Loading...
29. Petition for reconsideration Scenic Circle accessCUPERTINO Summary PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM ;9 - AGENDA DATE April 6, 2010 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Conduct a hearing on a petition by Susan Sievert et. al. as amended by Donald Bautista, Jr., for reconsideration of the City Council's February 1.6, 2010 decision on Scenic Circle access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. At the conclusion of the hearing on the Petition for Reconsideration, the Council may: A. Adopt a resolution denying the Petition for Reconsideration , thereby affirming the original decision, or B. Reverse or Modify the February 1.6, 2010 Council decision on Scenic Circle access to Stevens Creek Trail and 3lackberry Farm Park. BACKGROUND On February 16, 2010 the City Council considered a staff report and recommendation to construct a trail connection from Scenic Circle across an existing bridge over Stevens Creek to provide access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. The Council acted to approve the design and construction of an additional public access point to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm from the west side of the Creek near Scenic Circle. The Council also gave f ether direction to Staff to develop a trail alignment option that accessed the park somewhere between the locations detailed in the February 16 staff report for Alternative A and Alternative B to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, a trail entrance directly across the street from the front of residential property. Upon concluding a preliminary design of the project as directed by Council, staff will report back as part of the FY 2010 -2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with a 29 -1 refined cost estimate and funding of the project to be considered with other proposed CIP projects for the upcoming fiscal year. On March 1, 2010 a Petition for Reconsideration was filed by Susan Sievert and nine residents on Scenic Circle and Scenic Court. An addendum to the petition was filed March 2, 2010 by Donald Bautista, Jr., one of the signatories to the original petition. The petition was filed under the provisions of Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) Section 2.08.096 which allows reconsideration of Council decisions. In accordance with the above noted CMC section, a reconsideration hearing was set for the Council meeting of April 6, 2010. Copies of the Petition and the Addendum are attached. CMC Section 2.08.096B requires that a petition for reconsideration meet certain specific grounds for the reconsideration. In reviewing the Petition and Addendum to reconsider the Council's decision to provide access from Scenic Circle to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park, staff cannot find any relevant evidence or proof of facts that support any of the grounds for reconsideration as required by CMC Section 2.08.096 B 1- 5. General Comments Regarding Allegations Some general comments need to be made with regard to the original petition. It contains numerous allegations irrelevant to the issue for which the petition seeks reconsideration, i.e., the Council's decision to provide access from Scenic Circle to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. The petition appears to rely heavily on allegations which cannot be substantiated. The most extensive of these accusations, which is repeated in several forms in the petition, is the replacement of an existing bridge across Stevens Creek and the alleged "lack of notice" of this event. During the construction project the activity was purely a matter of replacing the existing bridge with another of similar size to maintain access to the irrigation system and for fire suppression on the other side of the bridge. As noted in the e -mail explanation, quoted in the petition itself, such a construction change is within the discretion of the project engineers, with proper permit clearance, which was obtained. There is no legal requirement to notify anyone of this activity. Notification was provided as a courtesy. Whether the bridge is referred to on plans or other documents as "pedestrian" or "maintenance" is immaterial to the Council's decision to provide the access from Scenic Circle. It does not establish any "predetermination" by the City to create public access from Scenic Circle. The addendum and its contents filed by Mr. Bautista are addressed in Attachment B to this report. 2s -2 Upon approval of the Resolution for denial, the Council's original decision of February 16, 2010 to provide access from Scenic Circle to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park is final and no further action on that decision is required. FISCAL IMPACT There is no Fiscal Impact to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct a hearing on a petition for reconsideration regarding the City Council's decision on Scenic Circle access to Stevens Creek Trai.. and Blackberry Farm Park. Adoption of Resolution No. 10 - cl , Denying the Petition of Susan Sievert et. al. seeking Council reconsideration of its decision to provide access from Scenic Circle to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. Submitted by: Approved for submission: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. a v d app Director of Public Works City Manager Attachments Attachment A - CMC Section 2.08.096 Reconsideration - Sought by Interested Person. Attachment B - Petition for Reconsideration - Susan Sievert et. al and Addendum Attachment C - Resolution No. j 6 - G 7 3) - with City Council Findings Attachment D - Staff Report Item 17 - Council Meeting February 16, 2010 Attachment E - Minutes Item 17 - Council Meeting February 16, 2010 29 -3 Attachment A 2.08.090 Cupertino - Administration and Personnel 10 10. Unfinished business; 11. New business; 12. Ordinances; 13. Staff reports; 14. Council reports; 15. Closed session; 16. Adjournment. B. The order of business to be taken up at an adjourned meeting shall be that as deemed by the Mayor and the City Council to be proper. C. The foregoing order of business may, at any regular meeting on motion duly made and carried, be changed or suspended for the period of such meeting. D. The City Council may, in its discretion, establish time limitations for the presentation or discussion of any item of business; and, may establish a time after which no agenda item of business will be taken up in which case the motion for adjournment will contain the date and time for the completion of agenda business. (Ord. 1697, (part), 1995; Ord. 1561, 1991; Ord. 1457, 1988; Ord. 1393, 1986; Ord. 1329, 1985; Ord. 1259, 1984; Ord. 1192, 1982; Ord. 1133, 1981; Ord. 978, (part), 1980; Ord. 673, (part), 1975; Ord. 389, § 3.5, 1968) 2.08.095 Reconsideration. A. The Council may, at any time before adjournment of any council meeting, determine to reconsider an item of business previously acted upon at that council meeting. A motion to reconsider may only be made by a councilmember who was a member of the prevailing majority voting on the item. A motion to reconsider may be seconded by any councilmember. B. If a motion for reconsideration prevails, the Council is then free to reconsider the item either at the same council meeting or at any other council meeting established by the Council; provided, however, that the Council shall not reconsider an item at the same council meeting, in the following instances: 1. Any action involving a public hearing which has been closed; 2. Any action, including appeals, regarding a zoning matter, use permit, subdivision map approval, variance, architectural and site approval or sign exception; 3. Any action involving the granting, modification or revocation of any permit issued by the City; 4. Any action which is quasi - judicial in nature. C. In such cases, the Council shall reconsider the item at another council meeting date established by the Council and shall direct the City Clerk to provide notification to the relevant parties or the general public, as the case may be. (Ord. 1697, (part), 1995; Ord. 1378, § 1, 1986) 2008S-17 2.08.096 Reconsideration —Sought by Interested Person. A. The City Clerk shall forthwith mail all notices of decision after the decision of the City Council. Any interested person, prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory decision of the City Council, shall file a petition for reconsideration with the City Clerk within ten days of the date of the mailing of the notice of decision. Failure to file a petition for reconsideration constitutes a waiver of the right to request reconsideration and the City Council's decision shall be final for all purposes. Upon timely receipt of a petition for reconsideration, the City Clerk shall schedule a reconsideration hearing to be commenced by the City Council no later than sixty days after the filing of the petition. Mailed notices of the date, time and place of such hearing will be provided to all interested persons at least ten days prior to the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing for reconsideration, the City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify its original decision, and may adopt additional findings of fact based upon the evidence submitted in any and all city hearings concerning the matter. B. A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for reconsideration, precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not preceding in a manner required by law; and /or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and /or C. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. C. A petition for reconsideration is subject to a reconsideration fee as prescribed by resolution of the City Council. At the conclusion of the reconsideration hearing, the City Council may, in its sole discretion, refund all, or a portion, of the reconsideration fee. (Ord. 2027 § 1, 2008; Ord. 2008, 2007; Ord. 1807, § 1, 1999) 29-4 t r r i P ! Attachment B Petition for the Reconsideration of Council's Decision on Agenda 17: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park Date of Council Decision: Date of Petition: Number of Pages: To: February 16, 2010 March 1, 2010 17 h Kim Smith, City = - The City of Cupe no 29 -5 29 -6 Photo: The Fallen Oak Bridge directed to be removed. Source: July 17, 2007 Staff Report Public Meeting Law Violation and Fabrications E We believe the whole record demonstrates that'the City of Cupertino`s decision to open access to Blackberry Farm and the Stevens Creek Trail via Scenic Circle was made without a public hearing prior to the official February 16, 2010 City Council action, which is a violation of California Open Meeting La�-v (The Brown Act). A significant and related precursor to this access decision was the installation of a nevv bridge crossing the Stevens Creek that violated the SCCP Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), adopted by the City Council on June 20, 2006: !i MND Project Description, page 2 -16 "2.5.1 Removal of Existing Site Features ..the City Council directed that this bridge be removed and that no access be provided from the Scenic Circle neighborhood. Should any new bridges be considered in the future other than what is proposed in the Master Plan, they would need to go through the permitting and CEQA process separately." 29 -6 Photo: The Fallen Oak Bridge directed to be removed. Source: July 17, 2007 Staff Report - - - E..'S ING CHANNEL NEW r' J riyuru 2007: "Scenic Circle Pedestrian Bridge" Source. Stevens Creek Construction Plan Sheet - Exhibit C http: / /www.cupertino.org/ downloads /pdf /SCCP_Exhibit_C.pdf The new metal bridge that was installed did not "go through the CEQA process separately" indicating the City of Cupertino violated their CEQA requirements. The Director of Public Works' assurances to questioning and concerned Scenic Circle residents that the new bridge replaced an existing "maintenance bridge" and "AT NO TIME will they [the newly installed a es be open for public use" were blatant fabrications that ' `� & s'&nts' into believing they had no reason to worry. or challenge this CEQA compliance violation until well after their rights to due process under the law had expired. 29 -7 1 1 Furthermore, the whole record will show that the Fallen Oak bridge 1 was never described or utilized as a maintenance bridge, and 1 therefore the new bridge does not qualify, as the City has argued 1 without any historical basis in fact, as a "Categorical Exemption... replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and / or facilities," under "CEQA section 15302 (b)." Rather, it was a narrow wooden "pedestrian bridge" (MND and staff reports) "built without a permit" (staff report) in 1993 by the City of Cupertino. Conversely, maintenance entered the Fallen Oak picnic area by driving through a low flow creek vehicle crossing. k For all intents and purposes, the picnic area had been given back to it nature since 2005, and maintenance of nature is an oxymoron. 0 Moreover, maintenance could simply access the area via one of 3 gates installed in the new fence separating Scenic Circle from Blackberry Farm; another unplanned feature not present in the MND that the City guaranteed in writing, "AT NO TIME will they be open for public use." "Scenic Circle Pedestrian Bridge ": The clear intent of the new metal bridge that did not go through the required CEQA process is made abundantly clear in a City of Cupertino /Department of Public Works' Channel Restoration drawing that actually renamed the Fallen Oak d Bridge the "Scenic Circle Pedestrian Bridge." Therefore, the public record and the 2007 date on this drawing clearly demonstrates that the City's decision and intent to open Blackberry Farm and Stevens Creek Trail access to Scenic Circle was made without a public hearing lM more than two years before the official February 16, 2010 City Council action to open access Deception is a violation of the public trust On December 15, 2009, the Director of Public Works asserted, "There is some reference made here people who spoke here about some hanky pantry in the part of the staff of moving the bridge around, absolutely unfounded. We have followed the directions of the City Council and the policy decisions for the life of this project including keeping the maintenance bridge there." However, there is no Cit Council action on record authorizing the installation of the new metal bridge, which translates the Director's statement into the City Council has violated the Public Meeting Law? Yet, the Director's statement contradicts his previous email communication to Scenic Circle residents. t r 29 -8 i f_ i i w N 1 1. r, i ! - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ralph Qualls [mailto:RalphQ @cupertino.org] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 10:23 AM As City Engineer and Public Works Director, I personally (no one else) approved the substitution of the metal bridge for the existing wooden bridge and did so at a meeting of our project and construction managers on the site regarding the removal of the concrete obstructions in the creek at that location sometime around the latter half of July 2008. On July 23, 2008, we sent a courtesy "Notice of Construction Activity" regarding the removal and replacement of the bridge by e -mail to over 400 residents on our mailing list including Scenic Circle residents. I don't know why some did not receive it. Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works City of Cupertino It is also remarkable that not a single resident of Scenic Circle received the "Notice of Construction Activity" email and noteworthy to point out its deliver method ( "email ") contradicts the Director's previous October 2, 2008 "notice'" explanation that also failed to reach Scenic Circle residents: Subject: Stevens Creek - Fallen Oak Picnic Area Bridge Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:12:08 -0700 From: RalphQ @cupertino.org ...In addition, prior to beginning this work, an explanatory notice of specifically what and why the city was doing this particular work was hand delivered to the properties in the Scenic Circle area... Sincerely Ralph A. Qualls,Jr. Director of Public Works City of Cupertino 5 29 -9 A third explanation of how Scenic Circle residents were notified of the bridge replacement was produced by City Manager David Knapp in an "Items of interest for City Council," dated October 2, 2008. Mr. Knapp informed the City Council, "We sent a letter to all the Scenic Circle neighbors. telling them what we were doing." "Sent" implies US Mail, but not a single Scenic Circle resident received this mailed notice. Environmental Planning Consultant Jana Sokale produced yet another explanation when seeking permission from permitting agencies, the US Army Corp of Engineers, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: From: Jana Sokale [ JanaSLC @aol.com Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 To: Costa, Holly N SPN [Holly.N.Costa @usace.army. mil]; Daniel Logan [ Dan.Logan @noaa.gov \ Cc: Gail Seeds [Gai1S @cupertino.org]; Terry Greene TerryG @cupertino.org] Subject Cupertino- Requesting Concurrence with Retaining Wall Removal on Stevens Creek -File # 2006- 30064oS "...The City of Cupertino wishes to temporarily lift aside an existing pedestrian bridge (planned to remain in the original project) to remove approximately 45 foot long x 10 feet 8 inch wide concrete and cinder block retaining wall and facing located on the east bank of Stevens Creek ... A 48-foot long x 7 foot wide pedestrian bridge will be repositioned across the creek after the habitat enhancement have been completed." Not exactly: The "existing bridge" was not "temporarily" lifted aside. Rather, it was demolished and Ms. Sokale failed to mention the bridge that was "repositioned" was a completely different metal bridge for a wooden bridge. It is also significant to note that she describes the ► bridge as pedestrian, and not maintenance. ' Most importantly, there has been no indication that the City Manager and /or the City Council have taken any action to launch an inquiry into the new metal bridge that did not go through the required CEQA process, even after an investigation was specifically requested by a �. Scenic Circle resident during the City Council's Agenda Item No. 18 public comment period on December 15, 2009. I G 29 -10 0 "PLEASE SEE "EXHIBIT A" AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT TO SEE HOW OUR CONCERNS CONTINUE" A Categorical Exemption Notice Example The following notice is a 'typical Notice of Exemption from CEQA, which was found op sted in full vie\ in the Stevens Creel: County Park F00 VIP 1w3atzoo4 County nt Santa t'larz California • Parks and Recreation Department 299 Gardca Hill Driye- Los Gatos_ California 95032 / Telcphont (408) 355 - 2200 Notice of Exemption from CEQA tai} of Santa Ciara rcnn""I- of Chestnut Picnic — '" rm `tc'; ens Cre County Park `�!(,ens Crock Cotmh• Park, 1 tUl S tcvcas Ca nyon Roa C uPa ttno, CA 95014 Count) of Santa Clara Palls and Recreation llcparitntatt ❑ Office of Planning K Res--amit i400 Tcnth Street, Roots 121 Sacramen CA 95814 ?`1- 21-009 none Cowtty of Santa Clara Parks and Rct- Tendon I.)cpnnn,cnt lltc t>rolcct involv t h e arcs m S renovantxt ul six (61 cxtsting p,Lnic sites and h , Mt U' jetis Creel C nutttt Park The picnic .ilea Hill he a arheque areas at the Chestnut i pcnic eimcrtt pad ;D inches by 30 inches outside PPr+`xtmutcly 1_ feet by 1fi feet have., uc and picnic table. the picnic and 10 inches Picnic areas and have The six renovated , Pad fix a harbeque- Each Picnic site trill the same use P Picnic areas sill be Irxated on the same site as the existing ` Stattnsm Fxe mpuon CatoQotj41 --- ' emPuaa Attack i 9. Section 15302 c lasts 2 Rcplaccment or Reco -- - -- -_ -- - -- - -- - nstruction P � eeneists of the trnnv �d wsp benefit won 4 ma picnic sties at Pak usG� Cbestotq Picnic area at Stcv T}rc Project involves no or or lion of the errs Creek County �sn Hill existing use - .canna - sue 867.6922 408- 355 -2230 v - � o r/a4 �0 The following Notice of Construction Activity was found posted on the City's Web site, but it was never found posted in Scenic Circle, nor does it justify the bridge construction activity as a "Notice of Exemption from CEQA." 29 -11 C +T7 OF CUPERTINO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT July 23, 2008 NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY STEVENS CREEK BRIDGE - VICINITY OF SCENIC CIRCLE This notice is to advise all interested parties that the temporary wooden bridge that crosses the creek at what used to be called the Fallen Oak Picnic area, adjacent to Scenic Circle, will be temporarily removed for construction access in the creek. This work will commence on Wednesday July 30, 2008. The bridge crossing will be restored at the same location after the work in the creek is complete and before Blackberry farm is reopened to the public. If you have any questions please contact Terry Greene, City Architect at: 408 - 777 -3354 terrye( cupertino.orQ RALPH A. QUALLS, JR. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 8 29-12 A pattern of negligence /a window into the future On July 4, 2009, Blackberry Farm reopened with a parking lot that was reduced from the MND plan of 350 spaces to 167 without a public hearing or City Council action and without a parking and traffic study to determine what the impacts of said reduction would have on the surrounding neighborhoods. The Monta Vista neighborhood (across the creek/ Blackberry Farm, and east of Scenic Circle) suffered significant impacts and requests by residents for an environmental impact study of the newly created spillover parking /traffic circulation /public safety issue have been repeatedly ignored by the City of Cupertino. p 29-13 Photo: August 2009, the Monta Vista Neighborhood after the reduction in the Blackberry Farm parking lot from the original 1100 spaces to 167 (instead of the MND planned 350 spaces). At the February 16, 2010 City Council meeting, the concerns that the Scenic Circle neighborhood will suffer the same fate as the Monta Vista neighborhood as a direct result of the reduced Blackberry Farm parking lot were not addressed, and any thoughts or conclusions expressed regarding impacts were unsupported by any facts studies or qualified analysis. Furthermore, the City Council's decision does not include adequate provision to mitigate the adverse impact that increased parking will have on the Scenic Circle neighborhood, and residents are deeply concerned and crestfallen that their now quiet, serene, and peaceful neighborhood will be converted into a congested parking lot due to overflow parking from the Blackberry Farm planning error. Additionally, a February 18, 2010 request for "detailed specifics 1 regarding the upcoming CEQA process" has been ignored by City staff, 1 including a benign question "How do interested parties sign up to be notified so they may follow the CEQA process ?" It is indeed an eerie 1 reminder of the MND /CEQA expert's advice to the City Council: 1 1 From: Christine Schneider, Thomas Read Associates 1 There is no provision in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) Statues or Guidelines that 1 stipulates that a Lead Agency must respond to comments generated during the public comment period of an ' IS /MND. (2006 SCCP MND Staff Report) i The consultant's advice legitimizes Scenic Circle's concerns, and when h using the impacted Monta Vista neighborhood and MND process as a model example, there has been nothing to suggest that Scenic Circle's ` concerns will be taken seriously in the future. 10 29 -14 A Safe /Safer Route to School, or a liability to the taxpayers? The City has failed to present any data to quantify Scenic Circle through Blackberry Farm as a safe /safer route to school. Moreover, after the children make it down Scenic Circle's steep slope and around the blind turn, they will cross a new bridge that did not go through a CEQA process, and encounter the- hazardous 480' substandard Blackberry Farm entrance driveway that escaped any study of feasible alternatives or mitigations in the MND process. A "114 -,. - 2.� - -Zo f o J �L Perhaps the faint drawing in the MND of a phantom 4- fo6 along the driveway is supposed to be a deferred mitigation for this "safety issue "? (Note: the build date is unspecified, and deferred mitigations are impermissible under CEQA.) Ad The driveway's asphalt measures just 17' wide in some spots, and staff advised the City Council in a public meeting that it had no pedestrian 29 -15 Photo, 2009: Blackberry Farm Entrance Driveway, Photo, 2009: Blackberry Farm Entrance Driveway. or bicycle lane, with an improvement cost of approximately $1.1 million dollars. After dodging Blackberry Farm partygoers (alcohol consumption permitted), the children will land in what was described by staff as a "safety issue," a narro\n/ "chokepoint" with no sidewalks, and with an uncertainty if sidewalks are "feasible," (Vote: If the City complies with its General Plan and county resident Monta Vista annexation proceedings, sidewalks are not required until properties redevelop, meaning sidewalks are not currently feasible. Frankly, we are stunned that the City of Cupertino first exacerbated this well -known safety hazard with their parking planning error; horrified they continue to loos: the other way; and astonished they have now approved a $200,000 project that introduces school children into this heartbreak just waiting to happen. 29 -16 Photo, 2009; Blackberry Farm Entrance Driveway Photo, 2009: The San Fernando to Byrne Avenue "chokepoint." p Civil rights violation In its meeting of March 15, 2005, the City Council approved a motion for an east side trail alignment that buffers The Meadows neighborhood with a generous 100 foot setback from their property lines. The gross disparity between that decision and the City Council's February 16, 2010 decision to open a new trailhead access gate less than 40 feet from Scenic Circle property lines is outrageously unequal ► and discriminatory, and thus a civil rights violation. 1 1 13 2s -17 EXHIBIT A - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Max Bokelman [mailto:maxbok @att.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 7:22 AM To: Ralph Qualls; 'i yuen' Cc: donbautistajr @hotmail.com; ekml03 @yahoo.com; David Knapp; larry.loo @amd.com; Terry Greene; Gail Seeds; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro Subject: RE: Re:Stevens Creek - Fallen Oak Picnic Area Bridge Mr. Qualls Comments I made at last night's Council meeting, that the replacement bridge was put in without Council approval, were based in part on your message of October 20, 2008 as follows: Max Bokelman - - - -- Original message----- From: Ralph Qualls [mailto:RalphQ @cupertino.org] Sent: Monday,, October 20, 2008 10:23 AM To: 'i yuen' Cc: Max Bokelman; donbautistajr @hotmail.com; ekml03 @yahoo.com; David Knapp; larry.loo @amd.com; Terry Greene; Gail Seeds Subject: RE: Re:Stevens Creek - Fallen Oak Picnic Area Bridge M. Yuen et al: As City Engineer and Public Works Director, I personally (no one else) approved the substitution of the metal bridge for the existing wooden bridge and did so at a meeting of our project and construction managers on the site regarding the removal of the concrete obstructions in the creek at that location sometime around the latter half of July 2008. 