preserve street parking for businesses.

Lick Mill Boulevard
There were 180 responses to the Lick Mill Boulevard survey. Respondents primarily live along or near the area 67 , shop or visit social or recreational destinations in the study area 43 , and travel through the corridor with a destination outside of the study area 42 . Respondents also primarily drove alone 77 , walked 49 , used bicycles or scooters 43 , and carpooled with others 41 .

For Lick Mill Boulevard, there was no clear consensus between parking removal or lane removal in order to provide bike lanes however, respondents overwhelmingly supported one of the two in order to add separated bike lanes.

Throughout the corridor, approximately 75 of respondents preferred an alternative that provided a bike facility by removing parking or travel lanes, with the remainder preferring the No Build Option.

North of Laird Circle South , approximately 50 preferred an alternative that preserved parking where it exists today Concepts E and F. Another 26 preferred removing parking to maintain the existing travel lanes Concept G . The remaining 24 preferred the No Build Option. Between the two alternatives that removed a Kimley>>> Horn 58 City of
Santa Clara
( % )
( )
%
( ) %
( ) %
( % )
( %)
( %)
( %) ( %)
( %) ( %)
(
)
%
%
travel lane and preserved parking, most preferred providing parking -protected instead of buffered bike lanes Concept F received 38 of the votes .

Preferences South of Laid Circle South were very similar to the northern segment. Approximately 49 preferred an alternative that preserved parking where it exists today Concepts E and F. Another 21 preferred removing parking to maintain the existing travel lanes Concept G. The remaining 30 preferred the No Build Option. Between the two alternatives that removed a travel lane and preserved parking, most preferred providing parking-protected instead of buffered bike lanes Concept F received 38 of the votes .

In the open response section, respondents had mixed opinions about each of the alternatives. Overall, they expressed concerns about removing parking, especially for those accessing Lick Mill Park and Ulistac Natural Area, and residents who rely on street parking. Other respondents expressed support for a parking -protected bike lane to reduce the risk of "dooring" and increasing visibility. Some do not believe that existing biking demand warrants the implementation of bike lanes, while others support buffered bike lanes and physically separated bike lanes to improve cyclist safety.

Scott Boulevard
There were 231 responses to the Scott Boulevard survey. Respondents primarily live along or near the area 66 , travel through the corridor with a destination outside of the study area 43 , and shop or visit social or recreational destinations in this study area 37 . Respondents also primarily drove alone 81 , used bicycles or scooters 42 , and carpooled with others 39 .

For Scott Boulevard North of Monroe Street, the Build alternative Concepts H and I - Buffered bike lanes with lane removal, or lane width reduction was the preferred concept, with more than 60 of the votes. The other option, the No Build Option, received less than 40 of the votes for each segment.

In the open response section, some respondents expressed concerns about congestion and traffic impacts, while others advocated for further bicycle lane protection like physical barriers. General sentiment appeared to call for safer roads for both cars and cyclists, which includes addressing speeding and traffic congestion .

Kimley>>> Horn 59 City of
Santa Clara
;
%
(
%)
( %) %
%
( )
% %
%
%
%
(
) %
% %
For the southern portion of Scott Boulevard from Monroe Street to Saratoga Avenue, there was no clear consensus between parking removal or lane removal in order to provide bike lanes however, respondents overwhelmingly supported one of the two in order to add buffered or protected bike lanes.

Throughout the corridor, approximately 70 of respondents preferred an alternative that provided a bike facility by removing parking or travel lanes, with the remainder preferring the No Build Option .

For the segment between Monroe Street and Harrison Street, respondents were approximately equally split between preserving parking on both sides Concepts K and L, 34 and providing additional travel lanes while preserving parking on one side Concepts J and M, 37 . The No Build Option received 29 of the vote. The Build alternative with the highest vote total was Concept K, with 28 of the vote.

For Scott Boulevard from Harrison Street to Homestead Road, Concepts Kand M which are the same for this portion of Scott Boulevard were the preferred concepts, with 43 of the votes. An additional 12 preferred Concept L, which also maintains parking on both sides, but with Class II bike lanes and three travel lanes.

Thus, a total of 55 of respondents preferred a configuration with bike lanes and parking preserved on both sides. The No Build Option received 28 of the vote .

The remaining 17 preferred keeping all of the travel lanes with Concept J.

For Scott Boulevard from Homestead Road to Saratoga Avenue, the vote was very similar . Concepts K, L, and M which are the same for this portion of Scott Boulevard, were the preferred concepts, with 54 of the votes. The No Build Option received 28 of the vote . The remaining 18 preferred keeping all of the travel lanes with Concept J.

In the open response section, respondents were concerned with maintaining existing parking, negative impacts of the alternatives on traffic flow, and negative effects on access to local businesses. In addition to the parking demand concern, respondents also expressed concerns about cyclist safety near busy traffic lanes and parked cars, including "dooring ."
Kimley>>> Horn 60 City of
Santa Clara

7. Recommendations and Conclusion
Final Report will include City Council approved preferred design concepts .

Kimley>>> Horn
61