14 29 -18 r On July 23, 2008, we sent a courtesy "Notice of Construction Activity" regarding the removal and replacement of the bridge by e -mail to over 400 residents on our mailing lis including Scenic Circle residents. I don't know why some did not receive it. Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works City of Cupertino - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ralph Qualls [mailto:RiilphQ @cupertino.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:01 AM To: Max Bokelman; 'i yuen' Cc: donbautistajr @hotmail.coia; ekm103 @yahoo.com; David Knapp; larry.loo @amd.com; Tea=ry Greene; Gail Seeds; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Bari -y Chang; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro Subject: RE: Re:Stevens Creel: - Fallen Oak Picnic Area Bridge Mr. Bokelman -- I do not see how you (or anyone else) could possibly interpret my message as doing-anything outside of the Council's approval - - -my remarks of last night stand- - anyone who suggests that the staff acted outside of the Council's policy or approvals is dead wrong and as I advised the Council upon Mr. Santoro's question, it isn't just a matter of opinion but a matter of record and unimpeachable fact- -but, of course, people are free to believe whatever they want: to- -Thank you for your note and, all things aside, best wishes for a happy and safe holiday season. Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works City of Cupertino - -- On Wed, 12/16/09, Max Bokelman <maxbok @att.net> wrote: 15 29 -19 k i 1 From: Max Bokelman <maxbok @att.net> Subject: RE: Re:Stevens Creek - Fallen Oak Picnic Area Bridge To: "'Ralph Qualls'" <RalphO @cupertino.org >, 'Ili yuen'" <i_yuen @yahoo.com> Cc: donbautistajr @hotmail.com, ekml03 @yahoo.com, "'David Knapp'" <Davidk @cupertino.org >, h larry.loo @amd.com, "'Terry <TerryG @cupertino.org >, "'Gail Seeds'" <GailS@cupertino.org >, "'Kris Wang'" <Kwang @cupertino.org >, "'Gilbert Wong'" <gwong @cupertino.org >, "'Barry Chang'" <BChang @cupertino.org >, "'Orrin Mahoney'" <Omahoney @cupertino.org >, "'Mark Santoro'" <MSantoro @cupertino.org> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 11:14 AM Yes, indeed Ralph, let the matter of record and unimpeachable fact stand. Best wishes to you and yours for a happy and safe holiday season also. Sincerely, Max Bokelman R 1 1, 1 R 1 1 16 i 29-20 Appellants: �Iu 5 At,3 i t5o e �� - Z, - z Po - � o hA v �ST�' C-v Q� 2�1 N� 1 U4f 7' )C) ��� �u �� �. i�� �cti,� c�� rte= Z - �� -�� V) Z12� C/)O ck tc U�D 7�7 29-21 (14 CN CN CN l 1 ' �,1. `�li' f +� V� 1 f7 Date: March 1, 2010 To: The City of Cupertino / City Clerk, Kimberly S D uv[8 LIAR 22010 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK , From: The Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park Petition for the Reconsideration Appellants Subject: Addendum to the Petition for the Reconsideration of Council`s Decision on Agenda 17: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park, dated February 16, ;2010 Total pages of Addendum: 3 Per the City of Cupertino Clerk's request on March 1, 2010, we respectfully submit this addendum to our Petition for the Reconsideration of Council's Decision on Agenda 17: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park, dated February 16, 2010, outlining and summarizing our grounds for reconsideration. 1.) New relevant evidence with, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at an earlier city hearing. Petition section: Public Meeting Law Violation and Fabrications, p.2 Summary of Public Meeting Law Violation: p.2 - The discovery of a 2007 Public Works drawing on the City's Web site with a callout for the "Scenic Circle Pedestrian Bridge" demonstrates that the City of Cupertino's decision to open access to Blackberry Farm and the Stevens Creek Trail via Scenic Circle was made without a public hearing prior to the official February 16, 2010 City Council action, which is a violation of California Open Meeting Law (The Brown Act). Drawing: http:// www. cupertino. org/ downloaiJs /pdf /SCCP_Exhibit_C.pdf Summary of new fabrications: a) p.3 - The use of the word "pedestrian" in the 2007 drawing impeaches the City's repeated CatE!gorical Exemption "maintenance bridge" argument /fabrication for the new bridge that did not receive a CEQA review. b) p.6 - Environmental Planning Consultant Jana Sokale's email 29-23 referring to the bridge as pedestrian replacing pedestrian impeaches the City's Categorical Exemption argument /fabrication. c) p.6 - Ms. Sokale misrepresented the bridge /facts (and the taxpayers) when seeking permission from permitting agencies, the US Army Corp of Engineers, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: The "existing bridge" was removed and demolished, not "temporarily lifted aside, " and she failed to mention the bridge that was "repositioned" was a completely different metal bridge for a wooden bridge. 2.) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. Petition Section: A Safe /Safer Route to School, or a liability to the taxpayers? p.10 p.10 - The unsafe Blackberry Farm entrance driveway is a relevant part of the project's safer route to school. Not only was it "improperly excluded" additional information has been discovered that argues it was intentionally excluded, with the motivation being cost: Staff Report, February 20, 2007 Staff recommends that any subsequent consideration by the Council of the issues surrounding the re- opening of the Scenic Circle gate be deferred to another Council meeting and taken up as a separate item apart from the School Traffic safety issues noted above. Staff notes that if the Stevens Creek Corridor area beyond the Scenic Circle gate were to be re- opened to the tri- schools commute the resulting requirements for provision of facilities dedicated to safety and accessibility for a safe route to school could have a significant cost impact on the Stevens Creek Corridor project. 3.) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its, jurisdiction. 29-24 2 Petition Section: Civil rights violation, p.12 p.12 - The unequal City Council decisions for trail setbacks of 100' for one neighborhood vs. less than 40' For another is excessive, and therefore discriminatory. 4.) Proof of fact which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. p.9 - The concerns that the Scenic Circle neighborhood will suffer the same fate as the Monta Vista neighborhood as a direct result of the reduced Blackberry Farm parking lot were again not addressed, and any thoughts or conclusions expressed regarding impacts were unsupported by any facts, studies, or qualified analysis. 5.) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not preceding in a manner required by law: Petition section: Public Meeting Law Violation and Fabrications, p.2 p.2 - The discovery of a 2007 Public Works drawing on the City's Web site with a callout for the "Scenic Circle Pedestrian Bridge" demonstrates that the City of Cupertino's decision to open access to Blackberry Farm and the Stevens Creek Trail via Scenic Circle was made without a public hearing prior to the official February 16, 2010 City Council action, which is a violation of California Open Meeting Law (The Brown Act). Drawing: http: / /www.cupertino.org/ downloads /pdf /SCCP_Exhibit_C.pdf 5b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by finding of fact; 5c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Petition section: A Safe /Safer Route to School, or a liability to the taxpayers ?, p.10 p.10 - The City has failed to present any data to quantify Scenic Circle through Blackberry Farm as a safe /safer route to school. 3 ��9�,25 Attachment C RESOLUTION NO. 10- 07 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF SUSAN SIEVERT, ET AL. AS AMENDED BY DONALD BAUTISTA, JR. SEEKING COUNCIL RECONSIDERATION OF ITS DECISION ON SCENIC CIRCLE ACCESS TO STEVENS CREEK TRAIL AND BLACKBERRY FARM WHEREAS, on February 16, 2010, the Cupertino City Council received a staff report and recommendation to construct a trail connection from Scenic Circle across an existing bridge over Stevens Creek to provide access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council acted to approve the design and construction of an additional public access point to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm from the west side of the Creek near Scenic Circle. WHEREAS, the Council also gave further direction to Staff to develop a trail alignment option that accessed the park somewhere between the locations detailed in the February 16 staff report for Alternative A and Alternative B to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, a trail entrance directly across the street from the front of residential property. WHEREAS, the Cupertino City Council's decision was within its discretion and made at a properly noticed public meeting. WHEREAS, Susan Sievert, et al., and Donald Bautista requested that the City Council reconsider its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties at all hearings, including evidence presented at the April 6, 2010 reconsideration hearing. NOW. THEREFORE. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: The petitioners' Reconsideration Petition is defective on its face in that it does not offer proof of facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. The petitioners have made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(1).) The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by the petitioners at any prior city hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).) 4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(3).) 29-26 5. The petitioners have failed to present any evidence that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(2).) The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion regarding approving the design and construction of an additional public access point to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm from the west side of the Creek near Scenic Circle and giving direction to Staff to develop a trail alignment option to access the park somewhere between the locations detailed in the February 16 staff report for Alternative A and Alternative B. (See Municipal Code § 2.08.096B(5).) Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law. b. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact attached as Exhibit A. c. The findings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 7. The petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision of February 16, 2010 on item 17 is DENIED, thereby affirming the original decision. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6` day of April, 2010, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor, City of Cupertino 29-27 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Municipal Code section 2.08.096 states: "A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for consideration precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial proceeding." The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1) An offer of new relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2) An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the city council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the city council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5) Proof of facts which demonstrate that the city council abused its discretion by: a) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and / or b) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and / or c) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence." Original Petition and Addendum The original petition consisted of 16 pages of allegations and accusations with diagrams and pictures, partial quotes and e- mails, which have no relevance with respect to the required findings criteria. The grounds in Mr. Bautista's addendum to the petition are more deliberately and narrowly drawn with respect to the grounds for reconsideration required by the CMC and are those to which the following response applies. The rest of the material in the original petition, most of which is not referenced in Mr. Bautista's addendum, is either immaterial or irrelevant and therefore not a part of the response. 1. New relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing: Finding: The petitioner has failed to provide relevant evidence of any kind that the Brown Act was violated in any way. The comments do not provide relevant evidence which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. In addition, the comments are inaccurate and based on personal opinion rather than facts. Petition Response Alleged Public Meeting Law The City provided proper Brown Act compliant Violation and Related Complaints: notification of the Council's intention to consider a.) the discovery of a 2007 providing access from the Scenic Circle residential area to 29-28 Public Works drawing on Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park at the the City's web site with a February 16, 2010 Council meeting. This information notation "Scenic Circle was mailed to the Council members, posted on the City's Pedestrian Bridge" web site, and public notices were posted more than 72 demonstrates that the City hours prior to the public meeting. of Cupertino's decision to open access to Blackberry As a courtesy to the residents of Cupertino, the City farm and the Stevens Creek notified approximately 546 residents by email of the trail via Scenic Circle was agenda item two working days and two weekend days made without a public before the meeting took place. hearing prior to the official February 16, 2010 City The descr:.ption of a bridge type like this is irrelevant with Council action, which is a respect to the Brown Act. violation of California Open Meeting Law (The Brown Act). b.) The use of the word The word pedestrian is used to define the bridge as a non - "pedestrian" in the 2007 vehicular bridge. A pedestrian bridge has been in this drawing impeaches the location for many years and was present when the City City's repeated Categorical purchased the property from a private group picnic Exemption "maintenance operator in the early 1990s. The bridge was also present bridge" when the CEQA review was conducted for the argument/fabrication for the construction of the Stevens Creek Trail. That review new bridge that did not addressed the impacts of removing the bridge if the City receive a CEQA review. chose to do so. Public access to Stevens Creek Trail from Scenic Circle was not contemplated in the early stages of planning the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project so the CEQA review did not address its potential impacts. The bridge was given the terminology of a maintenance bridge when the old picnic area was restored to a native plantings area and it was determined that maintenance personnel would be using it. On February 16, 2010 City Council directed staff to initiate a CEQA review for an access trail between Scenic Circle and. Stevens Creek Trail. That environmental p rocess is now underway. c.) Environmental Planning Ms. Sokale' use of the term "pedestrian bridge" rather Consultant Jana Sokale's than calling it a "maintenance bridge" was irrelevant to email referring to the bridge the concurrence being sought from the agencies. as pedestrian replacing pedestrian impeaches the City's Categorical 29-29 Exemption argument/fabrication. CEQA Guideline 15302(b) permits replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities of this type without additional CEQA review. d.) Ms. Sokale misrepresented The material of the bridge that was to be temporarily the bridge /facts (and the removed, and the material of the replacement bridge, taxpayers) when seeking following the completion of creek bank modification and permission from permitting restoration, was irrelevant to the concurrences being agencies, the US Army Corp sought. As noted and referenced in the staff report, of Engineers, the San replacing the bridge span at the same location with a better Francisco Regional Water material for the improved safety of the maintenance Quality Control Board, and personnel using it, was entirely within the discretion of the the National Oceanic and project engineers, with proper agency concurrence, which Atmospheric was obtained. Administration: The opening the gate and constructing an access "existing bridge" was trail, on February 16, 2010, as a separate item, removed and demolished, apart from the School Traffic safety issues not "temporarily lifted noted in the February 20, 2007 staff report. aside, "and she failed to mention the bridge that was "repositioned" was a completely different metal bridge for a wooden bridge. 2. An offer of relevant evidence which was improperly excluded at any prior City hearing: Finding: The petitioner has offered no new relevant evidence that was excluded at any prior City Council meeting, nor proven that any evidence was previously excluded by the City Council. The complaint is an opinion of the petitioner and offers no new relevant information. City staff always advises Council about significant cost impacts of particular actions being considered for the benefit of the community. Petition Response Complaint The declaration that the driveway entrance is The unsafe Blackberry Farm entrance unsafe is an opinion of the petitioner that is not driveway is a relevant part of the project's shared by City staff. safer route to school. Not only was it "improperly excluded" additional information The February 16, 2010 Council meeting, at has been discovered that argues it was which Scenic Circle Access was considered intentionally excluded, with the motivation and addressed by many Cupertino residents, being cost. was consistent with the quoted portions of the February 20, 2007 Staff Report. The Council Excerpts from Staff Report, February 20, 2007 considered the cost of three alternatives for re- - Staff recommends that any subsequent opening the gate and constructing an access consideration by the Council of the issues trail, on February 16, 2010, as a separate item, surrounding the re- opening of the Scenic apart from the School Traffic safety issues Circle gate by deferred to another Council noted in the February 20, 2007 staff report. meeting and taken up as a separate item apart 29-30 from the School Traffic safety issues noted above. Staff notes that if the Stevens Creek Corridor area beyond the Scenic Circle gate were to be re- opened to the tri- schools commute the resulting requirements for provision of facilities dedicated to safety and accessibility for a safe route to school could have a significant cost impact on the Stevens Creek Corridor project. An additional paragraph in the 2007 staff report, ignored by the petitioner, makes it clear staff was not trying to hide relevant information: "This discussion could be advertised throughout the Scenic Circle neighborhood and the rest of the school community so that all interested stakeholders will be encouraged to participate in the discussion. The Council could then either re- affirm its original decision to keep the gate closed or consider other options." The potential cost of re- opening the gate on Scenic Circle to provide access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm was discussed at the February 16, 2010 Council meeting. 3. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. Finding: The petitioner has not provided proof of facts that demonstrate that the Council has proceeded without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Petition Response Alleged Civil Right Violation: A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which, if interfered with by another, The unequal City Council decisions for trail gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of setbacks of 100' (feet) for one neighborhood civil rights are freedom of speech, press, vs. less than 40' (feet) for another is excessive, assembly, and the right to vote. Distances for and therefore discriminatory. trail setbacks are not civil rights and do not impinge on civil rights. In the original discussions regarding the alignment of Stevens Creek Trail, staff and Council expressed concern for protecting residential privacy by making an attempt where feasible (emphasis added) to locate the trail 100 feet from a residence. This was accomplished in most locations. It should be noted that access to the trail via the existing driveway from San Fernando allows pedestrians and cyclists to pass closer than 100 29 -31 feet from the residences. Access to the trail from Scenic Circle is considered to be similar. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing Finding: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council failed to provide a fair hearing. To the contrary, a review of the hearing on February 16, 2010 shows that the Council heard lengthy testimony from the petitioners, neighborhood residents, and concerned parents, as well as factual information presented by the City staff. Petition Response Complaint: On February 16, 2010 the Council directed staff to initiate the environmental review The concerns that the Scenic Circle process to determine what, if any, significant neighborhood will suffer the same fate as the impacts might exist with the opening of the Monta Vista neighborhood as a direct result of Scenic Circle Access to the Stevens Creek the reduced Blackberry Farm parking lot were Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. That again not addressed, and any thoughts or environmental review process has begun. conclusions expressed regarding impacts were public meeting on October 20, 2009. It unsupported by an facts, studies, or qualified formally discussed the staff recommendation analysis. that a task force be formed on November 30, 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a.) Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and /or b.) Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and /or c.) Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. Finding: The petitioner has not provided any proof of facts that demonstrate the Council abused its discretion in any manner. The petitioner's comment indicates a significant misunderstanding of the public meeting process. Petition Response Alleged Public Meeting Violation: At the February 16, 2010 City Council meeting there was an extensive public hearing about The discovery of a 2007 Public Works drawing opening access between Scenic Circle and the on the City's web site with a notation "Scenic Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. Circle Pedestrian Bridge" demonstrates that the City of Cupertino's decision to open access to Previously, the Council received requests from Blackberry Farm and the Stevens Creek Trail the neighborhood during open comments at its via Scenic Circle was made without a public public meeting on October 20, 2009. It hearing prior to the official February 16, 2010 formally discussed the staff recommendation City Council action, which is a violation of that a task force be formed on November 30, California Open Meeting Law (The Brown 2009. Again on December 15, 2009, it 29-32 Act). Complaint: The City has failed to present any data to quantify Scenic Circle through Blackberry Farm as a safe /safer route to school. considered the access issue but did not make a decision. . These agendas and meetings were properly noticed and in full compliance with the Brown Act. As noted in the discussions of other Grounds above, the Council made decisions based on all the facts that were relevant and supported by information provided and considered at the meeting. An environmental review is in progress. 29-33 Attachment D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CUPERTINO Summary AGENDA ITEM 1 AGENDA DATE February 16, 2010 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park 1. Approve the design and construction of an additional public access point to Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Blackberry Farm from the west side of the Creek near Scenic Circle. 2. If approved, consideration of three alternative project options and approval of Alternative B as a new capital improvement project and budget in the amount of $235,000 to design and construct the ADA modifications to the existing maintenance footbridge and a code compliant access trail from Scenic Circle; to the east side of Stevens Creek in Blackberry Farm. BACKGROUND On December 6, 2005 the City Council voted to close the gate providing access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. The Council action followed extensive discussion on the issue. The Council discussed the access issue again on October 17, 2006 and agreed to consider forming a task force to look into the issue, as long as it addresses the larger issue of safety in the Monta Vista High School, Kennedy Middle School, and Lincoln Elementary School area. Council did not act to reopen the gate at that time. Council asked Staff to return with proposals on forming such a task force. The gate remained closed throughout the construction of the Stevens Creek Corridor Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. During the construction of the trail and the renovation of the park, the . construction crew removed the north bridge (close to Blackberry Farm Golf Course), replaced the middle bridge with a new bridge, and temporarily removed the south bridge (close to the playground). The south bridge was restored in the same location, after the work in Stevens Creek was completed. The neighboring community was notified of this action by e -mail on July 23, 2008 in a Notice of Construction Activity. The south bridge is currently used for maintenance purposes only by staff. 29t7341 The Stevens Creek Corridor Trail and Blackberry Farm Park reopened on July 4, 2009. The Director of Parks and Recreation established a Blackberry Farm Operations Advisory Committee to provide the department advice on the day to day operations of the trail and park. At its October 12, 2009 meeting, some of the neighbors brought the issue of providing a safe route to walk and bike to school through Blackberry Farm to the committee. The committee discussed ideas such as having the route accessible from Scenic Circle, during school hours only, with Parks and Recreation contract staff opening and closing the gate. Those who supported closing the gate in 2005 continued to oppose opening tho gate for on the basis of neighborhood safety, parking, and traffic. Parents brought up the same issue during open forum at the October 20, 2009 City Council meeting and spoke of the need for a safe route to the tri- school area now that Blackberry Farm and Stevens Creek Corridor Trail are open. Staff proposed two options for a task force to consider this issue at the November 30, 2009 City Council meeting. The Council voted to bring the reopening of Scenic Circle gate issue to the December 15, 2009 City Council meeting. ANALYSIS On December 15, 2009, in considering the issue: of opening a new access trail to Stevens Creek and Blackberry Farm, Council reviewed a preliminary project scope and description for the access. At the Council meeting staff specifically noted that the estimate was very preliminary and was not based on any design or engineering of such a project nor did it account for the potential environmental impact or permitting process. At the conclusion of the discussion Council did not make a decision regarding the access point from Scenic Circle but directed Staff to investigate two additional alternatives to the staff alternative presented in the December 15 meeting. That original alternative is now referred to as Alternative A. The other alternatives are referred to as Alternatives B and C. The following is a summary of the alternatives. More specific; details of each alternative are provided in the attached Exhibit A, B and C respectively. The following discussion and description of alternatives is for Council's consideration should it approve a project for an additional access to the bark from the west side of Stevens Creek. DISCUSSION Additional Public Access Trial to Stevens Creek Corridor Trail and Blackberry Farm Over the years, since Council acted to close the Scenic Circle access gate in December 2005, Staff has maintained a neutral position on the issue owing to the immin construction of the Stevens Creek Corridor Project which would require closure of all access points during construction. 2 2 17 3!? However, since the matter has again been raised by neighbors and parents as well as by Council, Staff has reconsidered that issue and recommends that the additional access be approved. There are several reasons that form the basis for this Staff recommendation. These include the following: 1. Safer route for school children to the tri- school area on McClellan Road and Bubb Road. The current route following McClellan Road or Stevens Creek Boulevard from Scenic to the Tri- School area tends to generate higher vehicular speeds owing to the downhill grades and some sight distances issues at the hairpin turns occurring over this reach of McClellan Road. A safe and code compliant trail and bridge through Blackberry farm would offer a more direct and safer route: to school. 2. Convenient access for neighbors and park users to the west of Blackberry Farm Park. Stevens Creek Corridor Trail and Blackberry Farm Park, particularly since reopening after completion of $14 Million in public improvements and recreation facilities, is an amenity that should provide convenient and safe access for the entire community. An additional access point, which would effectively be a branch of the existing Stevens Creek Corridor Trail, would accomplish that goal and more conveniently open the Park and Trail for the neighborhoods to the west of the creek. 3. Supports the City's goals for alternative - transportation and a Green environment. The City has consistently supported projects that accommodate and encourage walking and bicycling throughout the communit• . An additional access point from the west side of the creek would achieve that goal of furthering opportunities for people to walk and bike through this important recreation area. For all the above reasons, Staff has concluded that the appropriate recommendation for the Council's consideration is to identify and approve funding for a new Capital Improvement Project to provide an additional ADA and code compliant trail branch and bridge for access from Scenic Circle across Stevens Creek to Blackberry Farm and connecting to the existing Stevens Creek Corridor Trail. The following outlines three alternatives for Council to consider for such a project. General Conditions and Design requirements Certain elements and costs are common to all three alternatives, such as the work necessary to make the existing maintenance bridge ADA and pedestrian code compliant. The width of the pathway and surface material in all alternatives A, B and C are assumed to be similar. A number of trail surface materials were considered during the analysis phase. The existing CEQA documents prohibit the use of petroleum products such as asphalt or oil impregnated gravel. Because a portion of the trail near the: bridge is in the flood plain, other construction materials that typically contain chemicals or minerals that would be harmful to the steelhead cannot be used as well. 29 X7363 When annual maintenance costs are taken into consideration, the number of trail surface alternatives is further reduced. For the purposes of the cost estimates the surface material for trail is presumed to be the same material in all tree alternatives. During the final design phase it may be determined that the surface material for the portion of the trail that is above the flood plain could be a different material but it has been assumed to be the same for all three alternatives. However, this determination will have only a minor effect on the cost estimate, if any. The significant variability of the alternatives, aside from the length of the trail, has mainly to do with the number of native and non - native tree: that must be removed to accommodate the trail alignment and the attendant additional work required in the environmental review process as a result. These variables are discussed in each alternative below and shown in more detail in the Exhibits attached to this report. Alternative A This alternative begins at Scenic Circle near the intersection of Scenic Court. It is the shortest trail alternative at approximately 200 feet in length, of which most is in the flood plain. A small number of trees will need to be removed for the trail alignment, including a small young oak, three elms in poor condition, and one willow. One nearly dead walnut tree will also need to be removed. A summary of the project budget is provided below with additional detail provided in Attachment 1. Environmental Compliance $ 25,000 Design & Construction Management 45,000 Construction 95,000 Construction Contingency 15,000 Total Alternative A $180,000 The estimated total cost of Alternative A is higher than was first presented to Council in December. The recent investigations of the other alternatives and the compliant surface materials as well as additional engineering of the trail conditions have more accurately identified the scope of the design, construction and environmental costs that needed to be added to the project budget. Alternative B This alternative begins on Scenic Circle but further upstream from Alternative A. It is approximately 250 feet in length, most of which is in the flood plain. One 14 -inch non - native Chinese elm tree will have to be removed to allow the trail alignment to avoid crossing over the sensitive root systems of a significant native oak and a walnut tree. Three other small trees will also need to be removed. However, even with the tree removals, this proj ect, because of the additional meandering of the trail will be the most environmentally appropriate for the setting. In addition, this alternative will help alleviate the expressed concerns of neighbors who are closest to the park boundary. 247374 A summary of the project budget is provided below with additional detail in Attachment 1. Environmental Compliance $ 30,000 Design & Construction Management 50,000 Construction 135,000 Construction Contingency 20,000 Total Alternative B A1tPrnativP C $235,000 This alternative begins on Scenic Circle, the - -urthest upstream and at the intersection of the Simms haul road and is approximately 1,260 feet long. Council asked Staff to consider a trail alignment that would allow the trail to be set back from the street and adjacent to the creek to the fullest extent possible. Upon careful inspection of the entire length of that segment, it was discovered that significant excavation and retaining wall construction would be necessary in some locations immediately next to the creek. For these reasons, this alignment was found to be impractical and infeasible and was not studied further. However, to develop this third alternative, a different trail alignment was studied that placed the trail for most of its length immediately behind the existing curb on Scenic Circle with limited locations where it might be feasible for the alignment to meander away from the curb into open spaces. Unfortunately, even this less intrusive alignment still may require the removal of at least four significant and protected oak trees, one with a trunk diameter of more than 3 feet. An additional 27, mostly native, trees would be affected and may have to be removed. As such, it is expected that these impacts alone,, along with anticipated difficulties in obtaining the necessary permits could very likely make tl:ds an unacceptable alternative, but it is provided here for Council consideration because it was specifically requested. It should be noted that a sidewalk for the entire length of this alternative already exists on the opposite side of the street and is available for pedestrians. It is also common practice for cyclists to use the street instead of sidewalks when they are adjacent to each other. It is assumed that a trail just behind the curb would be treated mon: like a sidewalk than a trail. A summary of the project budget is provided below. More detail is provided in Attachment 1. Environmental Compliance $ 45,000 Design & Construction Management 80,000 Construction 350,000 Construction Contingency 55,000 Total Alternative C $530,000 5 29'-7385 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative and Scope T otal Cost (Budget) A — Bridge ADA retrofits, 200 feet ( + / -) Trail, some minor Tree removal $180,000 B — Bridge ADA retrofits, 250 feet ( + / -) trail, minor tree removal, Tree protection from trail construction $235,000 C — Bridge ADA retrofits, 1,260 foot ( + / -) trail, some behind Curb on Scenic, Major Tree removal $530,000 FISCAL IMPACT Taking no action will have no cost impact. Directing staff to proceed with any one of the three alternatives discussed above will result in a funding requirement from the General Fund. Staff s recommendation for Alternative B will require a total project budget of $235,000. On January 19, the Council approved a project budget for Scenic Circle access in the amount of $125,000. To budget for Alternative B will require an additional allocation of $110,000 as follows: Project Budget Approved January 19, 2010 $125,000 Project Budget Estimate — Alternative B ($235,000) Additional Funding Required $110,000 Staff further recommends that, in accordance with previous Council direction on other new CIP projects that such funding be considered as part of the 2010 -2011 Capital Improvement program along with other proposed CIP projects for the upcoming fiscal year. 6 29 s§ STAFF RECOMMENDATION Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park 1. Approve the design and construction of an additional public access point to Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Blackberry Farm from the west side of the Creek near Scenic Circle. 2. If approved, consideration of three alteniative project options and approval of Alternative B as a new capital improvement project and budget in the amount of $235,000 to design and construct the ADA modifications to the existing maintenance footbridge and a code compliant access trail from Scenic Circle to the east side of Stevens Creek in Blackberry Farm. 3. Staff further recommends that, in accordance with previous Council direction on other new CIP projects that such funding be considered as part of the 2010 -2011 Capital Improvement program along with other proposed CIP projects for the upcoming fiscal year. However, should Council decide to take no action, the existing bridge will continue to be used for maintenance access to the landscaping on the west side of the creek. Submitted by: Submitted by: I-- . . ............ � o a /' Z'4PO-:Zwo Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Mar finder Director of Public Works Director of Parks and Recreation Approved for Submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachment 1 — Alternative Cost Summary and reaps of Alternatives A, B, and C. 29t7407 ATTACHMENT 1 j SCENIC CIRCLE ACCESS ALTERNATIVES COST SUMMARY FEB. 16, 2010 ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT ALIGNMENT A B C ENVIRONMENTAL CEQA CLEARANCE FILING FEES BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS ARBORIST TOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL $25,000 $30,000 $45,000 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SURVEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INSPECTION & TESTING BIDDING COSTS TOTAL, DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT $45,000 $50,000 $80,000 CONSTRUCTION DEMO, SITE PREP, EARTHWORK MOBILIZATION DEMOLITION GRADING ENGINEERED FILUOFFHAUL ) TREE PROTECTION I TRAFFIC CONTROL SUBTOTAL $23,000 $42,000 $125,000 TRAIL, BRIDGE UPGRADES, SITE WORK TRAIL CONSTRUCTION FENCING MODIFICATIONS & NEW GATE BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS ADA RAMPS SITE WORK SUBTOTAL $65,000 $82,000 $190,000 RESTORATION PLANTING PLANTINGS IRRIGATION EROSION CONTROL TREE REPLACEMENT PLANT MAINTENANCE SUBTOTAL ( $7,000 1 $11,000 $35,000 TOTAL, CONSTRUCTION $95,000 $135,000 $350,000 CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY $15,000 $20,000 $55,000 I i TOTAL PROJECT $180.000 $235.000 I IQPL 000 24? 41 ALTERNATIVE A DATE: 2/e/10 SCENIC CIRCLE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY - CITY OF CUPERTINO 29-42 ALTERNATIVE B DArE:2 /8/10 SCENIC CIRCLE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY - CITY OF CUPERTINO 29-43 ALTERNATIVE C i4 sezc Bouuv^ c • i, DATE. 2 /B /10 SCENIC CIRCLE TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY - CITY OF CUPERTINO 29-44 February 16, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Attachment E UNFINISHED BUSINESS 17. Scenic Circle access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park A. Approve the design and constriction of an additional public access point to Stevens Creek Corridor Park and Blackberry Farm from the west side of the Creek near Scenic Circle B. If approved, consider three alternative project options and approve Alternative B as a new capital improvement project and budget in the amount of $235,000 to design and construct the ADA modifications to the existing maintenance footbridge and a code compliant access trail from Scenic Circle to the east side of Stevens Creek in Blackberry Farrz Public Works Director Ralph Qualls reviewed the staff report and each alternative via a PowerPoint presentation and video of the area. Jill Moody said that she doesn't agree with connecting Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm and especially doesn't like Alternative 13 since it is directly across from her house. She didn't think that residents' views should be blocked because of intrusive noise and cars. Steve Moody (also speaking on behalf of Bill Hawkes) said that he is glad Alternative C is being ruled out because it would be intrusive to the neighborhood; the entrance to the park in Alternative B would be directly across from his house; and he felt another Alternative D should be proposed which would use the Simms property. He was unhappy about the idea of looking across the street and seeing cars instead of trees and noted that children's safety is the reason for this isslae, but he doesn't think too many kids would use the access. He asked Council to leave things the way they are and let people find their own way to the park. Suman Ganapathy, President of the Morita Vista PTA, said that any of the alternatives would be fine with them and urged Council to accept the staff's recommendation to approve the access through Blackberry Farm. She noted that their concern is safety to the children getting to school and the high volume of traffic on McClellan and Stevens Creek Blvd. She said that the school would try to coordinate with the bike /walk to school week with the Walk One Week program to be sure students take advantage of the trail once it's opened. Deborah Jamison said that the community has discussed this issue, and Council has made a decision, many times in the past. She noted that it would be difficult to construct a handicapped- accessible trail that would also accommodate bicycle traffic, and the intrusion would impact wildlife in the area. She said that no native plants would be destroyed in the alignment of Alternative; A and that the trailhead wouldn't be directly in front of anyone's house; Alternative B would require removal of habitat, impact the creek habitat, and puts the trailhead directly in front of a resident's house; Alternative C is out 29-45 February 16, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 6 as already discussed. She said she has been waiting for Simms renovation and wants to be sure there is money for that, hoping that people would actually want to go through that area once it's restored. She urged Council to schedule a site visit and walk each alternative before making a decision. Jim Bodwin spoke against an Alternative D through the Simms Property because no one would use it. He said that Alternative A would be more visible from the street and would discourage teenagers from hiding and drinking. Bob Hoxsie said he supports the staff recommendation to create access to the park He noted that Alternative B would be have more impact on the residents and the goal is to be cost effective while still preserving the environment and not impacting residents. Janet Trankle urged Council to open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm. She said that her son rides his bike everyday to school and he must ride on either McClellan, which has lots of traffic, or go on Stevens Creek to Orange Ave. She said that the kids would use the access and that Scenic Circle is a public street into a public park. She noted that she didn't think many cars would drive down Scenic Circle to access the park that way and that most people would walk or bike to the area. Judy Wilson, Vice President PTA Monta Vista, said that it's the stated goal of the Council to encourage alternative transportation whenever possible and keep kids safe. She urged Council to support opening up the access. Carol Stanek urged Council to open the access. She showed names from the minutes of a past Council meeting of all the people who were for opening access. She also showed pictures of car traffic and bikes on McClellan Road noting the unpaved areas. She said that Alternative C is not viable; Alternative B would have additional meandering of the trail and not a straight access for the kids; Alternative A is the cheapest, has the least environmental impact and the money is already allocated. Anne Ng, speaking on behalf the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, said that they support access wherever possible, have no opinion on where the access is located, and would like the access to be available during park hours. Speaking on her own behalf, she said that this would definitely be a safer route to school and that Alternative A is the least disruptive to the environment. She did not think people would drive down Scenic Circle to reach the park. Max Bokelman said that he lives on Scenic Circle and is disappointed with the proposal because it departs from the stated problem of concern for safety of students and now extends to provide unrestricted access from Scenic Circle to the trail and park. He said the fence now in place is a result of many public discussions and Council decisions to preserve the character of the neighborhood and protect it from disturbances experienced in the past. He urged Council to give consideration to the concerns of the residents of Scenic Circle and any contain any action to address the stated problem of safety for students to and from school. 29-46 February 16, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 7 Mark Burns said that in 2005 it was decided to not open the access and this discussion has been going on since 2001 for many reasons stated again tonight. He urged Council to give more weight to residents who have a house in front or down the street from the gate because their properties would be devalued. He urged Council to spend the money set aside for capital improvement for safety of the routes already in existence and to not try and solve the safety issue by opening access and hurting the neighbors who live on the street. He said the Alternative E would be to do nothing at all. Craig Lee said that he supports building; a gate and path into Blackberry Farm and the budget for the necessary improvements, but doesn't support approving a design now. He urged Council to approve a task force to advise the City on the design and other issues such as parking, biking on a steep street that contains a blind curve, pedestrians impacted from bicycles, safety of walking across the bridge, risk of personal and property crime in the area, and would the City provide enhanced enforcement leading to more sheriff costs. Shani Kleinhaus, speaking for the Audubon Society, said she they are not voicing an opinion regarding access but want to focus on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. She said that they support a shorter design through the meadow which should be kept as natural as possible. Speaking on her own behalf she urged Council to remove the bridge to keep the integrity and beauty of the park. Norm Donovan said that he has two children who will bike to Kennedy Middle School. He noted that the new alternative of providing access through the park is safer and urged Council to move ahead as quickly as possible with Alternative A, and he would be willing to tell people the new gate is open to create awareness. He felt that Alternative D through the Simms Property is unsafe. JK Tsai said the Scenic neighborhood is quiet right now and he doesn't want to promote that people use the street for access because it would damage the community's safety. He said he opposes any option to open access and that the decision was already made to keep the gate closed and to not spend any money on this. Julie Wing said that she is a block leader adjacent to Scenic Circle and that many neighbors wanted to be here tonight. She said that the residents of Scenic Circle are taking a narrow approach to community in not wanting people to go down their street to get into the park. She said it would be a nicer use of the neighborhood to be able to ride into the park rather than drive. She also noted that most people don't know about Scenic Circle and would use the main entrance for access anyway. Daniel Nguyen, Chair of the Public Safety Commission, but speaking on his own behalf, said that he supports opening access for all the reasons already stated. He said that people could walk to the park in two minutes instead of driving five minutes and Cupertino is trying to promote walkability. He said that he would advertise this access as a safer route to school; supports adding additional patrols by the sheriff; and parking issues should be mitigated by possibly limiting who can park there with permits or by striping. 29-47 February 16, 2010 Cupertino City Council Page 8 Phil Pflager said that providing safe access to students is a good idea but other residents would also like to have access to the park which is supported by City tax dollars. Chang moved and Mahoney seconded to open the gate for access to the park. Santoro added a friendly amendment to design the access to be something between Alternative A and Alternative B leaving that up to staff to decide; have the gate be opened during park hours and coordinate with the schools to see if additional time is needed to get students to school; and authorize staff to proceed using the money already budgeted. Chang and Mahoney accepted the friendly amendment. The motion carried unanimously. Council recessed from 8:40 p.m. to 8:55 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Consider Application No. SPA - 2008 -01, City of Cupertino, Stevens Creek Boulevard between Highway 85 and eastern City limits - Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendments to achieve conformance with the General Plan. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 10 -2055: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending the Heart of the City Specific Plan to update the Heart of the City Specific Plan and achieve conformance with the General Plan." Senior Planner Aki Snelling reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. At 9:27 p.m. Mayor Wang opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin said that the Heart of the City makes sure the City has the same look and feel from one end to another including trees, wide boulevards, a rural feel, and includes both residential and high tech. She urged Council to be sure the eastern end of the City retains its character, including the double row of ash trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard and the 35 -foot setbacks. She said she didn't think it was a good idea to include South De Anza Blvd. in the plan since it's a unique area that needs its own document. Norm Hackford recommended removing reference to the Crossroads Streetscape plan because the plan doesn't exist, people don't like it, and it hasn't been approved. He urged Council to leave the reference on page 8 regarding a central area, but to remove it in other places. Darrel Lum referenced an article showing that other communities are trying to replicate what Cupertino has done. He said that the plan should include 2005 boundaries; should be a specific plan; agrees with staff s suggestion to not include South De Anza area but to have it be its own plan; agrees with the previous speaker's recommendations; a 35 -foot easement should be continuous along Highway 85 to Tantau; any developments could have an exception but they should come to Council through a public hearing. 29-48 EXHI =BIT S BE(JIN HERE J4f(ho # 017 I z Linda Lagergren From: mohan sankaran [mohansankaran @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:38 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; Ralph Qualls; Mark Linder; s_sitaraman @yahoo.com; saferides @gmail.com Subject: Support to reopen gate from scenic blvd to blackberry farm for pedestrian Dear Council Members, I enthusiastically support the Council's unanimous decision to reopen the gate from Scenic Circle into Blackberry Farm for pedestrian and bicycle use. I want to remind you that there was overwhelming community support for this access at numerous Council meetings over the past few months. Please do not get dissuaded from continuing this project by a few neighbors who do not wish to share this wonderful park with their neighbors for pedestrian and bicycle access and who coni:inue to try to block the progress on this important community improvement. Please stay the course for the project without delay. thank you and yours sincerely, Mohan Sankaran 10398 palo vista road, cupertino 1 e? '4/61,3 rte z Linda Lagergren From: Janet Trankle [trankles @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:12 PM To: City Council Cc: Mark Linder; David Knapp; raiphg @cupertino.org Subject: Access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle My name is Janet Trankle. I live on Adelheid Court, part of the homeowners association between Scenic Blvd. and the Stocklmeir Ranch. I am writing to reiterate my support for the decision you made on February 16 to reopen access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. I urge you to deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before you, in accordance with the recommendation from Staff that stated the petition does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. I am grateful for your unanimous vote to open access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. This will give my son a safer way to ride his bike to Monta Vista High School than his current choices of McClellan Road or Stevens Creek Blvd. It will also provide easier access to the park for those of us who live in neighborhoods adjacent to Scenic Circle. I live just off the part of Scenic Circle between Stevens Creek Blvd. and the top of the hill. We have many pedestrians and bike riders who use it and it does not adversely affect our neighborhood. Similarly, I do not believe that the quality of the Scenic Circle neighborhood will be adversely affected by having pedestrian and bicycle access to Blackberry Farm. I have been going to Blackberry Farm all my life. Each time I walk through the park now I marvel at the beautiful job the city did with the trail and restoration. I hope to see another beautiful trail and restoration at Stocklmeir Ranch. The areas along the creek that are part of the Cupertino parks system are truly unique and we are lucky to have them for people to enjoy. Sincerely, Janet Stocklmeir Trankle 1 CC 44040 .r 'n . .2' Linda Lagergren From: Mike Moore [skdmoore @gmail.corn] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 5:22 PM To: City Council; saferidescupertino @gmail.com; Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls Subject: Scenic Rd Access Hello, Thank you for your continued support for access to schools through Scenic Rd. I have three kids who can use this safer route. Mike Moore 22350 Cupertino Rd 650- 283 -9434 1 Cc q�( 0 ziern �1 Linda Lagergren From: Carol Stanek [cstanek @echelon.com] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:15 PM To: City Council Cc: Mark Linder; Ralph Qualls; David Knapp; AnneNg @aol.com; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Thank goodness this didn't happen during school commute hours Attachments: 2010 _0403McClellanAccident0004.JPG; 2010 _0403McClellanAccident0005.JPG; 2010 0403McClellanAccident0013.JPG • Dear Councilmembers, Tonight at approximately 6pm, a young driver lost control of her car as she rounded the u -turn on McClellan right near Mira Vista (see photos). This is exactly the place where student bicyclists enter McClellan when they ride to school. Luckily, this time no one was injured. At least the rider coming up the hill right after the car was cleared (picture 0013) had the good sense to ride on the sidewalk (which is illegal) and the good luck not to be there 30 minutes earlier. I sincerely hope we can make progress on Tuesday night to allow bicyclists to avoid the hazard of McClellan by riding through Blackberry Farm from Scenic. Please don't let this opportunity to improve our community slip away. Carol Stanek yat # • r t 1 ,# i '' r i { R ' h ,,., ' t k : s # R - 1 t ,r { •Nu '- i` T :II g ro �1° ;a A 'Ai' ', t}" , , � ', s*' ' ') Pi z ^ , ;" . }; , , ,, R ds M ? P # j�yv gy ,t 4 d 3'� 3 r 4 ° .: . ws 't s'a . t. ,, 1, " e ' 4 i 4 t .. a o ,Y ra '� �>r E � �� # S. U $ ,, .;' wr t .a a 8 4 ' i.r O t t fihk '" *.." ta 1 , Ar 3- �x' '. ' '' f ' t e'. p i.w £' ■ #v "I, " `)' I �'x t P ' , ., • 1 er ���M4a I 1 '. - M 4 'r,,, { f E� + ' ♦ yt , ' . k a ' i m 1 " { t' '" { {0 4 : £ t X ' *w Y d x m,�i �' ,.4,,4 ; : f , 7 $ n a , µ 1 z # ,, ..waste '� t.! fi « {t r :?.,, r tg i "{� N. ..;fir i 4 4aga� erw l ', W , '. .. . {t t i +e x'� F tet ' y q rc ., ,, � y{ , " V ,,,i, gi p : ,$#" '';e ; X . ..; , , f : . 1 r . .., , - , 4 . • *k : 'w £, 9 r _ F . t d.r q' ; �y , , .rte -t s d .., �r, is. a �{' , +f , , , .,.t� A.i . +. "7 t i $ , ' ' : R' ;. .: _ .::. t„ ...�_ ,:.� FY .C.. . �,. i 'a'y. �v : s. x > r . .. :. ..r e W / 9.. .4 `td �; f � , d` "� ��! , . YJ . ,�... .., 4, t .. . _ �..-r d N' u. „s t .I:... ,,” . ,, c {1, :.. y_ a .,. ,.: t .r' ! i z 1 .t 6 . I - • i ? 1. � , _4t�, +,.., . ,�, Y � iY 43 ^. n rs- ro � � as 4 '£ i`i . �' !,-,k,,.'',.',.:' +. ., •�,. .�. .: , M1 ti ..>�t: .: . ., t. • a � ,. { :, k . , .� � � y : ,, t i : .. is .r, "� � y� � A � ts' ,� , ., #,y..` ( ;', p. ''''' 1. "',t, t : ' r '.. t v ' i ' p,,?f.i y r .d'. i ,3 i ''' ' i - !, „ ; ... r . ?.� . € w ,: h 1 � . , ' ..- �{ ..� , ' tj f �'. ,,d .. - + � , j �' �:* '°£' � ', a - 4,11.:''''''r'-'1',' y . " i3 it� 1 ti, =p; ,, 1 $+ i ' , l' 8 ' ° ry d t }-4° .:,`''''.',...,:'''', } e f."-, ki qsz' -i 4 x " '�a' P " r x,} t ,: "; '.{ .� •3 .. '�', «' r s l l Y 4 : - 1 ?.' .'," .t : s ,1. ,� �' � �`i5 .�, 'f :a h' a ., i''''''1. fin z, °ax l . X . � . <. ',�'� i '� � "�`� �Y ,�i, >,�?E f ,1 ' 't t - s y kr 9 j v: ' n ° , ' r h, , �� E « r . c �i e a i Kx t } v , dt I f .:. i �� A. a , • 3 (��X'?dF.z �iw $ ,:,�, �$ F� �,�. .� { � .sy `, C &r' € £tots , 'a : d a 'W -' 1 .; , u ,, , '4, i.. # t{k � ':: £ � ' , . .. , . �`'w,•':: � : e � � •a "� sfi � '� h:? �''�� I�y��kE1"i�`fi } ' £�' ' ':. a . a a, w r atir a i ,a r' i n fi r gn . , ' f rr E ,f „ �. ,s$'r+ , al - s { � .. •{ +e.. .y -.'X .,, n w� k � F { j£k � ,>f,• �k ,� . "`"`§ : "'.f Y . { 11>d ,b .:I. a ;4',1,';';'• ^Y, ;. J� ; i! , / i �', ,; 6 , ^t F , ' iti ' r p�� X� > 6I - z„ 't ,. >4 w >. r a+ , 6 4t 1 fi . 1 a -1';`"4,1: .r w �' "i S t t : i ' i ,.� ` ' ;: fi?'�. m ,p r , ' ,k £ ',%1'- - ,£`'� .E +r '� r3 i'"s : ' : '''' ' ' '' ''' ' '' '''I ' ' '' t. -� y1+id '� � X i .� { •wd S ` :id { t dr +. , >. .. xi.t, ,.�, . ' s ��' FTi 'R a s .a. !8» f & ^ ` J . rgrg £ �' ` - 'a:::, n.. ' G ? - °i , . i' £. , f . P 1 1 4, . : ' yr ., t i 1rr r rJ r �' " ' s = rr % m s 1 ' ' + e ,�,,,{ X „+ +A.g 'td , ' _ YFi k,;y r ' � � a sd. ��1€ ''K '� . • i '. , a , 1 '...• al�> g 'ld^ r rl }a 'a & ` kd. r +s "� "� Y -�� o i�+�r i 4 } - ,� f vin t . W � ' v .' • r .. I 'r c ', x # ' � e d L 7 � ' 2 �. . +' �, 4 a , - ' 7 if a x� t xx = , ra I N ' , to ,h e i! 1, ' r ` 1 i • V i i ge i ,.dy� i.'.3 0 4 11 }�� 1 i �, .l , i0litt ' 011 - r , . I ' ' , - If 1,1 l'i i l 1 '1, , , , . , . , h f i �' 1 I ,a Ii , I,: a ,, t ' • ' 1 ! t 1 +' iy In el u'V+41 CIA � , 1 1 alt,,! } ` %w 4 4 i . r� r, a hl 4 t i p l- ,,4t 1 r ' 1 . r, � ' 1 ' ( .f ,. + k i d � t t } I u, ' 4/1 1 . ", F y + k tr t .� �� f ..' 4 n e ry r, 7 h 1 P� 1 4 t ,,,.;,:lit , I �� lr a i,' f t ry }� � 1 � , § • 1 i * � e , I � i F I �I� 5 }y 7 , i t • 11 1�� 4 £ � � � , 1 p a 6 1 s i g' i 1�( d y r l l - - I�I �Yt ' { 9 �� 4 '�� { -r � 1 i ',4i: {. { M1' � tr" idt�I} t u X ,:4,-.•.,,,,,_ r 1 � � 1- � : . IT, ' i 9 f i K tilt,w+ i ° Te � y. • i � i ' t hF i t '1 t � , ne.w r , n i , r Me � y ' r : 4 Id, Tr ', I t, rl, r(I�iai ,at ��[ p i 4r„) l, 0+, 1 ' I . , ji N 1 ,, w 4t ; E #'t 1 1�,, , S , . ' s +� ' ' t , a r' yi . e I .i #) 5 s �dt f ,,, g � { :414 w t'i ,. � li .�" x�aY .. '� ,r' _...z 1 � e _, iit � e i + e' . 2,, k,,,. ,i`.y,tr} nr „ 1`f 7. X„�1�?q.v.. 6Frj i., - v .. " - .r*i . b 1; F - I,, + �', SP -7 t xJ 1;•� t 1 ) ,::44 } `h „L.:--ii. ¢ f ` c 1 + ,144, : i::y , , � Ik' u ' ' - � om ,l ' a .. �. : 1; F a ', - ' ' { re.�+, s ih "`+e� %�;'�7 tj'Fi +x *,..'‘..‘41,,,,: , ,. ' Y` 1 i tti � ' F d1. ' i '���a i s� bbb af 'j'1[ ti "E • ', * , yr S + i rr `e, t'th , f , 4 k Q 1 1 .. , 'i t �'' ! • I, i 1 • • , - :!1 6 a: I i i s , • I 1 -il � �' t i 2 I i Fa '. a 4 h t i . } r`. ! M+ . 1 r 1 t , r , { ` 4 W' , - .,-:: fit.... _ _ � 5' ���' ���0�� J r -. tl1i i ! 1 4.1 4, A , y t q: A �1 9 i n # r `i- • ''!'l <3: ' ',.•� \fit. , , '�S ( I � ?. ! ,. y r 1 Yy, d w 7 . . . .1, . . • x I y ' ,t'�,�o.f � • +1k 4k1 ,T.;''' r t i s �>•� 4 .ifa�1 `fi �( 1 ! • ,, w ,► s FY , �: , i i .,... , ^. � i:. � ei �,, , , { A ' @{ 'R i yy '�Y ` y + gyp • J 7 Y 5}!. ,. • 01, - —” ' aW ' i ii ,,� k ' Y i ;. `Si if I ' , 4'Y 3 1 C �j1 S ' - i, r. .. 3 ik.V.w;11 ! f ','" •1 t ... .0. :+ } 1 �. k r ( F 6 .1 C • q ,.' `�k { -.` � � 9 S r,�'fd ( 4 k� d 1 { r d A , _ c aa ` `; d ,r 11 q i F � I I ' n t + " ■ L''',1;' a t L f+ 2e t z r .4 a a tiz . ' r„ 7 a .t 1 5 t & tl • * 1, I . , ' g a t t , :' ;1'i : �' ., ` r { i ;. r�d"x"1"'"" t o 1 K. 1. / i 7 , �, :. 1 :1;i':, ' . � 3 w I , "Pm"" is i t ... 3 6 '' '' � . i' I f .', 1 4 l grea L s ---"T . 3ti i F 1 tf; 7 ,a t° ki, €y� l' 4 t ''' 'f i F l k tt y� A ' } ' '4 . ' r r ` V ot Y.jl' G 1 I zit F 4#t > � , } � ir °, ;i { a f ' i l.^ f I� ir � I Y [ � � 1 ! r • ' t��� }x'"r 1 .. Bi i c `w .. Is !fir I'4,,r'^ ,;,,,t,_,o ,,,,,.,.:,— ...e...r.�,+' `., q�wY d { .'t� �`r. t ' F � t °1 i \ Y x ` If. • W C 2 ;?t I #9 , � j m y ,. ;,,, � �. f F I 'k' ) :3 ,.• , 4 ° ' h_ . I ' _` ., i { ,'' i k t r t ,r a. a � I 11 f v ,"x- � : ,, "1! .,{,r � g a,4 :E.,,, I ,,1 IA , 1 t 1, l , it ,4 j ''�C „, _ { , t j0,t ' e I ' i r. a 1 • ilt s.+. tl1"i4 a t. , sp , 0 . a y qq ?. a tier • t ,;z6 .: rG"i. +a.i� "5 3 � �S kl�Y.. - � t: . p "r r i , yr� i,•• ay. ;1 g;[�.' i f $ 1 t � r a Yd l! s s w i i° ' '.i ; 4i # q -... ,, -,444 , f.'• , ,„.. , ,,,, , '. " v i �1 Sy ,. : j :, q, � i n ,, t ,,. d, t ,' • { p � ` t + { ; r : E. H� 4+.t. e t , v # ,, ; l r, pr 4 q r '• 7 '•''' x i r l .i 1. } . i , I I �' � .; i,4, C ' S •r, e'+, k t ki F ,4 I . t {� l "' w ;lz lY st a't'' .F 1 :' r I .;,.. 1 N'�":i` Vtk4: ' ;' ir .: q tr a n . ; {, P r,r ` f 3 ,� 1 ' r t+ `_� { '` % i xa t � t' ' ( [ {: � : if. \ \ i s � ' t 1 F + h" L�: �S t � 3. t ,, 1 r � ` , l r t „ 1 G ' ; ' F i � ' I F i ' '. ,� ,, y t" E . P 1 ` r f E : l P;.' , M I\ [ F i , z`1, r +s A o f . F 1 ' y it ,i t 7 r E ' •ir t . r . a .i �' j i "r t ,� � ,i 4 1 � '' 0 ' s f e ta '' " - , �, 0' t •''. , = d ,' '41,—. . {'j ' " q. l i , a. �rf> -A ,.' , tt �'� t� F i . 9 , 1, r l £'14 k 4 r� f> ' c -t 5 F . . , i ,, 2fr . , •t i ' ( C. 7. 1 ' : ' V: t � '': - 1 ' .t j p a ;e; H � 1 '' .. $ � .' �! ' n h? _ , I '•' 1 • a ? r ` ' I i fi`f fi ".t +' � +.., s �R .x f y. `z ya } ` € ' i y • £. . . 4 , { . 4 F'. , E 3 f 'l 7, .. , ,o',4 �•t if t9 4' t } 't (f '� $ -Uk� '''' § '' + .4 x a t :`41, G 'F ' '' -', ... I , $u' 4c > �+r ,., i� F y t} `..,!"-.4=."--"'.t.'-' . l+.. ;,-. • . „& ' -" r' . i 'log- i i 3 c r r F } y , � l , . t I • > : a<++udr vrfr_3f..f rtv , , , .... ,,,, , ‘ : „.V. . . i . . • ' 'If ' . , 111-11.11111.17., , \\I (s' ! .t 4'4.i a io y S a a .t ': P 1 # er I . � '?J ti Ir . " R }, , � Y 1 y + j � a Yr x • ,�" •r . r ,q, i .*,' ,.., r� { , t . 1! l A P ,. I `.( �" -Iii I x Y, �•'� ar " l .,t + 1 _, I r v a I I I . 4 {�., t ' t" 1 1 + "A1'� •� �'� `.` r ....- : , ., • i 1.., t a+. o'F r,; ftI ,p y ; ,I..' 3 k Y , ,./ j ,? i t•L , i � I 1 1 `, 7 a , � 5 '.4Y g p 1 ' 1 vvii .,.n, , +. f a �. ,.L; .4. 1 y y 1 1 i tI�', r� t , ' ' '',V,, ''',.' 0,..i't::• ' 'I.. '' :■'' ' ' 6 e 1 7 1 / l 0/ 1 T ip Z? Linda Lagergren From: Kumar Sangareddi [kumarjaya @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 3:40 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; Ralph Qualls; Mark Linder; saferides @gmail.com Subject: Access to blackberry farm from scenic circle Hi, Thanks for approving the access to blackberry farm and high school via scenic circle. I heard that the topic of reopening access to blackberry farm from the scenic circle is being brought to reconsideration again. I'm sending this email as a reconfirmation of my support to opening up the path so that our kids can have a safer access to Monta Vista High and blackberry farm. Sincerely, Kumar Sangareddi 10334 Palo Vista Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 • 1 Cd, i { / riew 44 - 2 7 Linda Lagergren From: AnneNg @aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 4:45 PM To: City Council Cc: Ralph Qualls; Mark Linder; David Knapp Subject: reconsideration of scenic circle access to blackberry farm Dear Councilmembers: Thanks very much for your unanimous decision to allow bike /ped access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm and Stevens Creek Trail. I'm sorry you and staff have been saddled with this Reconsideration Petition. I believe staff has adequately refuted the claims in the petition. Concerning the bridge, it was the bridge itself, not the supports, that was replaced. Removing or replacing the supports would certainly have required environmental review, but they s mply remained in place during construction. It was and still is a "pedestrian bridge ", which happens to provide access from the Scenic Circle side of the creek to the main part of Blackberry Farm. The Blackberry Farm entrance is indeed very narrow, and I'm sure is no fun for cyclists and pedestrians during peach usage of Blackberry Farm. But peak usage times are definitely not when kids are traveling to and from school. In fact, during peak usage, it will be good to have another access point just for the human powered. The residents of the Meadows do seem to have received favored treatment - -but in that case, City property comes up to their back fences as opposed to being across the street. Scenic Circle residents have benefited enormously from the dcwnsizing of Blackberry Farm operations and removal of a major picnic area just across the street. Yes, a few cars may end up parked there near the gate once it's opened, but predict not very many. Only time will tell. I'll back their request for help if it becomes a big daily problem. Please deny the request for reconsideration. Thanks again! Anne Ng 6031 Bollinger Road 408 - 257 -6506 1 CSC 1 f /' /ice r,i? 4- 2? Linda Lagergren From: Rune H. Jensen [runehartungjensen @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 _ 11:15 PM To: City Council; Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls Cc: Rune Jensen Subject: Scenic Gate - please continue work to open access To Cupertino City Council, I read with great disapointment the petition from scenic residents to reconsider the decision reached Feb 16 to open the gate to blackberry farm. Having the gate would hugely improve safety for the bike route for kids going Monta Vista and Kennedy schools. Riding bikes or walking on McClellan is not safe and an unjustified risk for our children. I urge you to follow the recommendation of the city staff and deny the petition. Sincerely, Rune H Jensen 10180 Carmen Rd, Cupertino. 1 Cc �0,pb o itrn #ay Linda Lagergren From: Carol Lim [carollim2000 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:06 AM To: City Council; saferidescupertino @gmail.com; Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls Subject: For Our Children, PLEASE Move Ahead to Open Scenic Dear City Council, We have two young children, and we love to take walks and ride our bikes in the neighborhood. We have gotten to know our neighbors well as a result. We were excited and grateful of your unanimous decision to reopen the access from Scenic Circle to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. We understand that there is strong opposition to this by a handful of residents on Scenic Circle, but there are many more children, students, parents, grandparents who would benefit from this decision. Unfortunately, riding bikes or walking down McClellan is not safe. We want a SAFE option for our kids; so for that, we put our trust in you to deny the reconsideration petition and move forward with this important project for Cupertino residents with the utmost urgency. My daughter, Marissa (5 years old) and I will attend the City Council meeting tomorrow. We will be there with our Daisy troop to honor our troop leader, Cris Vaughn, a:ad to show our support for opening up the Scenic Gate. The girls in the Daisy troop are just some of the children who are affected now because they don't have safe access to walk or ride their bikes to the park. The negative effect will continue when they go to Kennedy and Monta Vista schools. I am writing this email because I will need to take my daughter home before 8pm (her bedtime); so I may not be able to speak if the Scenic access topic comes up later than that. However, I want to let you know that we FULLY support reopening the access via' Scenic. THANK YOU for all your hard work on this. We truly appreciate it. Sincerely, Carol Lim 1 c a LT1/440 x /7 2 Linda Lagergren From: jk tsai [jktsai @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:46 PM To: Max Bok Scenic; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Cc: carolcw9 @yahoo.com; ekm103 @yahoo.com; mary.l.murphy @comcast.net; timothymisko @yahoo.com; sanghosuh @gmail.com; larry.loo @amd.com; tbrown1040 @aol.com; dehwey @gmail.com; yshum @centerpriseinc.com; joepao @comcast.net; Bill Hawkes; pikna2n @comcast.net; sanjib.guhathakurta @hp.com; bang_can @yahoo.com; stuman @mavericksys.com; mtaniguchi @comcast.net; Desiree Tsai; don.suh @comcast.net; ckc10392 @aol.com; wotakwu @aol.com; evalow97 @yahoo.com; cleung55 @yahoo.com; malini_ray @hotmail.com; syoung28 @comcast.net; i_yuen @yahoo.com; tnlplace @juno.com; wesley @statemicro.com; minhuajin @yahoo.com; sjmoody @msn.com; su30cookieshop @yahoo.com; jzuo @cisco.com; joy6007 @aol.com; dhnitta @comcast.net; katiemengwu @aol.com; tim @nlnc.org; jk; donbautistajr @hotmail.com; spsievert@gmail.com Subject: Signature Listing for the Reconsideration of Council Decision on Agenda 17 Attachments: Petition _For_Reconsideration_Agenda 17 Signatures.pdf Dear Cupertino City Council Members, Attached are the signatures of 27 out of 31 residence living in the Scenic Circle neighborhood who support the petition for reconsideration. We are requesting the City Council reconsideration for the decision of February 16, 2010, allowing access to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park from Scenic Circle. NOTE: The 27 residence including: • is residence committed to sign the petition by paid shared petition cost but he may be on vacation to get the signature. • is residence committed to sign the petition by email. • 1s residence committed verbally to sign the petition but I have no time to his house for signature. I am not able to attend the City Council Meeting 4/6. The city staff has placed us at No. 29 on the Agenda which could potentially linger on until midnight. This is what occurred at the December 2009 meeting which didn't adjourn until 1:45 am. Please reconsider and re- address our Community Concerns. Best regards JK & Lihua Tsai 10464 Scenic Ct 408 - 257 -2067 Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. 1 Listing of Signatures for the Reconsideration of Council's Decision on Agenda 17: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park Name Street No. Street Name Note Sievert, Susan 10301 Byrne Ave Zuo, Jean 10380 Riviera Rd Shared the paid petition expense, but, on vacation to Nitta, Lily & Thomas 10342 Scenic Circle sign Pao, Joe & Frances 10352 Scenic Circle Guha, Sanjig 10382 Scenic Circle Cheng, Charles & Joyce 10392 Scenic Circle Murduy, Robert 10402 Scenic Circle Nitta, Daniel & Karen 10412 Scenic Circle Moody, Steve & Jill 10422 Scenic Circle Bokelman, Max & Edith 10432 Scenic Circle Leung, Cindy & Wing 10441 Scenic Circle Loo, Larry & Jenny Yee 10442 Scenic Circle Pham, Tiffany & Bang Can 10451 Scenic Circle Ma, Caroline & Stewart Kelly 10452 Scenic Circle Wang, Hans & Eva Low 10461 Scenic Circle Arieh Strod 10462 Scenic Circle Email Committed to sign Wong, Nicholas 10471 Scenic Circle Swh, Dun 10472 Scenic Circle Taniguchi, Marge 10482 Scenic Circle Ong, William 10489 Scenic Circle Bautista, Donald & Alice 10434 Scenic CT Hirose, Gill & Ron 10453 Scenic CT Wu, Wo -Tak 10454 Scenic CT Yuen, imam 10463 Scenic CT Tsai, JK & Lihua 10464 Scenic CT Verbal Committed to sgin, but, I don't have time to collect the Ken & Sandy 10473 Scenic CT signature Lee, Pinglan 10474 Scenic CT on Agenda 17: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park Appellants: . Name Signature /Date Address (Cupertino /CA) . 3Th M o 0 c ij ,,. /6 '4,2 ;_ ,Jea-n;-(J)- ¶ .t -..o r7 "' � /C, q : 7> s Q,„., 6,r Ir � r, ' 1W ' ` 6 4 I U ii iU tG c Karer\ A t T TA fob /z C en c c bie_ z/ (t>/x�r , N'�� 10co2 0_,,,(16 nom, �1 t 6.'; V 4- 1.4 a to t 2 2 j- , c c ,, J ° T / O3s 2- C- e--(.- C vc, i I I l a.A, D, 1,.1 i . 6 f 0 ci g acQ.,, c B / '' ) /,,‘ J / , . on Agenda 17: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park Appellants: Name Signature/Date Address (Cupertino/CA) c 2. S7/ e c ( tion c ( 56e r I likD /th /DX r)-s titA [,) 0 ifn cc rirj) L s e ( 7„. ' I ji 7 . . t 3,0 P . . • , . . . 4 /(eh 0 27/e/71 # c7-1 Linda Lagergren From: Carol Stanek [cstanek @echelon.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:35 PM To: City Council Cc: Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: City Council should Deny the Reconsideration Petition regarding Access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Dear City Councilmembers, The decision tonight regarding the Reconsideration Petition for access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm should be a very straightforward denial of the Petition. Below are the reasons why. I incerely hope we can move on with this important project with the utmost urgency. Deny this unfounded Reconsideration Petition. Reconsideration Petition for Scenic Access Should be Denied April 6, 2010 1. There is no basis for the Reconsideration a. The Staff Report refutes all claims. b. Unsubstantiated accusations of Brown Act and other regulatory violations are irresponsible. i. Brown Act violations are criminal charges. These accusations should not be levied without any evidence and should be dismissed and exposed for the frivolous accusations that they are. ii. These vague accusations, which do not identify any particular current or former Council members, insult our entire City Council and the City Staff and create an unwarranted climate of distrust. Petitioners need to be shown that unsubstantiated accusations will not be tolerated. 2. Petitioners are the ones who have already benefited the greatest from the $13,000,000 investment in Blackberry Farm. a. The reduction from a maximum of 4,000 to 525 daily paid picnickers substantially reduces disruptions to neighbors from park usage. Specifically: i. Reduction of auto parking from 1100 to approx 135 vehicles on peak days from San Fernando and the removal of the driveway kiosk (at the insistence of the neighbors) means that car exhaust from idling cars awaiting entrance along the driveway and out onto Byrne has significantly improved the environment and accessibility of the homes directly at the entrance (Susan Sievert, Rhoda Fry, among others). ii. The additional reduction from 800 paid picnickers in 2009 to 525 paid picnickers in 2010 should more than correct the overflow parking issue experienced by the San Fernando neighbors in 2009. (Staff projected that a reduction to 600 -650 would correct that problem but reduced the number even further at the insistence of neighbors Susan Sievert and Rhoda Fry). iii. The elimination of the barbeques and picnic areas directly across the street from the Scenic neighbors (Don Bautista, Max Bokelman and others) means that these neighbors no longer need to be inconvenienced by barbeque smoke, unwanted music and other noise disruption which permeated their yards and homes for 100 days of summer every year. This is a significant improvement to the quality of life in the Scenic Circle area that seems to have been overlooked in recent discussions. iv. The eyesore that was Blackberry Farm has been transformed into a beautiful park which is an asset to the local neighorhoods. There is no scientific way to measure the impact on property values of adjacent homes. However, it is clear that the look, feel, smell and environment of the immediate neighborhood have been greatly improved because of the improvements made to the park. 3. The quality of life improvements created by the renovated park need to be shared with the entire neighborhood, not kept off limits by the few who have already benefited. a. The access point for the path is not a new access point. It had been a feature of the neighborhood for years. Students and other residents relied on this access for an alternative route to school and for access to the park. b. The gate control that has been approved also represents a major improvement over the previous gate access. City Staff will be available to open and close the gate and also monitor activity in the park 365 days a year. This is another vast improvement for the immediate neighbors in Scenic where the previous responsibility was with those neighbors to open and close the gate and where there was no City Staff presence at the park to monitor undesired activity other than the 100 days the park was open. 4. If an ongoing committee is to work on potential speculative issues raised by the neighbors, it needs to have clear requirements to work within the approved project defined by the City Council, not to try to defeat the project via the back door. a. The Blackberry Farm Advisory Committee, which already exists under the leadership of the Director of Parks and Recreation, could address issues such as parking concerns. Many options exist to address potential parking concerns (e.g. signs for No Parking, Residential Permit Parking, No Blackberry Parking, etc.) but have either been rejected by specific neighbors in favor of blanket opposition to the access, or have not received broad neighborhood support. b. Specific school hour access is not a viable or useful consideration. Access needs to remain as originally proposed for "Every day during open park hours" because: i. School hours for Monta Vista high school vary by day based on their Block schedule (different class periods each day), school assemblies or testing schedules, specific student schedules (students start and end at different times depending on their class schedule and after school activities), and the fact that Monta Vista is an open campus where students are allowed to come to or leave campus at various times (e.g. come home and return from lunch, leave or come to school late for a doctor appointment, etc). Students need to be able to rely on the predictability of the access being open to them whenever they might need it during the open park hours. ii. Keeping the access point open during park hours also supports the goal of the city to increase local resident usage of the park by making access available to west side residents. c. Alternative access points should only be discussed as additional opportunities, not as substitutes to the access from Scenic to the bridge. i. Some Scenic neighbors continue to insist that Simms or other routes be used instead of the one approved in the project. Participants in any discussion need to understand that the basic plan for access to the bridge from Scenic has been approved and is no longer open for discussion or debate. Council should deny the Reconsideration Petition and move forward with this important community project with the utmost urgency. Sincerely, Carol Stanek Mira Vista Rd. 2 ec 471Apho of AL @ Linda Lagergren From: Rhoda Fry [fryhouse @earthlink.ne] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:45 PM To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Kimberly Smith Subject: For inclusion with written communication for item 29 Rhoda Fry 10351 San Fernando Avenue Cupertino CA, 95014 (408) 996 -8173 TO: kwang@cupertino.org; cupertino.org; gwong @cupertino.org; omahoney @cupertino.org; msantoro @cupertino.org; bchang @cupertino.org, manager @cupertino.org; Kimber:_ys @cupertino.org CC: Jeffrey Hare, esq. For inclusion with written communication for item 29. April 5, 2010 RE — Agenda Item 29 Dear City Council — I have a number of concerns regarding agenda 29 and the reconsideration of re- reversing a council decision to close the access to Blackberry Farm at Scenic Circle. First some related concerns and then on to the access issue: First on a positive note - City of Cupertino does get kudos for using those green sweepers in lieu of blowers on the greens (better for the natural environment — no noise or fuel; saves money for the City — cheaper equipment, no fuel; better for surrounding residents — way less noise and no stench , more peace). 1 — When I look out the windows of my home, I see a very ugly white fence for the length of the golf course. The installation of this fence was not entertained by the City Council, I don't know whether there is anything we can do about it now — perhaps Mr. Linder and I can do some brainstorming. 2. -When I look out the windows of my home, I see the_gly corporation yard of the golf maintenance facility. For years, I stated my concerns of the construction of this facility close to homes as part of the community involvement on this project. I do think that there are some small things that we can do to makeit better for me and my neighbors. Simple things like changing the colors of the plastic receptacles from green and blue to brown would help along with adding some bushes or trees. I look forward to working with Mr. Linder on this. 3 -The City of Cupertino made an agreement that there would be no signage leading people to the Stevens Creek trail at the San Fernando entrance. This is consistent with what the City of Mountain View does for neighborhood access points to trails. Currently there is signage. References to the Stevens Creek trail must be removed. 1 4 -The City of Cupertino made an agreement that the pools at Blackberry Farm would be for recreational use only, there would be no swimming lessons. The City is now planning on doing water aerobics swimming lessons. The reason for this agreement is that years ago, we experienced swimming lessons there when the City lent the pool to DACA. Not only was it noisy for the neighbors, created additional traffic, and lights shining into some homes — it created a SIGNIFICANT safety hazard. The plan for swimming lessons at Blackberry Farm needs to be terminated immediately to adhere to the agreement. See also "Safety Hazard for Byrne to the Park" at the end of this letter for more information. 5 -The proposal to add additional programming of classes will add insult to injury when it comes to traffic and circulation and safety for Cupertino residents. It is not a good idea. Furthermore, if you choose to proceed, I would urge you to count revenues for these through the general parks and recreation fund rather than the Blackberry Farm enterprise fund — as programs that could be held anywhere should not be credited to the enterprise fund. See also "Safety Hazard for Byrne to the Park" at the end of this letter for more information. 6- Regarding the request for reconsideration...I read through the content. I have to say, with all the noticing that we've been getting, on the school side of the creek, we were not explicitly noticed for the Feb 16 meeting although the Scenic Circle people were. This is not right. The people on the school side are impacted and actually benefit less. This comment has to do with appropriate noticing — not the merit of the request. Furthermore, while hundreds of residents around the Blackberry Farm area had been noticed about the initial plan studies, those who were closest to the entrance and most affected were NEVER NOTICED. It is irksome that there is selective noticing on important decisions that affect your constituents' lives. Should you choose to reopen the entrance, please proceed with a proper inclusive EIR. Do note that the project built is significantly different than the project planned and thus, per CEQA, these changes must be revisited and taken into account, particularly with parking, traffic, circulation, safety, and connections to the national De Anza trail. Finally, should you choose to open access, access should be for all, not only a select population. 7 -We now have a parking, traffic, and circulation problem that needs to be fixed. The City of Cupertino promised that the new Blackberry Farm would have less impact. In the past, we would have a predicted, at most 3 days of high use in which parking and shuttles were used. Last season, there were numerous unpredicted days that we could not park in our own neighborhood due to spillover parking from Blackberry Farm. Essentially, you have denied us reasonable right to our property during the season. It is unreasonable that we should not be able to have guests visit our homes during the season, or suggest that they park at Monta Vista High School for overflow parking to visit our homes. The plan had 367 parking spaces for 800 people — about 2 people per car. Only about 168 spaces were built — this was discovered by the Parks and Rec department the day before opening (I agree that a smaller lot is more in keeping with a community park). Last season we had significant spillover parking, traffic, circulation, and safety problems. It was very intrusive to the neighborhood — but most of all, the SAFETY HAZARD it created was monumental. 8- SAFETY HAZARD for Byrne to the Park The intersection of San Fernando, Byrne and the driveway to Blackberry Farm was acknowledged as being unsafe by Ralph Qualls during the planning meetings. The changes in operation have made an unsafe intersection worse — and to add to the significant cumulative impact, the further changes of: insufficient parking, planned added programming, and now access from Scenic Circle would be a recipe for a serious injury. In the past, the intersection Byrne /San Fernando/ and driveway to the park had been used for predominantly for one -way traffic. People would drive into Blackberry Farm, stay for the day and leave at the end of the day. The 2 fact that there was a high cost to entry along with 90% non- residents affirms this overall traffic pattern. Although it is welcome news that Blackberry Farm is being used by the residents who paid for it and that entrance is free of charge, the traffic patterns have changed. This was not taken into account during the traffic studies. People go in for part of the day while others walk in. So, what was in effect a one -way driveway, has turned into a 2 -way road, with pedestrians and poor visibility (when you drive down in the afternoon, the sun comes in so strong that you can barely see oncoming cars, bikes, or pedestrians). Moreover, the added drop -off policy, due to lack of parking exacerbates the problem by creating more 2 -way trips. Please don't add programming — that will add more 2 -way traffic and worse people rushing down there to make a class on time — is just plain scary — we've seen it before and experienced many near misses (it is only a matter of time that someone gets hurt). On to available parking — which relates directly to SAFETY. The plan had stipulated 800 people for 367 parking spaces. That's about 2 spaces per person. The Parks and Rec department now intends to invite up to 535 people per day (along with an unknown number of people without reservations) for 168 parking spaces — that's over 3 people per car when you don't even account for the non - reserved people. At 65 non - reserved, which is very conservative, you're looking at 3.5 people per car. This is quite a bit higher than what the parking studies had recommended. 9. In closing: o I look forward to working with Mr. Mark Linder to resolve the view issues from my home. o I expect Stevens Creek Trail signage to be removed immediately as per agreement o I expect there to be no swimming classes as per agreement o Please address the safety issues before adding programming. o Further reduce the number of allowable reservations so that the entrance is safer (it is truly an accident waiting to happen) and ensure that residents have adequate parking for guests to our own homes as we did before. Respectfully, Rhoda Fry CC — Jeffrey Hare, esq. Rhoda Fry www. billfryconstruction. corn 3 06 'J/c, //v Linda Lagergren From: Nancy Price [npi @voxns.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:51 PM To: City Council Subject: Opening the Scenic Circle Gate Dear Council Members, I do not understand how a unanimous decision made by the council to open the Scenic Circle gate and provide a safe path for children biking to school could have possibly been challenged!! Thank you for making the right decision in the first place. I hope this challenge does not cause any unnecessary delays in moving forward with this much needed pathway. Sincerely, Nancy Price Mother of a Kennedy School Biker 1 ec, 441/0 Linda Lagergren From: Carol Stanek [cstanek @echelon.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 5:17 PM To: City Council Cc: Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Blackberry Entrance vs McClellan Rd at School Commute Hours - Deny the Reconsideration Petition Attachments: Blackberry Driveway 5MPH Speedbump.JPG; Blackberry Entrance on School Day.JPG; Car passing bikes.JPG; dangerous cur /e.jpg Dear City Council members, Within the Reconsideration Petition are some pictures claiming to prove the dangerous nature of the Blackberry Farm entrance for student bicyclists. These photos are completely misleading for a number of reasons. 1) These photos were taken on "overflow" parking days which occurred last year during peak usage of Blackberry Farm. City Staff has taken dramatic steps to eliminate this situation fo- 2010. Specifically, peak paid park attendance will be further reduced from 800 to 525 users. City staff observed that at approximately 650 users parking filled up at the park and created this overflow situation. City staff has reduced paid park attendance not just to 650 users, but all the way to 525 users to ensure this overflow traffic situation does not reoccur. This should be more than enough to eliminate this situation in 2010 and beyond. 2) Blackberry Farm Park is not even open for picnics or swimming during most of the school year when students would be accessing the driveway for school. The enclosed pictures of the Blackberry Driveway and Entrance are representative of the absence of any vehicle traffic at about 3:15pm today, a typical time when students would access the driveway. In addition, you can see the posting of the 5 MPH speed sign and the Speed Bumps in the driveway which further reduce risk on the driveway. Compare and contrast these representative Blackberry Farm driveway photos with the enclosed photos of car and bicycle traffic on McClellan on a typical school day. We can't put our kids in a bubble to protect them. But we can substantially reduce risks given the options that we have. Access through Blackberry from Scenic can substantially reduce the risk faced by the students and reduce car traffic on McClellan if more students feel safe to ride. The Reconsideration Petition should be denied. 1 e r ij 'V N. 18 � � 8 t � •' t - �, u,``s> `-*,•• ` t i.� ` ` fit- t - d • \ a , y x- Y l , 4 1.. . '` l , , t• K i t { f l �• ` \ f y c r e 1 s, f v � M� • k . a ` . S r a� . " I Is i , t , . l' . } ' F + yam •.� ' �' r " : ' S . W 6 : 4 l= y j f 1 1 f 1 , � g q 4 . , i + t U � r � , � � ` f , � � ' � �` 1 ' � rrt,�Jf � ` � t v' � �� .� .1' q i tr v d 1F f d � ',,,`,'• d y, , s. '( �5 ,r F 4 �� A r - . - � ' L �e r � Y r r t �: \� �1 f r .:. t. V• ` Y � Y . y�e!. '' . ,, i ,., =,,vv \ a/. ` =._:, , <, t E v+ ` r a yE . , ' .p , 'i- .+' .�`�: a lS e ' ^ ". ',.,;,„1 ; �+� ;x G wy; a . ►I �, � F? q a ' .. -fi ',' -�t,, . ` fi . 1 I " 9r , .: �.. "`,',�. �`: �� a t .' „ '” - ns a �, e . a . -: if „� . 1 1� ati ��C7' 6 1 � Y' :'';'`,:,,,,'L',.:',., 1,i,74.','„''., C � . t. v t :•4 `t �' ' ‘.7.0'.',.'1,i,'.'1,‘,:','''., ` t \ v •n.'�tr h I g '∎ a 1' �, t� Y . •. - '1. ,.� ^, it 1 \wU,, �Al D :; ., q < . ` fR' a�: P , . I•` T ' 4,` : ,+' d .. :� ;`� P a . � � g'. S f• t c i teas �' 1 1 :7 :r,, "�'4�.�• t y,, ..+ t a� >h'itY� � > 1 y t � . }� 'jr `.'1.� ,� •} "� 'k,•!/,'s •L'. " ti �, t ?[ � L2•'��t+r a. � .� .w�E'" V! v \ >' l t : i�t tMt' `"'�t`C. .ta; �,. ; .. . •� .,i ,• ffi •r .�` �I. ! - a1 '. . , , -: l1 . "i ' a •� + " t v,Y y � yt i 7k r., .' 4, tY t r i l i f i k!,.,,.,,,!•+,1.., . t ' ' • i .• ! ;,'#,'"0`,.:'.4,:, 1 1 ( 1 at:'. � a '� ., t .r ' 'i ' '._` r l if' '! •� ` t /n f,i . K c N r s:.� "'sr S rr S S.e e .F. �, � ,+ a � a�t ' .+ e , '° 1 �',.I mFr i�'.�F r, Hti ei°', 6 f f 1. r 4 ril � , , • J yy . y t >� c- "/� f y: t+ 1 y . elm t . ? +( fr .; , , . , 3 +�" ��.� ' . ti , aE ♦. ; i -'.�a �' 4� ' . o. �'1 '�, d`. -. 3 � �i ' 6 r i °w. - �, a - ' e. ... �:zxr,.M : „ � a a 'tp °. f , , + , f . S e S , t., ti t , t dpi d f . r , ` ' � F ,v 7 ` _ „ .-..:. , , , ,L,;,: -. 7; ; ;; :, - - i ce >♦'a : ;r ... . F . 4:-i i Y' ,$.;. . ' •.. . ,5'Ei' / - „ , : �, 1 ,. * , c ' ' . t > 1 yk'”. X:.,�"` , 3 *. ..+,y. -t-,44,..••!,•.1.."-:1 t ; v'( s ? i .�" �S'F' +1'f:: � , ' y t { t Y " t _ I , i . � t F x , �, r 3 �, � . .', � .. . a> , v + . 1 , - N .!'. , ,,, f e y . ; : — , i . c c• ♦ .. g� . - :b- " #' "F t i '' {� e ,6h- • : ». - .w .: � � A'` ,.. " :..' • e , • *: 1 i , i`n: c k '.f'1 ••t a 4'' .' ; I'h 4 +'k 'i a gy�qf ` .74..,t;?. S ( .rr 3� u - "4 :a` r' I ,/;;.°,.:,',i, t' � t i ""l s "Rg".._1� :!'fl{1, at '..`.)! 1( ` .1 : �i,�. '� ,H •.1� 'Fl:" . ,' t F # , . ,' .l .l r 1 . ! it i 11 e , ,47..' , 1 t'•, A(♦ F, - , • ' tl. f, +k,' x , • af , • , .'S � �s�` � rp � � w•� ��: N•'►�7 -',.'',.s. t • .r ,!� vV r �f� �. � ',1!-I'' 1 i �, • x'• y �:. s _- .R I} 47 " ;'•' , re , Yr� r �. .'!.'�'�P t an d'a ' .i, i t ' t } i v r . ' Bf a " 0 7 ' ii J "7' L :: i gg . ; c '_ 'yr " ( �, . . , ,� ' { ' :ilt• � . ',,,�.:4; r, f .x °�e�' f, 1 1 1 1� " d ' � i! , , +;. .fCd, .. :YK�. '. 1 ., y ` r ' , � ; 'a Y .�„ �� i s � xh `! �S✓ , S # w 4. S 3 e )) 4 r' . r x y� •'1 . {� � , "- 3�'w".'�.Z� , .A •F - ; 's v+ { i l ty 't � - , , e l : . � r r �+�:r•+ 5 @ ' -'.r 3 � � E : . ' e'PJ i'` „,,..11$.- �w� i � � s �_f as a �. �- . . � � . r ! t f; t r 6r... � .� � � 1 _ �r ,'+ , 1. : + ` • •` , ` : �? '�.�, ,..:,'�' � . ` � •� i t • �.'� - Iar'� ., a v , r 4 lnl s , . ,, + k ” I j " S • 1 s '; .� :�.: ' - � b r � " { a ;v:�M"� ;. � ��� dT u �), � t 4, } � v tr � • � - ! ° .,y .r � �- �r ♦ ���:; .� :.,.y 7i+ 'N>: y. (t g � f - �- S :.L;i '• �' -. %' _ t . 0 'k. a .,� . f tr . r.,.'t ' }'•", ' S4':d. =i t 4 . y _ r l , A - = =: 2, .,« . (:'. � ,sl� :::::(4-4t,,,,'.., .i Y1�. tl V„ •'mss /. i R ':I 'P.I i ' ., •+, w �' t- 3a , ..,;_ ,: :: ..� r „-y •, 'J #'` �r.- 4, e . �. F� .r ., ,. x:'��' ,, tb.' v e -i R e +.e .{ .,y ', �a Ky -S` / rl .. rC S : � 1 ••�X _ ' d ' !: "T' �a _: + ^� a '4 . .a; l: - . °..�.. ',.,-.•..;.', }t f "'. . !�` a ,�'..� ;,.� ..�, .t ;ry d" 'r�J11R � ,'+r - ' � _ r'� - 1, � f .., : � ; �'5t',, fig' , ' . i+ - i ` ±' ''''''57,;''.; � x +r *air.' � ` ��'�` w �• '' °,,• �. .;5 f� :r ��{ ��� �''t�> � a <t ,. �S x � �.. r !fi a •, - � )' "� ' y , ,, r. . t �'r4: +i��r�` >> ' -y - }t,t. a+, '`�1 t. -M fi tt 9 1, � �` g ,,C(�� �, ;.., rk, � � •'r - - }C - ' ►, t : :, .•4,�.. f1( �,.:��, .r ". � yz4 "• ( ,a �# P. 1 ? '''d.YFf Vii' � ,S ,,,� � � e ' � � > {:: ' K'�, ::� :�,k n "i � '� ,a t� }3� �' 1 s" , ' 7 { '`' t 'i w.» a r ,� ' r 4' . F`, t " r t ,� .� t t.r s? ,. af' S' 'r i'' A 1 o i e „y' r n rr t t ' l ,,. t 4- " .,,„: .f: d 1 `� ,5 i � t „ ' d' �. x " k = r , § ! `r . : '� .1 ,i `N . .'� 1 A '4!.•;t J'l i sr yi i f ,. t kv*, 3K p ,, - i • c a $ } ' S it , Tai'4,';;; f047:5: °t i= - }- • ' .f' , { .. M .,, ; J ,. s i,i;+: �' .it q ' r r � {j 4 :+,4,.. V x ., - `F• , • � , �( w '' / ,' ✓° h .. , < i P r / r f '[ l ♦ #/ J a : t ' r .A4 ;'":474; � ,; - + Ift' d fi r ' e .,., j `, " j '� � � y f _�. f r a j - : _ .�' �f I. i �Y :.'t' • x _ - - x - t + 3 , • . _ , . , v. v '=.f t " f ' t � � r.y¢:t ,� A, ' 4 -� r :r. l l . n, ��,,, �.1. � .�.y- t � V • ,� 7� v ° ¢ d. *p `" {u +�sj y ae� � f ` , • r 7 , - / -7 4% x' • r vktl °r .� " ' , t S 4" - < 4 '5.. '` I ._, d,- x 4 s } : : ' � a 3 + ,..t /3r ) ` t H''Y I r r r . „ >R: " =t5 . { r J �. r' ” a , - - ., • ■ • ' . K I '� ,X / . ,, i�• - 7.4. t 1. �„ ta ` u.Y+F �Yr tl ^'� ci';i.N M- wd•r kA +: t • .o„ >;.,, 1 y ��Y ;• • � • ♦ { .�" ' "�► _. Ali ar •n i 't(,.. I I L . � � � • rti � r� " S do Y �i., �'... -.r ti l'» , «.�r.,+ww� .«.w•• =. ♦ " j • k r f l11a'a tt 9 A • 1 tt �4. 1 r+ wt # ! I r . 0 . 4 '� @ v^1 t r, •1 .. t► .. • „i' •i A "'' ; .- V i ' '• j' I ,,..%, 1 l'• ' Nd" 4 ". r 4 ? • '• r ., .', ; . j • t ' • . l «� #i � ; ' � M '” ,• r- � ` t .1� �, I `I'" A. ? }' 13 s ° 11 *j j t r r t + v :� �.p r't'^ Ir i' 1 ,� ;etr a� �i� #. "l o • r —ft ,• 'c. i r� w „ r • • • � iP [ ■ t ! v l r, " ♦ t 1 4 .' • r4�y f y ti t i! "sll # '� ' 1 # r , � r I. j` t i.... ;, I.' . s r ♦• • ., r s � .. • . r , ! a ' � s t`i' �' ! �L � , '+ rt . 4 ,. te. ',,V .R'1 � # ".I ,,s Y �# ,� r kt • r •�� r .f�•. Al r'' ? t !�. ,, 1e # - • +. ,3 'a•' .. yes • /, , {E,j�t 'i 1 +• ll�. , • 1 '�t �• �� • ## a. • �i .1 • r i ,�,i r D�,D Z d' r • eC. ,� .r� r :# . ` t r , , � r * 1 � i , " it. t' VS -+'♦ • •, /` � 1 ♦# , `',. •' .' . . '.*1' : yyy j . •' " `' Nt•"r°,A � , j,` F, ,t 1 r, . t ♦ " • ",1 • ' r • t r r A v i ‘y, • • ■ l ' d �f ♦ `+ e,, • * Y 4 •{ ,I` �`� -', i - (? �. S A ' rd�� ; . .�. • ••�•r + v f `� � yv w� � ' • • • • !•• ..•••12/, k., • r Ve , - J A . • P ' \ . . . art l y 4 . w y r^' ' �'� �.�« �+ ..., kr � w'� r J • � 'F ` . K ! 4 �€ #! ,' t � i , 1 �. � � � r r •* • • ! f /-• � . sir Y J � � �M pi ' 41 ��'" �9.t t r,. � , ry � ; � t I µ i , . 1 # t.�. s x P. / l ",, v, � # ° � � 2,a � 4 t� • � 1 1 � � ' . � ♦ �' . • � � .��•, ,, !tk I 4�,1`i•w v, � J ,; �i e '.it �� s1 � ♦ +r ' ,� � +d R - ' i ! • t r a j y, ^ i {341, ` . /." ' .. . "' '' .., 4�+ ► 'N • f f . i +: N w � �i ,.'�'", t !' ,I ^ #y"`'. {- ' e.!' ''IL s '"1' ' iI' . • �t l , . •• 0 •,,,,• # i + • y • M 'l �# • '' - # #,� i ',' •, . : , + . Yir . r j' ^" r # A ' , ' . .« i _.. .v Vf• .r j • i �' 4 r '' T r�r •�� yk iI M rr� i 4"" ,o, a" k l� r ':•. ,..4 4. . }I. ,d 1' !il r ' `I c 1' -l ^ . r •w' + «"1" "i i •� .. •• N • , � t, y 1 r % � t ire + a ' ! , 7s'/ t,1 9 j ` { ' • p y • « „ / /�. � i � f • 4 " �', • 1 ,t 144 ,,$ 3 .../..'4.i• ` , . . .lip,• ' y t, . : i l S # , �w 7 .� t "� " if ,. • « , • • i . ' f, . : ,e 8 Vii. '0'4 " fr1 _' ';•,-I;:*....,..„ kr ,, : r 11 + , , • d, i : ,� •11 • !! •1 �.. } " . k .. ' 3 ` r �' � �i t"'_4". _ w ♦' l i +� '. • �� t •` .' l , .t � � � , r1' �.^ ,� `` �f��� , ,F � „ � .��� `�,_ A a,- .r 4:!:,,_,". ,{ i" t ' • - � k k ` T i t s ., , 1' a a �� # ,. A 4 • � t i�a, • S�''. 4. #•y !` / � t t ,• # ''' ' i .. ' . 4. . t 1F' . • k h '`' <� f I '.4- e f ". . ` * 4♦r;4 "#c4 . ♦'. ,' n'J'r �.,♦ ♦ f 1 ._ys� I -�► lt,t 1 . •+ r • e ( 0'' k, tt 3 , , ' �, k � , « ,: i ; �.. t . . r r , t t - t ,,,, I . , 10, .. + # " � t �. ,�. > . 4 " fi � ,. # '_r • • ‘,/ r • �. '� r �,.• �i . k44" 3 . . � y ' {# f� • 4 -- 4 ' 6 +"r a'. / +. fi ? iv t '��•1 t 110 . ., 4 '. # m . w .. .1 ,t .•,. , - • iF -' -,, �- , 4 e� + ,, • A v ; F � 4,40 -,A • ! „ .,,,, x ' ,, ' . ''( 0 ,, t .r / lr� ��! r � � • , w„� Vt - ,,,.,,,'T".,'4,-.,,, . 1 1 � # ,., . ��y� ,.. �`1! � .<. � .�+ i , 7 . �! ' _ , � a �y ^A } � • i' � " "��iif# 4 # # . 1% v „w � � �,1 1� # • 0 � � ♦�+" � • y� . P r ► . e1 • . f 't wt.s a F 4 +Y E i . '' x ,ji r • r i t y i; a �! 1 r �• � # # u• + i � .. clilt ' � „: y,s .Y �s ! ,! �� �,� I� � " y f , � , � ;, 4 ; i. .. li . • , � t , . t r I 4,,r I r i , V* ” q ". ♦ d. ♦ , a r r , . fj , • ,f40 � v 'I' i t =,6 f t ' - !� " ��� , ',. I 11'y+ ':11 r , 4p .� '� ' � • , ' � a •!��♦ . . ' i 4 * - •ftlt t it , t • - '144 Iti - -$ -100 I aM ' �� I i • 4,4#x'► M •.. `� ! - ;� +>R ;'r♦r s } t ` • / ' A w • ♦ �/ ' • h he! erg , _ i'•4. . ,t!/ 1 .; ,yr' 'VC f #} ,. y y M � ` . -F t, • "111, A,i ' • . t s� r � S • I • `'' •. . 1 ;, a j:.t R - + r t ♦ ,, r^ • AI • -y _ ' r r SO '*11. ' ,44 ik, , • • "'al , • t • • r ' '. ' iit• .:7 "`Iiii j . '.: , ,, «. x p . l a i n • tdf ' 'kirk ' ! !ay ! :�Y ai ' �- k ' i. £ > %� d ' • to I,� $ !' ".;: . 0(�' �. ►. y t I Iy st • .r< -„ ,: •., r i .'.1,' y °' �" � , ,�1 aiaj t -} {, I # r i r I I� . .._ i I • 0 �? zi .. i t y ' s , • �� I I , i 4 � # t ' A3,S d 4 i I7 j I x ' - . y w, :J t .,,y 4 .� l , I '� { i •{, ! }k t?i t I• I ,r.' • � ice° y�g�. ^� ! t �' •�, 4 1 y} ,t :i7� �� �; ,: pit .ei?.� -� ! 1;1. �- I , q • • - � � ;., ` ) fi r ` C ar. i y 4 ' y r °I.• 1. j' r V1,.,....-:'1,1,1;.., r 1 r '; s i ^ �•"' y '�• r ''.>' ,$..a .� '� I � : 1 p,.,Ep • ; ,.S�; j ) ' {ip a ?}`� S � k . � 1 :I.' � .A � 'i; - ♦ ... „ T s r � y..� ! , t i q } R Fia I.t. i. v Ill s + } } 'i: { v .{ • a , � , t b f I I • I K i ryy ; •r ,, ! • I ; ! I '' ' �' i �i f` F> art r 1 s • i I t f r I (l + I ft - ',—.. _ 7 r t i ' r 1i' V � .: U I i I � k � o fi � '; r�lti� �� � � ' I t i tl k }�f I f Ri { 1 { � i I 111 ��y 4 ! g S1 pp tw 1 {1f it ' c I 5 V' Y , 4 5;. M i i' , - t , ,,• ' 11,', I, {{:: R I I R 7 I ; • , I } F y h - r`r ,r 11� � ' f l ,II , 1i l l . �'4y ,ii ° b+e'r. wl }ac I r r t ilr�a •� r k i_r a i jij I � , r ��4'�'� A �4 r w ; � „• { a � r , J 'Myers .:Y . 1 i r i 4 .t....,.t.!,. - • ' . + ,' r 0 44. 1 ' ' l: tiN�tlk. d; " ,. r p'<_ ,m ,1i 3 it ,if . • ti :r�+xu4" .r.ep 1 t t ' ?1�1a+a M2'^•'• w '' ,fe • • ly: J k . 4 l! •+r I(i *, 1 t 5 S ri `' M�R � . . wM• ` 14' b +44.1 , 41 " -1ra1*r +�i 1 ' t • • f$ - F f i t ' NO i �, "�, a 4fir .,...ns . $ i r 1 � r.r t • t [ p 4 "J�j •' ` . t,.., �,a' .. it E�kF i A'�+ �IN, wkr ' .. • 'Z, } •'1. I.i - "'.. _ sMr .,r x ° i- �h '+tr`W -w. . % rr�a. I �� ` i' + a. _ • 1.' :. .. 444' ".1'•.I`s:IF ..••�""•° F s f r .c 4 + 1 t < ` ' `. - .yr i al t, 1 r''41'`' y .+•?i/ r d , -.. a" t ir r � i e . V , �. ` bF3 # ,x > ,�3 I i • `t' t . •. • ' . - k. r� wIM1 4, ; ` u1E i k !: ' ( ►" t ' . �a° :f' ' :;; ;`. ` ' W,qy "P I :' i' § � t o E ....4..-.- y 1 L ! . . r. k { 7 ' + f' • 1 , " � , I « � , ( 1 ,► - yi s* ' t • t • ' .� t :�a ! .i Wi r 'i' ;, t i 1". a, '• Al f ,�. r ` a — . l iyt.l._ . .._ —.-./ V .1 ' i' + k a '+ " t t 11 h : • + �. "i + � ' . '.0. y - �� it r ' ! ♦r� �,� J y • �' 1, 1t �1N . i h�t;� A ��. y C .' '�. • t qic.,, . P f t r ., I , �',.1 / .4,..',• w�. r � ` � l � i � l i ' iA�' . � > * _ tJ F�'q S i �'t Y` J : � i .1,�' II 1� r r �. • `� * ! , '� Y F7 t � .. ` i ' ! a ,,, ,. 4 - M itX " ,r i u 4 r „ + 1 ” + . .‘ 4 1114',. { • �,,.. , .tit ", �� { JG a I ' , `" qr " . a �fQE� ■ ' . �. # .`fit'} r .' w� y 1 �ti17 1 { rrr . i t , I } � , ' ., w11'�.t,�a ��I ° e ° ' rt s a l , y . � !' � { . 1 � t /14 r ' t ``- 4 i ! . 44!,....q, ` 'r 1 t ` i _ . «, , , . :z' ' i , • .. !,:% A f • • , , ' . 1 -t' 1, , 1 .. . 1 'i " . a f y ".} i se; ,�, I w i : � I 1, r ' , Vim t . .. r �l� . f ...' ,. , • " s +� r • 1 t , 1. 1 ]� • • ! . ( r , , '} ',\ ' ' , . , -� �Z�! a t , ii �' t `� . w'erls +i.w.w : : i' w.es+.e,,. e. , { • . � {�t . ...1 ',. , - � ' 41 4 .. R' " . 1 `i r � + t ►i } i, Ita�� " !_ .,.ap. " t i a- -` ! + , ti • t o �.\ � s z , ' f • :;..... / ' � A �,� , 1 . l f, ,. to t + t '.` ' ,".4,':;,' s t , .°'"U." - .»•- ..�,� , r • _ 1 , 1 . !'° t.r,1 ( / ', ` ` + ,+ jQ'-, r,` -'1 9 • rl ' ~ix Ap ~ ....• . +${ "''a.„ .� r° . yy „,., -k r.. a` fi r,' . ,. # 'il"�Ir 4 . J °� / I'� `w' � ti ., r� a 5 '! ,� :, 1 .Ir ly(; ",.1',...,:',.-,.. ~"y "W "M a . '! /a "nA .sa 't - '''., � Y r i-„ ry J•y • ICE , .'t r� ,, ;ttlt ! 1 ` r i , 4 w : s ? "„ a.'7 _ ! "`� �' 'dRI ' / T e y . • /M I( `i` : ..! ". ` . 1 1�'y .. I 1 i'i : 1 X 'hPl p ,r, - t 1 . . ... .. - ' . +k'** fP*Z „, r '. ! ' - /rp • ,1 t/ \ r ` �l q! i � b I � r r ° 1 • ' 4 �_ t y ?f lt ,1+ ay it,: y� i �.`� #yl i• , y • I , 3 • • a'3 �. r , � �, 7 A . y �•. f . >M, . i I t n � r �k ! � i S 5 e ' �+! r t!? s • , . f Y i i.,M, �,*.:: : ''+y�1 a . , `1r •��. !' ,' M . . , . i, ', 1 'j i t 1 � , , . J • 1 ? i ” r • , j i t.`51� , !.. , "� � .. i • `7 j�,. , '•,' " �' ! I k, � .J k.. , ; . 1 , .' i # , .,' . ' ar , 'S , . � ,'y G1! ta.. • ,, . ✓ +rt ... 1z. 1 , . » ..mod' h ' i , ., {� : F ti I `� t ,, t <” , ~ A } ++ IV it • J . i •Y � ✓ M � C ; e �; ; t- k ° . i ,.',..,...;:,,,,,,;,..4. . �{ r , ti i r 1 •, x / r i „., lr r ? '�!e ri w ' a I .,. y� ■% •', w � � , pr y i ' N l 1 "'•[ � . „ � .. "�.,W+. 'l„ , ` .- e . „ V4',":,.., C " � y , r , i ' a r 1 1. iy�. •I — w.r.r.1t• y .v� � ; �• Y ':R � ��� � : E `� ut 3{ i ,� � ". j k '+ f � +� 1 t : ,. � ',4, ti "3 't {, , �� �'�, . r >�'' • ` ,F.r r'''►'�; � af .� i , /• ., .': /y � ". . , ' • ,, „, 4..`, t it it r s ; ,.`° 4 ' , *` � k A'i §, t. t � r... " 1 r ° � 1 , . , , •kf t 1 . . � � a V . ,..: ,,,, s „3, . ,. -; 1 1' ". �, , ...; . ' ' /' ' :t' .' ' t ..., ITri x,5'' "Er: i fi {!t y t r ' { ', ), t � . , , � A. r is a t1" 4 , . ` '' - a. * w { _ a '� , � � �' .s � � f 1 , 4 a :p { {, � . 'N � ' t !' �r. � a ►+k ! ' ,. t ., v '� A - %� +,• � t '�� � i ( � ? . ;7x � r Y t t r a � �(, d "n n 4 . �i �i" j ; .,f yy 5, p i.. ■ ? G 1. "� 1: .p ♦ .• , ` Yl •. . ' tA1 �I i 1 5' t �,. b , � . i � � j 4 , '',F, _ „ " �s . 4 , i4 -.y'� I ,r tl s +« - . " .a' .... i ,y 4 !"' M pi - 4 . • {{ � .W', G . " !Y . 4 +• • t + � I ? 1 'R - .. ie V �s '.4.',..'.0.1,..— i '`T i h —II, y5 a `*�' .._. t \" f, Y c t' tt ' r � ` °t .. t L r i a'. h i i r !'y.: r [ lj � r , ,, v r 1": ,.` ` • e`,•:� .'��. * -4,4 , a .. , ,..,4 3 i , ' & A f 6 � M ; r ! 4' ' � f y F i, , • ‘ .. y % i» wi *y C r , .ti 44 Its - . p + r r• l it . , ' 1 1 ` t` i t , • k 1;4- -p Y. S »r y . ' M '1 i rA • . • `,., . 1 I `Ar ; . ' y t r , I +w;.v •i r i i t t 'r • . • , ,. ,,30 p ' i.. "• / { t � t I�• • ,I,.,,,' , ,. t i. ¢ } ' ” + p fir k., ah/ • 7 3 � � irk e t � , 11. " Y r • \ s. { Y • `. � fi a ,vs.' 1 � t v .. � (A' , ' Yta ► ITI ',',1•+i'$,,. . . w r• • ,1 tC : *. 5� 0" ° y /w d .s I � ' 1. l � r t , cc 4 /(4 -2 Linda Lagergren From: Katie Allen [kdkatallen @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 5:57 PM To: City Council Cc: saferidescupertino @gmail.com; Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls Subject: Move Full Steam Head Ahead to Open Scenic open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dear Honorable City Council Members: Please deny the reconsideration petition currently before you to change your stance in opening Scenic Circle. Note, your city staff can find no reason to consider the petition as it doesn't have any required grounds for reconsideration. Please move forward this important opening up of Scenic Circle to residents so they can easily access both the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry farm ASAP.... ifs been postponed way too long! We need to believe that Government works again and not just for a few! Sincerely, Katherine D. Allen Lockwood Drive Cupertino CA 1 cc 4//, /rte z ,-nh Linda Lagergren From: Norm Donovan [norm.donovan ©yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:28 PM To: City Council Subject: Please continue forward opening the Scenic Circle Gate Dear Council Members, We understand that your decision to open the Scenic Circle gate to provide a safe path for kids to bike to school has been challenged. We encourage you to reaffirm your decision and urge you to move forward in an expeditious manor to get this needed pathway open ASAP. Sincerely Norm Donovan Connor Donovan (bikes to school) 1 Cc L %/6 z #may Linda Lagergren From: Susan Sievert [spsievert @gmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:30 AM To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: Written Communication: April 06, 2010 - Agenda Item 29 Written Communication from Susan Sievert April 06, 2010 - Agenda Item 29: "Conduct a hearing of a petition by Susan Sievert et. al. as amended by Donald Bautista, Jr., for reconsideration of the City Council's February 16, 2010 decision on Scenic Circle access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park." Dear Cupertino City Council, Because it has no pedestrian or bike lane, and an estimated $1.1 million dollar New Project price tag, I agree with City staff's original declarations that the Blackberry Farm entrance driveway is a problematic "safety issue," and request clarification regarding its April 06, 2010 reversal of opinion. The following declarations are part of the public record, and are relevant to your February 16, 2010 "safer route to school" decision for which you have been petitioned to reconsider: 1) JUNE 20, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Staff defines this public safety issue's significant challenges as engineering, cost, and feasibility: Cupertino Public Works Director: "From Byrne into the park? It's very narrow. It's a real choke point when you get in there, and the streets very narrow. I can't —I don't want to speculate here in the Council meeting as to whether you could do that because it's a safety issue. It's really an engineering problem because you have a large drop off in there, and you would have to somehow or other widen that area if you were going to put a sidewalk even on one side of the street. It's a pretty expensive proposition. I'm not even sure it's feasible, so I can't really speculate to you whether that would work or not without some further evaluation, which of course we could do for you." 2) FEBRUARY 20, 2007 PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT Staff advises the Council to "separate" this safety issue from public Safe Routes to School discussions, with the solitary motivation being its "significant cost impact ": "Scenic Circle Blackberry Farm — Gate Re- opening The Council has already decided to maintain the closure of the Scenic Circle gate into Blackberry Farm. Staff recommends that any subsequent consideration by the Council of the issues surrounding the re- opening of the Scenic Circle gate be deferred to another Council meeting and taken up as a separate item apart from the School Traffic safety issues noted above. This discussion could be advertised throughout the Scenic Circle neighborhood and the rest of the school community so that all interested stakeholders will be encouraged to participate in the discussion. The Council could then either re- affirm its original decision to keep the gate closed or consider other options. FISCAL IMPACT 1 This action will have no immediate significant fiscal impact. However, staff notes that if the Stevens Creek Corridor area beyond the Scenic Circle gate were to be re- opened to the tri- schools commute the resulting requirements for provision of facilities dedicated to safety and accessibility for a safe route to school could have a significant cost impact on the Stevens Creek Corridor project." 3) JULY 17, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Staff explains the Blackberry Farm /Monta Vista /Safe Routes to School connection, and shares the New Project's cost estimate: Former Cupertino Councilmember: "...why $1.1 million dollars ?" Former Cupertino Parks and Recreation Director: "That was a cost that was generated - back in October when you were looking at a Safe Route to School that would take you from Scenic, cross the creek, through the park, and then up the driveway toward Byrne Avenue. That driveway, the width of it varies between 20 and 22 feet. It's adequate for cars coming in and out, but there is no pedestrian or bike lane. A large part of that expense is gonna be widening that driveway and creating a safe barrier along the golf course, dealing with any tree removal or any grading that has to occur to make that accessible, and then linking it up to Byrne Avenue in a way that actually delivers kids to the tri- school area safely. None of that is included within our environmental document because when the Council approved the scope of what was to be analyzed under CEQA, they had not committed to a crossing at that point. So, what you're looking at for a future bridge is a New Project, a new CEQA review, and a budget and plans that would actually connect the bridge in a useful way." 4) APRIL 6, 2010 PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT After changing one of the New Project's requirement> from an ADA compliant "Safe Route to School" to "safer route to school," staff reverses its original declarations, which will save the City approximately $900,000 in the New -New Project's estimated cost: "The declaration that the driveway entrance is unsafe is an opinion of the petitioner that is not shared by City staff." Council, "from Byrne into the park" is still a "very narrow...choke point "; it still has a "large drop off "; and it still lacks a "pedestrian or bike lane." The only significant change of consequence to the substandard driveway and surrounding Monta Vista neighborhood is the unnoticed 2009 reduction of the onsite parking from the original 1100 spaces to 1.67 ( "350 Planned ") — which exacerbated this widely recognized public safety issue to a level of unconscionable negligence. Therefore, I request the City of Cupertino please explain in greater detail how they arrived at their April 06, 2010 "driveway entrance" reversal, and to please make available for public review any "further analysis" or mitigations with regards to the safety of the Blackbe - ry Farm entrance driveway, and the adjacent Monta Vista neighborhood since June 20, 2006. Thank you. Susan Sievert Monta Vista /Cupertino Cc: Cupertino City Clerk: For inclusion in April 06, 2010 / Agenda Item 29 Written Communication. 2 e- 4/6,4 0 Linda Lagergren From: Hugh Chen [hchen123 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:39 PM To: City Council Cc: saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: petition reconsideration of access to Stevens Cr. corrider Dear Council members: The issue was originated from the result of hastily decision, by the previous Council members years ago, to seal off the accesses to Blackberry Farm from west side. Becasue it was not well studied and not FAIR to the adjacent neighbors previlege. The Councils' decision on 2 -16 -2010 had clearly shown its process of fairness and transparency. The resistance from few residents in the area can be expected. Please stay on the decision and stop the future waste on resources, thus deny the petition please. Respectfully Hugh Chen 22361 McClellan Rd Cueprtino CA 95014 408 - 255 -9718 1 Cc 14/(oho Z evn Linda Lagergren From: mohan sankaran [mohansankaran @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 2:38 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; Ralph Qualls; Mark Linder; s_sitaraman @yahoo.com; saferides @gmail.com Subject: Support to reopen gate from scenic blvd to blackberry farm for pedestrian Dear Council Members, I enthusiastically support the Council's unanimous decision to reopen the gate from Scenic Circle into Blackberry Farm for pedestrian and bicycle use. I want to remind you that there was overwhelming community support for this access at numerous Council meetings over the past few months. Please do not get dissuaded from continuing this project by a few neighbors who do not wish to share this wonderful park with their neighbors for pedestrian and bicycle access and who continue to try to block the progress on this important community improvement. Please stay the course for the project without delay. thank you and yours sincerely, Mohan Sankaran 10398 palo vista road, cupertino 1 e) 41(olio rieni Z9 Linda Lagergren From: Janet Trankle [trankles @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:12 PM To: City Council Cc: Mark Linder; David Knapp; ralphg @cupertino.org Subject: Access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle My name is Janet Trankle. I live on Adelheid Court, part of the homeowners association between Scenic Blvd. and the Stocklmeir Ranch. I am writing to reiterate my support for the decision you made on February 16 to reopen access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. I urge you to deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before you, in accordance with the recommendation from Staff that stated the petition does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. I am grateful for your unanimous vote to open access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. This will give my son a safer way to ride his bike to Monta Vista High School than his current choices of McClellan Road or Stevens Creek Blvd. It will also provide easier access to the park for those of us who live in neighborhoods adjacent to Scenic Circle. I live just off the part of Scenic Circle between Stevens Creek Blvd. and the top of the hill. We have many pedestrians and bike riders who use it and it does not adversely affect our neighborhood. Similarly, I do not believe that the quality of the Scenic Circle neighborhood will be adversely affected by having pedestrian and bicycle access to Blackberry Farm. I have been going to Blackberry Farm all my life. Each time I walk through the park now I marvel at the beautiful job the city did with the trail and restoration. I hope to see another beautiful trail and restoration at Stocklmeir Ranch. The areas along the creek that are part of the Cupertino parks system are truly unique and we are lucky to have them for people to enjoy. Sincerely, Janet Stocklmeir Trankle 1 ed. 4/oho .rierrpf.zy Linda Lagergren From: Mike Moore [skdmoore @gmail.coma Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 5:22 PM To: City Council; saferidescupertino @grnail.com; Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls Subject: Scenic Rd Access Hello, Thank you for your continued support for access to schools through Scenic Rd. I have three kids who can use this safer route. Mike Moore 22350 Cupertino Rd 650- 283 -9434 1 Cc 4,/ /o rl 'n 4 Linda Lagergren From: Carol Stanek [cstanek @echelon.corn] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:15 PM To: City Council Cc: Mark Linder; Ralph Qualls; David Knapp; AnneNg @aol.com; saferidescupertino©gmail.com Subject: Thank goodness this didn't happen during school commute hours Attachments: 2010_ 0403McClellanAccident0004.JPG; 2010 _0403McClellanAccident0005.JPG; 2010_ 0403McClellanAccident0013.JPG Dear Councilmembers, Tonight at approximately 6pm, a young driver lost control of her car as she rounded the u -turn on McClellan right near Mira Vista (see photos). This is exactly the place where student bicyclists enter McClellan when they ride to school. Luckily, this time no one was injured. At least the rider coming up the hill right after the car was cleared (picture 0013) had the good sense to ride on the sidewalk (which is illegal) and the good luck not to be there 30 minutes earlier. I sincerely hope we can make progress on Tuesday night to allow bicyclists to avoid the hazard of McClellan by riding through Blackberry Farm from Scenic. Please don't let this opportunity to improve our community slip away. Carol Stanek 1 ¢ f y r , „, W ;:; !.., � r , „: 4 3° . & ,„ ' '" "* Q °' t ' i ' a,tk, .a '4 i , tt "' , 3 q f a f t ° ' a * ° � �r a w ..,. P., ', `,„Ulk ./. A kk44,-0 =. " *.' - 4 -' ,+ Y Mt n+ r � t . 'w 4�G a s <, a° ,, 1 " > "ru' ,r- .,,,, * , ,,,,,,,,,, ,.,,,i,„1. p , , . t. , 4;•,,I, . 1 4t, „, „„, ,),,,, 4,,A11,-",,4,.!:,'It„, r '' ' .'1 0 , "' ' ' ' ",. n ,_ 1: ` # "� a 1 ', +R6`s b s & a. s 0 , fi '� w7" s # , < +g 2, °' $ 4`x#'4 i ,1 } n? v° 'It .- i- } '" S,'� ',1,"......°, 5 s br? i r are: r ^wgpyy `MMv " . , , A d 4. ttl r filf M t * +'',. ,, - ,,A , ' .. , ", ,1 ,I 4 � , 1 - �1f , ) I Aie 411 'Mr r t -1. *'� 4 y� n3 .l� t 1 I , ,‘-t:"`,091.°."' G 'r �lk A 4' .: �.„ .. p t'. , . _.,. ID " � fi x: b • 'y' : } d - ti ry + . � 4 } : Yt L ,: t i ...t .1. , Fy . , , . , : �' +3. u� '' b +. ° * :: . +• 3 1 + ` t � 1 , a . -.. , t ',„,,c1,:. M G e � . r p � • { • t 4 :,,,N. vii „ � */ }k. a 1 , 1 _ ■ - t M i • k ar i 7 1 r”' >+ 4 . s ,� r F {. N uYfi, w 1 c a • IsY ■ + vf, 4 : . , , ..4...:i'• {� g i 4 io- j { g �" 5J� $ p 4.114'. K � 1 $d Ai a ¢ s r �4� ' `" : ,sue - ... ,. .. w a . , 4.. 4,/°' • .,. • t • .., , , 1.. . I. . - . - :,...1.4::, ' 4 ... ,„,,,.. 5, •?,,,„..„...,.,. ,. , , , ,,,, , , /Li.. , tki,,,i . ,,‘, 1.; ,... ,..4„.. f.. .. ...., , ■ s. y ji ' , { `,, A ` 4 4^ 1 341. ti / j ',... o.. kii/o/i• Tien cy Linda Lagergren From: Kumar Sangareddi [kumarjaya @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 3:40 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; Ralph Qualls; Mark Linder; saferides @gmail.com Subject: Access to blackberry farm from scenic circle Hi, Thanks for approving the access to blackberry farm and high school via scenic circle. I heard that the topic of reopening access to blackberry farm from the scenic circle is being brought to reconsideration again. I'm sending this email as a reconfirmation of my support to opening up the path so that our kids can have a safer access to Monta Vista High and blackberry farm. Sincerely, Kumar Sangareddi 10334 Palo Vista Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 1 • C d„, 4/c /io ricvn 0 Linda Lagergren From: AnneNg @aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 4:45 PM To: City Council Cc: Ralph Qualls; Mark Linder; David Knapp Subject: reconsideration of scenic circle access to blackberry farm Dear Councilmembers: Thanks very much for your unanimous decision to allow bike /ped access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm and Stevens Creek Trail. I'm sorry you and staff have been saddled with this Reconsideration Petition. I believe staff has adequately refuted the claims in the petition. Concerning the bridge, it was the bridge itself, not the supports, that was replaced. Removing or replacing the supports would certainly have required environmental review, but they simply remained in place during construction. It was and still is a "pedestrian bridge ", which happens to provide access from the Scenic Circle side of the creek to the main part of Blackberry Farm. The Blackberry Farm entrance is indeed very narrow, and I'm sure is no fun for cyclists and pedestrians during peach usage of Blackberry Farm. But peak usage times are definitely not when kids are traveling to and from school. In fact, during peak usage, it will be good to have another access point just for the human powered. The residents of the Meadows do seem to have received favored treatment - -but in that case, City property comes up to their back fences as opposed to being across the street. Scenic Circle residents have benefited enormously from the downsizing of Blackberry Farm operations and removal of a major picnic area just across the street. Yes, a few cars may end up parked there near the gate once it's opened, but I predict not very many. Only time will tell. I'll back their request for help if it becomes a big daily problem. Please deny the request for reconsideration. Thanks again! Anne Ng 6031 Bollinger Road 408 - 257 -6506 1 cc '/ /cp /io Vern Linda Lagergren From: Rune H. Jensen [rune_hartungjensen @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 11:15 PM To: City Council; Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls Cc: Rune Jensen Subject: Scenic Gate - please continue work to open access To Cupertino City Council, I read with great disapointment the petition from scenic residents to reconsider the decision reached Feb 16 to open the gate to blackberry farm. Having the gate would hugely improve safety for the bike route for kids going Monta Vista and Kennedy schools. Riding bikes or walking on McClellan is not safe and an unjustified risk for our children. I urge you to follow the recommendation of the city staff and deny the petition. Sincerely, Rune H Jensen 10180 Carmen Rd, Cupertino. 1 e� 4/4//0 1M-) gay Linda Lagergren From: Carol Lim [carollim2000 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:06 AM To: City Council; saferidescupertino @g mail.com; Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls Subject: For Our Children, PLEASE Move Ahead to Open Scenic Dear City Council, We have two young children, and we love to take walks and ride our bikes in the neighborhood. We have gotten to know our neighbors well as a result. We were excited and grateful of your unanimous decision to reopen the access from Scenic Circle to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. We understand that there is strong opposition to this by a handful of residents on Scenic Circle, but there are many more children, students, parents, grandparents who would benefit from this decision. Unfortunately, riding bikes or walking down McClellan is not safe. We want a SAFE option for our kids; so for that, we put our trust in you to deny the reconsideration petition and move forward with this important project for Cupertino residents with the utmost urgency. My daughter, Marissa (5 years old) and I will attend the City Council meeting tomorrow. We will be there with our Daisy troop to honor our troop leader, Cris Vaughn, and to show our support for opening up the Scenic Gate. The girls in the Daisy troop are just some of the children who are affected now because they don't have safe access to walk or ride their bikes to the park. The negative effect will continue when they go to Kennedy and Monta Vista schools. I am writing this email because I will need to take my daughter home before 8pm (her bedtime); so I may not be able to speak if the Scenic access topic comes up later than that. However, I want to let you know that we FULLY support reopening the access via Scenic. THANK YOU for all your hard work on this. We truly appreciate it. Sincerely, Carol Lim 1 Ca 1 4/010 rkrn # :2y Linda Lagergren From: jk tsai Uktsai @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:46 PM To: Max Bok Scenic; Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang Cc: carolcw9 @yahoo.com; ekm103 @yahoo.com; mary.l.murphy @comcast.net; timothymisko @yahoo.com; sanghosuh @gmail.com; larry.loo @amd.com; tbrown1040 @aol.com; dehwey @gmail.com; yshum @centerpriseinc.com; joepao @comcast.net; Bill Hawkes; pikna2n @comcast.net; sanjib.guhathakurta @hp.com; bang_can @yahoo.com; stuman @mavericksys.com; mtaniguchi @comcast.net; Desiree Tsai; don.suh @comcast.net; ckc10392 @aol.com; wotakwu @aol.com; evalow97 @yahoo.com; cleung55 @yahoo.com; malini_ray @hotmail.com; syoung28 @comcast.net; i_yuen @yahoo.com; tnlplace @juno.com; wesley @statemicro.com; minhuajin @yahoo.com; sjmoody @msn.com; su30cookieshop @yahoo.com; jzuo@cisco.com; joy6007 @aol.com; dhnitta @comcast.net; katiemengwu @aol.com; tim @nlnc.org; jk; donbautistajr @hotmail.com; spsievert @gmail.com Subject: Signature Listing for the Reconsideration of Council Decision on Agenda 17 Attachments: Petition _For_Reconsideration_Agenda 17 Signatures.pdf Dear Cupertino City Council Members, Attached are the signatures of 27 out of 31 residence living in the Scenic Circle neighborhood who support the petition for reconsideration. We are requesting the City Council reconsideration for the decision of February 16, 2010, allowing access to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park from Scenic Circle. NOTE: The 27 residence including: • is residence committed to sign the petition by paid shared petition cost but he may be on vacation to get the signature. • 1s residence committed to sign the petition by email. • is residence committed verbally to sign the petition but I have no time to his house for signature. I am not able to attend the City Council Meeting 4/6. The city staff has placed us at No. 29 on the Agenda which could potentially linger on until midnight. This is what occurred at the December 2009 meeting which didn't adjourn until 1:45 am. Please reconsider and re- address our Community Concerns. Best regards 3K & Lihua Tsai 10464 Scenic Ct 408 - 257 -2067 Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. 1 Listing of Signatures for the Reconsideration of Council's Decision on Agenda 17: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park Name Street No. Street Name Note Sievert, Susan 10301 Byrne Ave Zuo, Jean 10380 Riviera Rd Shared the paid petition expense, but, on vacation to Nitta, Lily & Thomas 10342 Scenic Circle sign Pao, Joe & Frances 10352 Scenic Circle Guha, Sanjig 10382 Scenic Circle Cheng, Charles & Joyce 10392 Scenic Circle Murduy, Robert 10402 Scenic Circle Nitta, Daniel & Karen 10412 Scenic Circle Moody, Steve & Jill 10422 Scenic Circle Bokelman, Max & Edith 10432 Scenic Circle Leung, Cindy & Wing 10441 Scenic Circle Lao, Larry & Jenny Yee 10442 Scenic Circle Pharr, Tiffany & Bang Can 10451 Scenic Circle Ma, Caroline & Stewart Kelly 10452 Scenic Circle Wang, Hans & Eva Low 10461 Scenic Circle Arieh Strod 10462 Scenic Circle Email Committed to sign Wong, Nicholas 10471 Scenic Circle Swh, Dun 10472 Scenic Circle Taniguchi, Marge 10482 Scenic Circle Ong, William 10489 Scenic Circle Bautista, Donald & Alice 10434 Scenic CT Hirose, Gill & Ron 10453 Scenic CT Wu, Wo -Tak 10454 Scenic CT Yuen, Imam 10463 Scenic CT Tsai, JK & Lihua 10464 Scenic CT Verbal Committed to spin, but, I don't have time to collect the Ken & Sandy 10473 Scenic CT signature Lee, Pinglan 10474 Scenic CT on Agenda 17: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park Appellants: Name Signature /Date Address (Cupertino /CA) 3 l YVIo /o`/.2 Ak J KetrerN H,t TA f Ion} / encc f t v G" k A V(Zj) t c)i I G Nl3 Z t?-‘ 1 6 n .1 I i , j_ k -k: to 3, 2 c.ckt L ( (1 / 035 (e 'c_C (,J t I I vs....‘ I o K g QccA t` c. i,r t I) a Gt,r < - 7; �jj1 ad/ I v y� %� �°Gn � 5 on Agenda 17: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Corridor Park Appellants: Name Signature/Date Address (Cupertino/CA) ( T-207, L, 2 (A) /A& ( 71 5 cc: kit C c UL . Nt‘c.110,c,„) tjoit. f < / I A Z ,/ ( N/0 - 1 0, 1( L-AA / L / 0 d .L. Z_. ) c 4:4 LF Scefric / to s , , • y c' - - 235 k j e. ("). A, \J f:3 c� / / (p/ o .qtr) # Linda Lagergren From: Carol Stanek [cstanek @echelon.corn] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:35 PM To: City Council Cc: Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: City Council should Deny the Reconsideration Petition regarding Access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Dear City Councilmembers, The decision tonight regarding the Reconsideration Petition for access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm should be a very straightforward denial of the Petition. Below are the reasons why. I sincerely hope we can move on with this important project with the utmost urgency. Deny this unfounded Reconsideration Petition. Reconsideration Petition for Scenic Access Should be Denied April 6, 2010 1. There is no basis for the Reconsideration a. The Staff Report refutes all claims. b. Unsubstantiated accusations of Brown Act and other regulatory violations are irresponsible. i. Brown Act violations are criminal charges. These accusations should not be levied without any evidence and should be dismissed and exposed for the frivolous accusations that they are. ii. These vague accusations, which do not identify any particular current or former Council members, insult our entire City Council and the City Staff and create an unwarranted climate of distrust. Petitioners need to be shown that unsubstantiated accusations will not be tolerated. 2. Petitioners are the ones who have already benefited the greatest from the $13,000,000 investment in Blackberry Farm. a. The reduction from a maximum of 4,000 to 525 daily paid picnickers substantially reduces disruptions to neighbors from park usage. Specifically: i. Reduction of auto parking from 1100 to approx 135 vehicles on peak days from San Fernando and the removal of the driveway kiosk (at the insistence of the neighbors) means that car exhaust from idling cars awaiting entrance along the driveway and out onto Byrne has significantly improved the environment and accessibility of the homes directly at the entrance (Susan Sievert, Rhoda Fry, among others). ii. The additional reduction from 800 paid picnickers in 2009 to 525 paid picnickers in 2010 should more than correct the overflow parking issue experienced by the San Fernando neighbors in 2009. (Staff projected that a reduction to 600 -650 would correct that problem but reduced the number even further at the insistence of neighbors Susan Sievert and Rhoda Fry). iii. The elimination of the barbeques and picnic areas directly across the street from the Scenic neighbors (Don Bautista, Max Bokelman and others) means that these neighbors no longer need to be inconvenienced by barbeque smoke, unwanted music and other noise disruption which permeated their yards and homes for 100 days of summer every year. This is a significant improvement to the quality of life in the Scenic Circle area that seems to have been overlooked in recent discussions. iv. The eyesore that was Blackberry Farm has been transformed into a beautiful park which is an asset to the local neighorhoods. There is no scientific way to measure the impact on property values of adjacent homes. However, it is clear that the look, feel, 1 smell and environment of the immediate neighborhood have been greatly improved because of the improvements made to the park. 3. The quality of life improvements created by the renovated park need to be shared with the entire neighborhood, not kept off limits by the few who have already benefited. a. The access point for the path is not a new access point. It had been a feature of the neighborhood for years. Students and other residents relied on this access for an alternative route to school and for access to the park. b. The gate control that has been approved also represents a major improvement over the previous gate access. City Staff will be available to open and close the gate and also monitor activity in the park 365 days a year. This is another vast improvement for the immediate neighbors in Scenic where the previous responsibility was with those neighbors to open and close the gate and where there was no City Staff presence at the park to monitor undesired activity other than the 100 days the park was open. 4. If an ongoing committee is to work on potential speculative issues raised by the neighbors, it needs to have clear requirements to work within the approved project defined by the City Council, not to try to defeat the project via the back door. a. The Blackberry Farm Advisory Committee, which already exists under the leadership of the Director of Parks and Recreation, could address issues such as parking concerns. Many options exist to address potential parking concerns (e.g. signs for No Parking, Residential Permit Parking, No Blackberry Parking, etc.) but have either been rejected by specific neighbors in favor of blanket opposition to the access, or have not received broad neighborhood support. b. Specific school hour access is not a viable or useful consideration. Access needs to remain as originally proposed for "Every day during open park hours" because: i. School hours for Monta Vista high school vary by day based on their Block schedule (different class periods each day), school assemblies or testing schedules, specific student schedules (students start and end at different times depending on their class schedule and after school activities), and the fact that Monta Vista is an open campus where students are allowed to come to or leave campus at various times (e.g. come home and return from lunch, leave or come to school late for a doctor appointment, etc). Students need to be able to rely on the predictability of the access being open to them whenever they might need it during the open park hours. ii. Keeping the access point open during park hours also supports the goal of the city to increase local resident usage of the park by making access available to west side residents. c. Alternative access points should only be discussed as additional opportunities, not as substitutes to the access from Scenic to the bridge. i. Some Scenic neighbors continue to insist that Simms or other routes be used instead of the one approved in the project. Participants in any discussion need to understand that the basic plan for access to the bridge from Scenic has been approved and is no longer open for discussion or debate. Council should deny the Reconsideration Petition and move forward with this important community project with the utmost urgency. Sincerely, Carol Stanek Mira Vista Rd. 2 e c L /p/ /O 'T ,i 2 Linda Lagergren From: Rhoda Fry [fryhouse ©earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:45 PM To: Kris Wang; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Cupertino City Manager's Office; Kimberly Smith Subject: For inclusion with written communication for item 29 Rhoda Fry 10351 San Fernando Avenue Cupertino CA, 95014 (408) 996 -8173 TO: kwang @ cupertino.org; gwong a,cupertino.org; omahoney@cupertino.org; cupertino.org; msantoro @cupertino.org; bchang @cupertino.org, manager @cupertino.org; Kimberlys @cupertino.org CC: Jeffrey Hare, esq. For inclusion with written communication for item 29. April 5, 2010 RE — Agenda Item 29 Dear City Council — I have a number of concerns regarding agenda 29 and the reconsideration of re- reversing a council decision to close the access to Blackberry Farm at Scenic Circle. First some related concerns and then on to the access issue: First on a positive note - City of Cupertino does get kudos for using those green sweepers in lieu of blowers on the greens (better for the natural environment — no noise or fuel; saves money for the City — cheaper equipment, no fuel; better for surrounding residents — way less noise a:ad no stench , more peace). 1 — When I look out the windows of my home, I see a very ugly white fence for the length of the golf course. The installation of this fence was not entertained by the Cii:y Council, I don't know whether there is anything we can do about it now — perhaps Mr. Linder and I can do some brainstorming. 2. -When I look out the windows of my home, I see the ugly corporation yard of the golf maintenance facility. For years, I stated my concerns of the construction of this facility close to homes as part of the community involvement on this project. I do think that there are some small things that we can do to makCit better for me and my neighbors. Simple things like changing the colors of the plastic receptacles from green and blue to brown would help along with adding some bushes or trees. I look forward to working with Mr. Linder on this. 3 -The City of Cupertino made an agreement that there would be no signage leading people to the Stevens Creek trail at the San Fernando entrance. This is consistent with what the City of Mountain View does for neighborhood access points to trails. Currently there is signage. References to the Stevens Creek trail must be removed. 4 -The City of Cupertino made an agreement that the pools at Blackberry Farm would be for recreational use only, there would be no swimming lessons. The City is now planning on doing water aerobics swimming lessons. The reason for this agreement is that years ago, we experienced swimming lessons there when the City lent the pool to DACA. Not only was it noisy for the neigh'bors, created additional traffic, and lights shining into some homes — it created a SIGNIFICANT safety hazard. The plan for swimming lessons at Blackberry Farm needs to be terminated immediately to adhere to the agreement. See also "Safety Hazard for Byrne to the Park" at the end of this letter for more information. 5 -The proposal to add additional programming of classes will add insult to injury when it comes to traffic and circulation and safety for Cupertino residents. It is not a good idea. Furthermore, if you choose to proceed, I would urge you to count revenues for these through the general parks and recreation fund rather than the Blackberry Farm enterprise fund — as programs that could be held anywhere should not be credited to the enterprise fund. See also "Safety Hazard for Byrne to the Park" at the end of this letter for more information. 6- Regarding the request for reconsideration...I read through the content. I have to say, with all the noticing that we've been getting, on the school side of the creek, we were not explicitly noticed for the Feb 16 meeting although the Scenic Circle people were. This is not right. The people on the school side are impacted and actually benefit less. This comment has to do with appropr;.ate noticing — not the merit of the request. Furthermore, while hundreds of residents around the Blackberry Farm area had been noticed about the initial plan studies, those who were closest to the entrance and most affected were NEVER NOTICED. It is irksome that there is selective noticing on important decisions that affect your constituents' lives. Should you choose to reopen the entrance, please proceed with a proper inclusive EIR. Do note that the project built is significantly different than the project planned and thus, per CEQA, these changes must be revisited and taken into account, particularly with parking, traffic, circulation, safety, and connections to the national De Anza trail. Finally, should you choose to open access, access should be for all, not only a select population. 7 -We now have a parking, traffic, and circulation problem that needs to be fixed. The City of Cupertino promised that the new Blackberry Farm would have less impact. In the past, we would have a predicted, at most 3 days of high use in which parking and shuttles were used. Last season, there were numerous unpredicted days that we could not park in our own neighborhood due to spillover parking from Blackberry Farm. Essentially, you have denied us reasonable right to our property during the season. It is unreasonable that we should not be able to have guests visit our homes during the season, or suggest that they park at Monta Vista High School for overflow parking to visit our homes. The plan had 367 parking spaces for 800 people — about 2 people per car. Only about 168 spaces were built — this was discovered by the Parks and Rec department the day before opening (I agree that a smaller lot is more in keeping with a community park). Last season we had significant spillover parking, traffic, circulation, and safety problems. It was very intrusive to the neighborhood — but most of all, the SAFETY HAZARD it created was monumental. 8- SAFETY HAZARD for Byrne to the Park The intersection of San Fernando, Byrne and the driveway to Blackberry Farm was acknowledged as being unsafe by Ralph Qualls during the planning meetings. The changes in operation have made an unsafe intersection worse — and to add to the significant cumulative impact, the further changes of: insufficient parking, planned added programming, and now access from Scenic Circle would be a recipe for a serious injury. In the past, the intersection Byrne /San Fernando/ and driveway to the park had been used for predominantly for one -way traffic. People would drive into Blackberry Farm, stay for the day and leave at the end of the day. The 2 fact that there was a high cost to entry along with 90% non - residents affirms this overall traffic pattern. Although it is welcome news that Blackberry Farm is being used by the residents who paid for it and that entrance is free of charge, the traffic patterns have changed. This was not taken into account during the traffic studies. People go in for part of the day while others walk in. So, what was in effect a one -way driveway, has turned into a 2 -way road, with pedestrians and poor visibility (when you drive down in the afternoon, the sun comes in so strong that you can barely see oncoming cars, bikes, or pedestrians). Moreover, the added drop -off policy, due to lack of parking exacerbates the problem by creating more 2 -way trips. Please don't add programming — that will add more 2 -way traffic and worse people rushing down there to make a class on time — is just plain scary — we've seen it before and experienced many near misses (it is only a matter of time that someone gets hurt). On to available parking — which relates directly to SAFETY. The plan had stipulated 800 people for 367 parking spaces. That's about 2 spaces per person. The Parks and Rec department now intends to invite up to 535 people per day (along with an unknown number of people without reservations) for 168 parking spaces — that's over 3 people per car when you don't even account for the non - reserved people. At 65 non - reserved, which is very conservative, you're looking at 3.5 people per car. Thais is quite a bit higher than what the parking studies had recommended. 9. In closing: o I look forward to working with Mr. Mark Linder to resolve the view issues from my home. o I expect Stevens Creek Trail signage to be removed immediately as per agreement o I expect there to be no swimming classes as per agreement o Please address the safety issues before adding programming. o Further reduce the number of allowable reservations so that the entrance is safer (it is truly an accident waiting to happen) and ensure that residents have adequate parking for guests to our own homes as we did before. Respectfully, Rhoda Fry CC — Jeffrey Hare, esq. Rhoda Fry www. billfryconstruction. corn 3 06 L// / /c) #.3. Linda Lagergren From: Nancy Price [nprice @voxns.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:51 PM To: City Council Subject: Opening the Scenic Circle Gate Dear Council Members, I do not understand how a unanimous decision made by the council to open the Scenic Circle gate and provide a safe path for children biking to school could have possibly been challenged!! Thank you for making the right decision in the first place. I hope this challenge does not cause any unnecessary delays in moving forward with this much needed pathway. Sincerely, Nancy Price Mother of a Kennedy School Biker 1 cL4 /I /° -2 2 7 Linda Lagergren From: Carol Stanek [cstanek @echelon.corn] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 5:17 PM To: City Council Cc: Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Blackberry Entrance vs McClellan Rd at School Commute Hours - Deny the Reconsideration Petition Attachments: Blackberry Driveway 5MPH Speedbump.JPG; Blackberry Entrance on School Day.JPG; Car passing bikes.JPG; dangerous curve.jpg Dear City Council members, Within the Reconsideration Petition are some pictures claiming to prove the dangerous nature of the Blackberry Farm entrance for student bicyclists. These photos are completely m sleading for a number of reasons. 1) These photos were taken on "overflow" parking days which occurred last year during peak usage of Blackberry Farm. City Staff has taken dramatic steps to eliminate this situation for 2010. Specifically, peak paid park attendance will be further reduced from 800 to 525 users. City staff observed that at approximately 650 users parking filled up at the park and created this overflow situation. City staff has reduced paid park attendance not just to 650 users, but all the way to 525 users to ensure this overflow traffic situation does not reoccjr. This should be more than enough to eliminate this situation in 2010 and beyond. 2) Blackberry Farm Park is not even open for picnics or swimming during most of the school year when students would be accessing the driveway for school. The enclosed pictures of the Blackberry Driveway and Entrance are representative of the absence of any vehicle traffic at about 3:15pm today, a typical time when students would access the driveway. In addition, you can see the posting of the 5 MPH speed sign and the Speed Bumps in the driveway which further reduce risk on the driveway. Compare and contrast these representative Blackberry Farm driveway photos with the enclosed photos of car and bicycle traffic on McClellan on a typical school day. We can't put our kids in a bubble to protect them. But we can substantially reduce risks given the options that we have. Access through Blackberry from Scenic can substantially reduce the risk faced by the students and reduce car traffic on McClellan if more students feel safe to ride. The Reconsideration Petition should be denied. 1 . . -t ' ' 1 ." ' k .,••,i t „t t., ".! jo.t. 1. .... : ' "!". . ''. '' . ,,,..• , -. ., -- . . • , •., , , 111 • ..., R ' ' * c' i ir r .V.T° • • ' . ' ' i'' . . ' '' -‘ ' 1 • • h i .. 4 , .. , + , 1 \\� ,'� ' t ' rte_ 7� • ., n ib ys * I' ' lF t6" r 1. + a' . r fsf t y 1 • s ,,mot i. r S! t P A g se* y ° • E v < .yr Sj ,• A r .ti i • �r . #'+Ay'+ - vy � : ,� , fir . . ,: ...Kt. ,fir -- --, ., . --.._--,..,-, -,,..• s ��a :� _ � BUMP .. ._, .., . s:v .... • a 5 M PH ...„.,,,i_i_--, .-,-- _ ...,„ ",, . . . ....,.....„. , „,, -, , ., . ___,..... . . _ , ..,, --,„ ,-, .-- ... ... I -- . -t,,, _ _ ... „ . otik--- . . ......_ _ ‘. . , . . ... ..,. , ..,.. 4, ;' - 9 :' - . • 4 • ,. . . . • ' • ••••• ' ..- .... ••••••4 '83 .. , . . - .... , • . , , ............ . . . . ..". . . •,,i ,•;, - : ,( '' ,,, , , •!.......• A...4.. •• • ■•, ,, ',;J: 1 ,. ;• • * .'.°,, pl * • . ' . .7- • ''' , • . . - . . , . , ' ff ' . *••• ••%•" • *0 Ot " :Al ' ' i •' ' or •- 1 • ', - - •1,.. 1 Or ••• le 4 •••,(.• • : li., .. ' * t ...• r '" Ir. ' ■ ..• • --* - t *. ' ............,e .. 1 ""•' I -**. •-• 1 A• ' '• ' ' •• • ':' • it! ' • ' .r . • •■ ' •." ,,,• *. 1,4' ' i ••••.' 4 A, , t L. . ' ' 4 O. . ' ,,;,. l ' ■ . • . ,:‘, I .. ' • - * A 4 .' 4 11h ,* *'-1.:V"" 'V•". . . ', ' " • , . ' . ., . . • . .4 .‘ ' ,.. .4 • -,,, (,•••,•,ft! ... •• . .. ,. , q.,. ,-, i ,..... . • t ...• i.0 . • ' • ' : '.. ". : ,, • 4) 7:,,, ,, ,-0, r: a ., -' ".,1 1 ' 1 , i -- -.•....• • • , ;'Z' ,...' . -•%.'+'• ; r, : 7 :' - 0 ' .,.,, , - , ,, . , • . ' • - 4 - • L ‘ ' '''' .•••• .4.\''. ,..". , , • ` . i '" 0 ' t. • .t. ' • ' '4. • ' .. 1 % ' '.. . • . • 6 : . . •:,.• . ' • ' • • i ,..., . • . • A . . . . . • t . . 9 ' , ' . 4.. t ' g ... A,. • . • , ,v ., ' - , . • ..,, . ., „ 4 • - : :, •,lp . ' ' - . , ,,. , •• .- . . • .. ,' I o. • ■ l' * . . • ' :,•• -. ' 3 ".. . • . tr • •• , ., 4 „. .. . . • - . - •,, 1 1 .,,,, -..,.. , ' '• i• :, ' . ' r ''L, ..! ' - • . . 4 d ik. • 1 . . . . 1 .1' e ' in "I . .' " • • , 44 t., i . . N - k ' • • . • f t. - . ' - v• . • b• - • :‘i *, • , i . .', , „ ' l 4 • t e, . • - • • . • . ii\ ‘ • ,,,•> s. . , . .. .... , ' . . , - , , t e • ‘ ; • • . ) 11 t • ' , I , ' . ' . . • , • *... .4 . • , • t • • ' . . • 111 .4 * 1 • * ) • , . , ',..• , 1 • • • . , ‘ T . ti, •••• • , „.• , • • A i ..* % t . • , * • , ' * 1 t -* I • 1,..s V-; . . ., . . . ' ." , . j, . . t' . 1 .. •. , . . ,,... ., / ..-. 1- - ,, .. • ... . , . e • ' 7 • „,;,. i • .., i • • Vie A* . • i '.- *** :, ‘. UV' . • ' • . - • ; „).,..,..), .. . . , .: . ter./,' • , ' j t t. I `- , . - . .1 N, ' , • , ! • • f t •••• . ."; ,.- 7 . t* .'- .- ,...r/ ,, ,... s ,.., .444 ,, a...00.4.. . ,, -4 . i . . • -.:,,i, , i ! ty,, , • - r A. . .•:.•,0 '.... . ...• ; - 0 '' '' r ' . • ' .* 7 ' ***; ' ' * I ' 1 ' , . • - . ' • • . • ' N ' • . ... . • AS' • '*. •• •,i 4e. "" '. 1 4(1 • ‘ ro * : ' ' 0 A.... •• .‘ . '•'*' * ',....:•• • • ' ' •••' ' I * • • '''''' ..j. ". ' 1..*' • ‘,,, ' ■ N .. „•.' ...,i • . . . . • `. ;0 ', t # '00. ; • . ,,, 1# ' " 1 ... : r-•-p, 4 .'' •,..- : „:- .., .: . . iir , , ... !.. ,,,.. .A ' , , t'l• . . • ' • A ) I . .... :: ,,,di . • , • - . .... , 1 . . ,,i■ 7.. . 4 4 • - 1 • ( , .• ...• , , . .. . , ......„,,,- . ,• • -. r . - .1.4V.:•; . - be . . 4 .. , . ; e. ..1. - 4r 3 .: ' , ,,..'' ,.... 4 .,,, . . . • • ,' : ...„i-, ' , • ..., •...' "." r - 1`: , .0 • 1 • * •,;,,,t . • ,•.. , , ,-• ' ,.:‘,....,- ••• • i••• • , e - . '.. ' .. t • . • Orli A :,,, r .,: r.• 41Wr,. • i t . ,. , 4 , ,,i ,V ,.... 0 " I - - • . • . ••• . • • .,... • • .1„ *. •••'' s . 7,, , ' ' „ ,'/4 3. ' .: ,,, f . r '. .• • ',d m '' ,'.. , ,, , , , 2 • • . -- . . , A P '1' - ..- . " 4.i..4.? •• • ..". -',„ ,, .1 .11i* 4 ••••••• '4 -•-•.,:' .' • . • 4. 4,- . if , , ,.,-:: I 1 .1 It '• : ' 1. O ;' k * 4 '' « Z.,. 4 .; .1 .,:- 4: ,"• . •'••••,,, .; '` ,*•,....' ',,- .' , --'," : ' • ,,,,, .,. ,. - • I / 1 • • I • * • ' , ..r' " 0 4 *b t '1" '''' • •'' *;••• .•'S A V '. '''. * ' ' . t s ' . " .^.., ''''' •••'''' ''. 1. :••••• • '''' l' ,,, - ' : , . , . . , • • ' - . . , 1 I . „.• ,...... I, / t • / . . 4. 1., fL • „. ,. t • 0 • ,... . • -, ',,f , .', . • ,404. . ' i•e„ . ••• ., , .b%., ' ' 4• . # 1. r '4 30.''' 4 ' " ... '''. ' - ' ''" 4 10 ,41.. 4 ,... ' '-'' '4 '' fr''.7„ -.;,..'': '' . ' ."*. , .. r .,,,, A . „ ...knit ,„.. ... • .. ,.,.. . f!.. •1ftr% .4.4, ' , 14- "" . •-., ., N 4 /A, zy, ik, • " „. 9 b, ,4■■ ' ." ' ,,, . ,2....! .., . :,..,- -4: ... . '' :, ..,' .. , ...--, ‘, ' • , ,, .„, .......,..$ ....., 4 , ... , . :.• , iv* .1 ..: „, . ,,-,...„. ..., , : S' . i >1 , •i .,., *'• .*'• - • i. *..' ** •^ . • , ,, . V! 1 ' - -4 j ' ' • • , 1 .1/ •• . • ,...• . .. , q i s , .. , . ' ' ' :,,,,, „ '. , ,.. f ' :i „ .,' , „ ,, , , „ , . • 4 • I 41, :)... 4 . 4 14 %.".., 19 ,41' . . • p: . A' c - ', . " ' . • ) .; ....., ,1,-. , ' ' I! , • . • ' "' , 0••• ' • ' t ' '' • • 4 4 ''' " i . 4 . 9 i 't. ,, '''." 1 : 1, '. *** 41% . ' "kl. .. •• . ,„, 0 a• r. • ,A! ,...1,• . Mgl ,• , g. 4 4,. , ,,, .', • ■•,I , .%; A . , . . •'... " • •• ' * .. * •' . NI . ....„... ••11 ‘.." ' ' • .„ - ■ , lit ak ,,,, ,-, . ' • . .. ,.. -," ... v i . Ilk ...,,,,, . . . ,, , 4 00,100 , • • • 4, , „ • .• , ...,:t , , • • ii P'." - , , IV '• •• , • ,‘" A ' 1• A.A , •` ri; • O. " ••', - ... . .,.. - ',44., ."... • ; l'a '... , k, ' '''/°. , ' 1 V 44( ' • tu' T' •'' ' .' . 1 ,. ) •:.,.. .• 4'1, _ vi. . 4111 :.:, . -. - , - r - , 'I • , t•-• 4 , f •,, - • ... • ••■ ' 1 , • . . *I r -. , jib ; ' :1(r ' * • • NI # , • 1 • 4, ' II '' / % ' .• '' k ' N. . .,„ .4 P 0 ip . 4 • .• .• • cr ..0 ' L ,, ,,, ,, ,• . -14t.:0 , , . 4 .. , :*„.4 . , 4, - it . . P */ •• l 4.4 a , ' • -%!. . r * 'i ■:: ''''''' Li ,-. . Al , .,....„ ., I i - .7. , ...4.. .... ,..,..,,.., .. .,, , ., . # 1 . , I; ...it • 44' . # f . ' ‘ , 9, 1 4 ,,,,, s • - • • • . ge. , .., . - . , . • - • • 1 4. -1 • t's.," . ' it , 1% ' e • • l • ik, Illa . • • . , .; 4 , " . • sb ,..#. i , . ,..... , • .. , ..,, ,.4. . li....„ „ . . ,. . Nii.. ...!ty*, '• ''-- '-' ' 4.. _ . . . - . ,. ..... ,,_.,..,, .-. ,....: , _ ; . . . . , , ,,- ...,. • . .... . • ., . • . . . . ,,,...",,, e.. , ... . . ...,. Mil ....,,,, • • , ' • , , 4 , , , '. , a. .• ',1 '.. , . •-• t. ' - ' . , .). S. , . . . , ' 4.- - ',), '.• ... '4 ... r 11 ..-•,, . . . . 0 dret . • . t.... "' . . .... 1 , , i i - . 0 4 • / ,.. N d . , 4't - ,, .4. 0 `. .iy 4 '.: ' • . ' , - ''',.;• ; . : ' :. . . ... , • - • , ,c4 ' !,' 1 , ' rt .,:' . f . ,.,", , t " « t. ., ,( fig, 1 :..,,,„ . ' . +» .., &' • ' \ r F • . p 1 J w•. • , x a • `�„y ,. (:.� r+� �i mow,. 41 ` "4^,' • " • ,,.....14, « • 77 ,. A�� : . . . �e • • . , . i , • , I _ . is xa' . . ,, r r • • . . • A4.1 4 . 21 .x t, 111%, . ' 2'.1. ' # � V N T • t. , a fr / 14 4.' IA .. F r, ' ' i �► % � . f � � j + / a a 4 . 4 ' " ''. ' , • 0 ,t •■ Ili 4 , .. ".•••. l'' 1 -, /1. •.. ,,., , i, • , ),' ., . , '''',....„.„...‘ I t• * • ....lg. . ,,,, 4.•k;, . • • , ,.......- „..• • ... • ,- F r l , •.��• . 18 " r • 1 .,,,,.. ° I . \ ! 1 . . • ' 1 / � • ��,• • s. ♦4 �I CC 27i, %7 -2 Linda Lagergren From: Katie Allen [kdkatallen @yahoo.com:I Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 5:57 PM To: City Council Cc: saferidescupertino @gmail.com; Mark Linder; David Knapp; Ralph Qualls Subject: Move Full Steam Head Ahead to Open Scenic open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dear Honorable City Council Members: Please deny the reconsideration petition currently before. you to change your stance in opening Scenic Circle. Note, your city staff can find no reason to consider the petition as it doesn't have any required grounds for reconsideration. Please move forward this important opening up of Scenic Circle to residents so they can easily access both the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry farm ASAP.... it's been postponed way too long! We need to believe that Government works again and not just for a few! Sincerely, Katherine D. Allen Lockwood Drive Cupertino CA 1 ce 4//i /rte zy=/7-14 2, Linda Lagergren From: Norm Donovan [norm.donovan @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:28 PM To: City Council Subject: Please continue forward opening the Scenic Circle Gate Dear Council Members, We understand that your decision to open the Scenic Circle gate to provide a safe path for kids to bike to school has been challenged. We encourage you to reaffirm your decision and urge you to move forward in an expeditious manor to get this needed pathway open ASAP. Sincerely Norm Donovan Connor Donovan (bikes to school) 1 CC 1////) z W7 Linda Lagergren From: Susan Sievert [spsievert©gmail.corn] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:30 AM To: City Council Cc: City Clerk Subject: Written Communication: April 06, 2010 - Agenda Item 29 Written Communication from Susan Sievert April 06, 2010 - Agenda Item 29: "Conduct a hearing of a petition by Susan Sievert et. al. as amended by Donald Bautista, Jr., for reconsideration of the City Council's February 16, 2010 decision on Scenic Circle access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park." Dear Cupertino City Council, Because it has no pedestrian or bike lane, and an estimated $1.1 million dollar New Project price tag, I agree with City staff's original declarations that the Blackberry Farm entrance driveway is a problematic "safety issue," and request clarification regarding its April 06, 2010 reversal of opinion. The following declarations are part of the public record, and are relevant to your February 16, 2010 "safer route to school" decision for which you have been petitioned to reconsider: 1) JUNE 20, 2006 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Staff defines this public safety issue's significant challenges as engineering, cost, and feasibility: Cupertino Public Works Director: "From Byrne into the park? It's very narrow. It's a real choke point when you get in there, and the streets very narrow. I can't —I don't want to speculate here in the Council meeting as to whether you could do that because it's a safety issue. It's really an engineering problem because you have a large drop off in there, and you would have to somehow or other widen that area if you were going to put a sidewalk even on one side of the street. It's a pretty expensive proposition. I'm not even sure it's feasible, so I can't really speculate to you whether that would work or not without some further evaluation, which of course we could do for you." 2) FEBRUARY 20, 2007 PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT Staff advises the Council to "separate" this safety issue from public Safe Routes to School discussions, with the solitary motivation being its "significant cost impact ": "Scenic Circle Blackberry Farm — Gate Re- opening The Council has already decided to maintain the closure of the Scenic Circle gate into Blackberry Farm. Staff recommends that any subsequent consideration by the Council of the issues surrounding the re- opening of the Scenic Circle gate be deferred to another Council meeting and taken up as a separate item apart from the School Traffic safety issues noted above. This discussion could be advertised throughout the Scenic Circle neighborhood and the rest of the school community so that all interested stakeholder:; will be encouraged to participate in the discussion. The Council could then either re- affirm its original decision to keep the gate closed or consider other options. FISCAL IMPACT 1 This action will have no immediate significant fiscal impact. However, staff notes that if the Stevens Creek Corridor area beyond the Scenic Circle gate were to be re- opened to the tri- schools commute the resulting requirements for provision of facilities dedicated to safety and accessibility for a safe route to school could have a significant cost impact on the Stevens Creek Corridor project." 3) JULY 17, 2007 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Staff explains the Blackberry Farm /Monta Vista /Safe Routes to School connection, and shares the New Project's cost estimate: Former Cupertino Councilmember: "...why $1.1 million dollars ?" Former Cupertino Parks and Recreation Director: "That was a cost that was generated back in October when you were looking at a Safe Route to School that would take you from Scenic, cross the creek, through the park, and then up the driveway toward Byrne Avenue. That driveway, the width of it varies between 20 and 22 feet. It's adequate for cars coming in and out, but there is no pedestrian or bike lane. A large part of that expense is gonna be widening that driveway and creating a safe barrier along the golf course, dealing with any tree removal or any grading that has to occur to make that accessible, and then linking it up to Byrne Avenue in a way that actually delivers kids to the tri- school area safely. None of that is included within our environmental document because when the Council approved the scope of what was to be analyzed under CEQA, they had not committed to a crossing at that point. So, what you're looking at for a future bridge is a New Project, a new CEQA review, and a budget and plans that would actually connect the bridge in a useful way." 4) APRIL 6, 2010 PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT After changing one of the New Project's requirements from an ADA compliant "Safe Route to School" to "safer route to school," staff reverses its original declarations, which will save the City approximately $900,000 in the New -New Project's es :imated cost: "The declaration that the driveway entrance is unsafe is an opinion of the petitioner that is not shared by City staff." Council, "from Byrne into the park" is still a "very narrow...choke point "; it still has a "large drop off "; and it still lacks a "pedestrian or bike lane." The only significant change of consequence to the substandard driveway and surrounding Monta Vista neighborhood is the unnoticed 2009 reduction of the onsite parking from the original 1100 spaces to 167 ( "350 Planned ") — which exacerbated this widely recognized public safety issue to a level of unconscionable negligence. Therefore, I request the City of Cupertino please explain in greater detail how they arrived at their April 06, 2010 "driveway entrance" reversal, and to please make available for public review any "further analysis" or mitigations with regards to the safety of the Blackberry Farm entrance driveway, and the adjacent Monta Vista neighborhood since June 20, 2006. Thank you. Susan Sievert Monta Vista /Cupertino Cc: Cupertino City Clerk: For inclusion in April 06, 2010 / Agenda Item 29 Written Communication. 2 Gc I /(//0 Linda Lagergren From: Hugh Chen [hchen123 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:39 PM To: City Council Cc: saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: petition reconsideration of access to Stevens Cr. corrider Dear Council members: The issue was originated from the result of hastily decision, by the previous Council members years ago, to seal off the accesses to Blackberry Farm from west side. Becasue it was not well studied and not FAIR to the adjacent neighbors previlege. The Councils' decision on 2 -16 -2010 had clearly shown its process of fairness and transparency. The resistance from few residents in the area can be expected. Please stay on the decision and stop the future waste on resources, thus deny the petition please. Respectfully Hugh Chen 22361 McClellan Rd Cueprtino CA 95014 408 - 255 -9718 1 Page 1 of 2 Fr. / • , 'n F T 1 c e4 4 - to - to 2 .°l Carol Stanek :. Ca .: From: Carol Stanek Sent: Mon 4/5/2010 11:35 PM - - --� `� To: citycouncil @cupertino.org Cc: Mark Under; davidk @cupertino.org; ralphq @cupertino.org; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: City Council should Deny the Reconsideration Petition regarding Access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Attachments: Dear City Councilmembers, The decision tonight regarding the Reconsideration Petition for access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm should be a very straightforward denial of the Petition. Below are the reasons why. I sincerely hope we can move on with this important project with the utmost urgency. Deny this unfounded Reconsideration Petition. Reconsideration Petition for Scenic Access Should be Denied April 6, 2010 1. There is no basis for the Reconsideration a. The Staff Report refutes all claims. b. Unsubstantiated accusations of Brown ,Act and other regulatory violations are irresponsible. i. Brown Act violations are criminal charges. These accusations should not be levied without any evidence and should be dismissed and exposed for the frivolous accusations that they are. ii. These vague accusations, which do not identify any particular current or former Council members, insult our entire City Council and the City Staff and create an unwarranted climate of distrust. Petitioners need to be shown that unsubstantiated accusations will not be tolerated. 2. Petitioners are the ones who have already benefited the greatest from the $13,000,000 investment in Blackberry Farm. a. The reduction from a maximum of 4,000 to 525 daily paid picnickers substantially reduces disruptions to neighbors from park usage. Specifically: i. Reduction of auto parking from 1100 to approx 135 vehicles on peak days from San Fernando and the removal of the driveway kiosk (at the insistence of the neighbors) means that car exhaust from idling cars awaiting entrance along the driveway and out onto Byrne has significantly improved the environment and accessibility of the homes directly at the entrance (Susan Sievert, Rhoda Fry, among others). ii. The additional reduction from 800 paid picnickers in 2009 to 525 paid picnickers in 2010 should more than correct the overflow parking issue experienced by the San Fernando neighbors in 2009. (Staff projected that a reduction to 600 -650 would correct that problem but reduced the number even further at the insistence of neighbors Susan Sievert and Rhoda Fry). iii. The elimination of the barbeques and picnic areas directly across the street from the Scenic neighbors (Don Bautista, Max Bokelman and others) means that these neighbors no longer need to be inconvenienced by barbeque smoke, unwanted music and other noise disruption which permeated their yards and homes for 100 days of summer every year. This is a significant improvement to the quality of life in the Scenic Circle area that seems to have been overlooked in recent discussions. iv. The eyesore that was Blackberry Farm has been transformed into a beautiful park which is an asset to the local neighorhoods. There is no scientific way to measure the impact on property values of adjacent home. ;. However, it is clear that the look, feel, smell and environment of the immediate neighborhood have been greatly improved because of the improvements made to the park. 3. The quality of life improvements created by the renovated park need to be shared with the entire neighborhood, not kept off limits by the few who have already benefited. https: / /dylan.echelon.com/ exchange /cstanek/Personal/Sc enic %20Access/ Reconsideration /City %20Coun... 4/6/2010 Page 2 of 2 a. The access point for the path is not a new access point. It had been a feature of the neighborhood for years. Students and other residents relied on this access for an alternative route to school and for access to the park. b. The gate control that has been approved also represents a major improvement over the previous gate access. City Staff will be available to open and close the gate and also monitor activity in the park 365 days a year. This is another vast improvement for the immediate neighbors in Scenic where the previous responsibility was with those neighbors to open and close the gate and where there was no City Staff presence at the park to monitor undesired activity other than the 100 days the park was open. 4. If an ongoing committee is to work on potential speculative issues raised by the neighbors, it needs to have clear requirements to work within the approved project defined by the City Council, not to try to defeat the project via the back door. a. The Blackberry Farm Advisory Committee, which already exists under the leadership of the Director of Parks and Recreation, could address issues such as parking concerns. Many options exist to address potential parking concerns (e.g. signs for No Parking, Residential Permit Parking, No Blackberry Parking, etc.) but have either been rejected by specific neighbors in favor of blanket opposition to the access, or have not received broad neighborhood support. b. Specific school hour access is not a viable or useful consideration. Access needs to remain as originally proposed for "Every day during open park hours" because: i. School hours for Monta Vista high school vary by day based on their Block schedule (different class periods each day), school assemblies or testing schedules, specific student schedules (students start and end at different times depending on their class schedule and after school activities), and the fact that Monta Vista is an open campus where students are allowed to come to or leave campus at various times (e.g. come home and return from lunch, leave or come to school late for a doctor appointment, etc). Students need to be able to rely on the predictability of the access being open to them whenever they might need it during the open park hours. ii. Keeping the access point open during park hours also supports the goal of the city to increase local resident usage of the park by making access available to west side residents. c. Alternative access points should only be discussed as additional opportunities, not as substitutes to the access from Scenic to the bridge. i. Some Scenic neighbors continue to insist that Simms or other routes be used instead of the one approved in the project. Participants in any discussion need to understand that the basic plan for access to the bridge from Scenic has been approved and is no longer open for discussion or debate. Council should deny the Reconsideration Petition and move forward with this important community project with the utmost urgency. Sincerely, Carol Stanek Mira Vista Rd. https: / /dylan. echelon. com/ exchange /cstanek/ Personal/ Scer. ic% 20Access /Reconsideration/City %20Coun... 4/6/2010 Gmail - Blackberry Entrance vs McClellan Rd at School Commute Hours - Deny the Reconsideration ... Page 1 of 2 Gm Safe Rides <saferidesc.1pertil o - D.gmaii.00firt> Blackberry Entrance vs McClella ■ Rd at School Commute Hours Den the Reconsideration Petiti ! message {� Mon, Apr v, 2010 at 6:16 PM Carol Stanek �cstanek rlecnelen.com� To: citycoI tnrillarl pertino.org Cc: Mark Linder r__ f l1__ k A r- ._.. _t_ A_. _t :.-- t_.1�. lVIGI K L1f tUC! ' -1Vitlt KL!�GU UCi LI!!U -(]! ��� UdVIUI�(vC:UUCI (1f IU. Uf g. I eftUl IU&U CJe1 (If IU. Ui Y. JdICI !UC5GL.1UCrt1I IU @gma1LCaJm Dear r_.._._:1 + _.... t. dr OILY Council members, IeIIIUCI J Within Within the Reconsideration P pictures claiming to the dangerous nn ture of the Blackberry Farm Yy1lA i11J to lG 1 \GliVilJIVGI C�4I VII Petition are some WIlr4ViGS IrIQJJIIIA 1 to prove 411E I/Cl� II. nature VI the Vlali(�UGIf Y QIJII entrance nce for student nt b These photos are com pletel y misleading for a number of reasons 1) These L otos taken "overflow" f " l I days which .d l d u ri ng k of Blackberry 1 1 1I IG,r?G photos were on I1 Vt%GI1ItJW I.Jdll{II fU VCi 1 Vdf Ill..l I occurred last year UUIIIIU peak l.l."�. aldC of BIaL.nvGl!y CII t1i. ('it+. `t.tt h t '.4 IIa.I . steps- to eliminate this situ -atio i for 2v)1 v). :Specifically, peak paid park: attendance .Vl iii be vn �J•un further rant Iran from 800 to 525 users, City staff observed that at approximately 650 users parking Tilled up at the paark and creat cI:_ overflow City cart 1___ 1. _._.�!! t t t_ rn but all the rnr SCI C:JICU L( 11 Oi oVC! IIUtAr sl(UQ(IUI 1 t I(V staff has reduced paid park attendance not just to 650 users, 611 (f {d way to ULU thin rfloyv traffic, 't, situation .J.-.... -. t 'Th:. h... IA b th h to eliminate th :.. 't. ti users LU ensureLI 1)J SJVC . I ItJYY sILUQLIVl 1 ULJGA not reoccur. !lily JI IVU141 IJG more IIV! � LI IGI 1 enough 1 LU Gl!l 111! IJ�LG this n?ILL1aLl4J! I in 201 vl and beyond. r.) Blackberry �....1. (. e r ........ Park r! _ ...1.. r :.-... c rat..,.. !.. -! - when students I ! d .... Lt E?Idl1KUCI r-d1!II f dIr IJ not open l IUI IJ14I.IIL. UI WIIIII I IItltrt UUI lI IU IIIU>t of the- J rjnd Entrance are r epr UI IUU! year WI lCI I s1UUCpsent 1 Itt would L? accessing the driveway for school. The enclosed pictures of the Blackberr Driveway and ea ve of the absence of any vehicle traffic at about 1 5pm today, a t time when students u'ouia arrecc the driveway. In sic r MPH V 1' driveway which font let rH(21_1ee!isk rit l(I11lUll� you can see the posting (]1 the ;7 IVI t't'•1 - `i[)(�f''(7 sign and 111Y �[]Y(_l Rumps !1! the f]!!V _\!V_� the on LI IG UI lV WdV. Compare and c ontrast these representative Blackberry Farm driveway photos with the enclosed photos of car and bicycle traffic; on l Iv cClelld(1 of l a typical school day We ca n't put our kids in a bubble to p then But we can substantially reduce risks given the options that we have. B . McClellan through Blackberry from [_P_. Scenic hen SI M IST �]r1t1a 11V fP(il ice the risk Tar'PCt [l V the students end (f?(ll lf_P car Tf'7TTIi_ IV cClella l F more students feel sale to ride. The Reconsideration Petition shoe old he denied. 4 Mttachmerts • .. . e l f Blackberry Driveway 5MPH Speedburrp.JPG 2702K Blackberry Entrance on School Day.JPG Gmail - Blackberry Entrance vs McClellan Rd at School Coirinute Hours - Deny the Reconsideration ... Page 2 of 2 ^A nn, G I 001 , . . „ - •.: ' , .,.■ 41.1" , 111t...1".."." ....... SI r:ni I li . " 0, , X • ' • Ti 4 . h "!• • ' . r , - , , ; . •r . V ' ,,,,. , . , -1-, . . h 1 s - ,. :' ',,-, ' ' • 9 -," A , s Car passing b;kes.JPG 41 . .,... • 0 4' ' 4 , A t, , o4+.+1.c. -at - — i • i • - t .. 4 . v.% .. „ ,.••• • j ',“.. ,,,/` , dangerous curve.jpg 1 ' 7:37K t . 1 • is OW N■ , 3„1::: __Ib ... • am r'... P ,, 1101111M' , , ., , ^ , • , , , I ..". •■• ..r. .., .,,.., , .-.... 4 .■... • , ..- ," , V , Gmail - Access to Blackberry Farm Park from Scenic Circle Page 1 of 1 Gm Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Access to Blackberry Farm Park from Scenic Circle 2 messages julie.wing@comcast.net <julie.wing@comcast.net Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:25 PM To: saferidescupertino @gmail.com, citycouncil @cupertino.org, nark) @cupertino.org, davidk @cupertino.org, ralphq @cupertino.org Hello, I'm a block leader in the neighborhood near Scenic Circle. I know that the vote from February 16 to open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry farm is once again in Jeopardy. I want to reiterate our area's interest in getting that access opened. Unfortunately I will not be in town for the next council meeting. We have many families in our area that want this gate opened. These are families with kids that use the park, as well as go through the park to get to school. Our area covers streets: Carmen Rd, Bellevue Ct, Scenic, and Quinterno Ct. I'm am in touch with the block leaders for Mira Vista, Palo Vista, and Palm. They have the same interest in opening access. I feel that the few neighbors of Scenic Circle that oppose this access are persistent. Their efforts are obvious. They want to wear us down. Frankly I am tired of these tactics. I urge the council to continue to move forward with the plan to enable access from Scenic Circle into Blackberry Farm. Regards, Julie Wing Block Leader for Quinterno Ct, Bellevue Circle, Carmen Rd, and Scenic Rd Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:04 PM To: julie.wing @comcast.net Nice. Thanks Julie. Carol [Quoted text hidden] https: // mail. google .com /mail / ?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view =pt& search= inbox &th= 127bcc451 eb38dc 1 4/6/2010 Gmai! Monta Vista PTSA commends Cupertino City Council: Scenic Circle Decision Page 1 of 2 // Safe Rides <saferidescupertinoCkgmaii,com> IVIonta Vista PTSA commends Cupertino City Council: Scenic Circle Decision Suman Ganapathy<sumanmitraganapathyagmail.com> Thu, Mar 25„ 2010 at 6:28 PM Toi itaatteialcommunitc,i-newspapers.com Lip tyate - _COM> Dear Cupertino Courier. The r....lonta Vista PTii want it to rye known that:live rhirnmend I th Lue01110 1 =1;:y Mei' unanimous ciecisk to reopen the dare f rom Scenic Circle throw Blackberry Farrn tor pederstrians and bicycles This pi reduce the trarric volume and fisKs expenenced our student aric parent_ community on NI c on a daily baSrS. \foe encourage tno Lounci: to work noth the neighboi s; reue theh honcour-i regardin in any lin intender nonsequences Triat rnay occur_ However, we request mai mese consicteititiomE: k-..dhi not merecinnie, rOrlIMPFICing oil El:Hi IMDOrtarit prOjett. voted on uesday orriciaily encourage and suppai tne Litty Li:ouncil to rouow through uhritiyaverin ply with their right Cie(:!!-31,_:Ti dud COMMitr[Iellt th(=?: parc=' and FeSid?rit COMMUnity. Trial VOL: urnan Ganapathy Morita Vista PISA F"resIcleht, on beha:f NtyPTSA. Suman Ganapathy<sumanmitraganapathy@gmaii.corn> Thu, Mar 25. 2010 at 6:37 PM c1tyctidinc11(.:12tupertino.org davek,,gcu pe Fr; o .orcL ralpncicu [Denim u_t_n!..4, rAdo<1_,:c3Xliperi orf,h - A lotjg Lime corimig_pui , An;Eimted onic-ird vou the ernai lust sent to tn e rioupertino Lorimer_ in essiehice, it itt Thank you tram N,:f °ma VistiEJ FT.hru r unanimous ypte open fne aiso wanted to re:Du to vvolK paialei with line loom who havP concerns regardwi g opening ot the gate, drld to heiP Thew dhevolie their tears_ vve are donticient tar an amiLsidie 5:DLit 1,Anii rouched Ce agE1in , tnank , , , ou ever so much! on iticiriaVf ,T Safe Rides <saferidescupertindegmaii.com> Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:41 PM To• man https://mail.google.comlinaill?ui=2&ik=246449b9a5&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1279815cla22e476 4/6/2010 Page l of You replied on 4/4/2010 4:49 PM. Carol Stanek From: AnneNg @aol.com [AnneNg @aoLcoml Sent: Sun 4/4/2010 4:44 PM To: citycouncil @cupertino.org Cc: ralphq @cupertino.org; MarkL @cupertino.org; davek @cuper_ino.org Subject: reconsideration of scenic circle access to blackberry farm Attachments: Dear Councitmembers: Thanks very much for your unanimous decision to allow bikeipeci access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm and Stevens Creek Trail. I'm sorry you and staff have been saddled with this Reconsideration Petition. I believe staff has adequately refuted the claims in the petition. Concerning the bridge, it was the bridge itself, not the supports, that was replaced. Removing or replacing the supports would certainly have required environmental review, but they simply remained in place during construction. It was and still is a "pedestrian bridge ", which happens to provide access from the Scenic Circle side of the creek to the main part of Blackberry Farm. The Blackberry Farm entrance is indeed very narrow, and I'm sure is no fun for cyclists and pedestrians during peach usage of Blackberry Farm. But peak usage times are definitely not when kids are traveling to and from school. In fact, during peak usage, it will be good to have another access point just for the human powered. The residents of the Meadows do seem to have received favored treatment —but in that case, City property comes up to their back fences as opposed to being across the street. Scenic Circle residents have benefited enormously from the downsizing of Blackberry Farm operations and removal of a major picnic area just across the street. Yes, a few cars may end up parked there near the gate once it's opened, but I predict not very many. Only time will tell. I'll back their request for help if it becomes a big daily problem. Please deny the request for reconsideration. Thanks again! Anne Ng 6031 Bollinger Road 408-257-6506 hops. / /dylan. echelon. com /exchange /cstanek/Personal/ Scenic %20 Access / Reconsiders .lion /reconsideratio_ _. 4/6/2010 Page of I Car! Stift1Pk rFUEll 6urti: ,44 . 1 I dilK!, very much !of yew uh;dmmeu,_-_, '1).) LTht,iped tk, I . e e:qe! Fdmi dciu 'Decestnan briage nariDens : Orci the kkt 1:0 En, vd[1: Lir p Lvi: livw to h. anottmr pomt jw-tit Tor the nuffi :Jul/Vete:Li LH ftiVOTeLl Hi lift:It k—ity nld HIH:1 L'Ll'i< ten rje'S ed e!!! ;::-.R_re't,5 the street re!-;v3erip,-; Ha-rk,e beHeHteu enonfif.iity HuM uu:mrzoLng ui Eodk_Kuerp,i Fdim cveriductfr ''''' tkuli n (74(_ r ififys:,, an g eic st aft ek., ersonall Sr enic9 c es siRec sideran oevree oir_s iderati o 41612010 Page 1 of 1 You replied on 4/3/2010 12:21 PM. Carol Stanek From: Janet Trankle [trankles @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sat 4/3/2010 12:13 PM To: Carol Stanek Cc: Subject: FW: Access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle Attachments: Okay, here it is. From: Janet Trankle [mailto:trankles @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 12:12 PM To: 'citycouncil @cupertino.org' Cc: 'mark) @cupertino.org; 'davidk @cupertino.org'; 'ralphg @cupertino.org' Subject: Access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle My name is Janet Trankle. I live on Adelheid Court, part of the homeowners association between Scenic Blvd. and the Stocklmeir Ranch. I am writing to reiterate my support for the decision you made on February 16 to reopen access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. I urge you to deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before you, in accordance with the recommendation from Staff that stated the petition does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. I am grateful for your unanimous vote to open access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. This will give my son a safer way to ride his bike to Monta Vista High School than his current choices of McClellan Road or Stevens Creek Blvd. It will also provide easier access to the park for those of us who live in neighborhoods adjacent to Scenic Circle. I live just off the part of Scenic Circle between Stevens Creek Blvd. and the top of the hill. We have many pedestrians and bike riders who use it and it does not adversely affect our neighborhood. Similarly, I do not believe that the quality of the Scenic Circle neighborhood will be adversely affected by having pedestrian and bicycle access to Blackberry Farm. I have been going to Blackberry Farm all my life. Each time I walk through the park now I marvel at the beautiful job the city did with the trail and restoration. I hope to see another beautiful trail and restoration at Stocklmeir Ranch. The areas along the creek that are part of the Cupertino parks system are truly unique and we are lucky to have them for people to enjoy. Sincerely, Janet Stocklmeir Trankle https: / /dylan. echelon.com /exchange /cstanek/ Personal / Scenic %20Access/Reconsideration/F W: %20Acces... 4/6/2010 Gmail - petition reconsideration of access to Stevens Cr. corrider Page 1 of 1 i G .,. Sa f e Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> petition reconsideration of access to Stevens Cr. corrider 2 messages Hugh Chen <hchen123 @yahoo.com> Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 2:39 PM To: citycouncil @cupertino.org Cc: saferidescupertino @gmail.com Dear Council members: The issue was originated from the result of hastily decision, by the previous Council members years ago, to seal off the accesses to Blackberry Farm from west side. Becasue it was not well studied and not FAIR to the adjacent neighbors previlege. The Councils' decision on 2 -16 -2010 had clearly shown its process of fairness and transparency. The resistance from few residents in the area can be expected. Please stay on the decision and stop the future waste on resources, thus deny the petition please. Respectfully Hugh Chen 22361 McClellan Rd Cueprtino CA 95014 408 -255 -9718 Safe Rides < saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:57 PM To: Hugh Chen <hchen123 @yahoo.com> Thanks Hugh. How's Gucci? [Quoted text hidden] https: // mail. google. com /mail/?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5 &view =pt& search= inbox &th= 127d50ffd561 4/6/2010 Page 1 of 1 GmaII Calendar _ Documents Web Reader more • saterldescupertlnoiegmall.com I Settings I Help- I Sign out G m i I Search Mail Search the Web 511°Vr Create fiker Compose Mall updated Gifted Child Education - www.caliva.org - K12 Virtual Academy has free books, materials, and loaner comlAbout these ads < > « Back to Inbox Archive Report spam Delete Move to Labels More actions Newer 6 of 33 Older Inbox Buzz Starred New window For Our Children, PLEASE Move Ahead to Open Scenic inbox x Sent Mail Print all Drafts Carol Lim to citycouncil, me, markl, davidl show details Apr 5 (1 day ago) Reply Personal More about.. Dear City Council, For Parents Raising Children a Reconsideration Kids Bir hday a Sc e nic 2009 We have two young children, and we love to take walks and ride our bikes in the Help Children Sleep neighborhood. We have gotten to know our neighbors well as a result. We were excited and Kids Charts Scenic 2010 grateful of your unanimous decision to reopen the access from Scenic Circle to the Stevens Scenic Feb _ Thank you Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. We understand that there is strong opposition to this by a Travel handful of residents on Scenic Circle, but there are many more children, students, parents, fi more• grandparents who would benefit from this decision. Unfortunately, riding bikes or walking down McClellan is not safe. We want a SAFE option for our kids; so for that, we put our trust in you to deny the reconsideration petition and move forward with this important project for Cupertino residents with the utmost urgency. Contacts My daughter, Marissa (5 years old) and I will attend the City Council meeting tomorrow. We asks will be there with our Daisy troop to honor our troop leader, Cris Vaughn, and to show our T aska support for opening up the Scenic Gate. The girls it the Daisy troop are just some of the children who are affected now because they don't have safe access to walk or ride their bikes to the park The negative effect will continue when they go to Kennedy and Monta Vista schools. I am writing this email because I will need to take my daughter home before Chat 8pm (her bedtime); so I may not be able to speak if the Scenic access topic comes up later than that However, I want to let you know that we FULLY support reopening the access via Search, add, or invite Scenic. THANK YOU for all your hard work on this. We truly appreciate it. Safe Rides Sincerely, Set status here Carol Lim Daniel BenDavid Loy Oppus Mike Moore Anvesh Gundlapalli Reply Reply_to Forward Kim Fisher Lola Kashyap Suman Ganapathy Feldman Rich Meg Zimmers, Karen Options Add Contact a Back to inbox Archive Report spam Delete Move to Labels More actions < Newer 6 of 33 Older > Invite a friend Give Gmail to: ISend Invite] 50 left Compose messages using colors, bullets, highlighting, and more with rich formatting. Preview Invite You are currently using 28 MB (0 %) of your 7441 MB. Last account activity: 2 hours ago at this IP (75.25.127.158). Details Gmail view: standard I turn off c tat I turn off buzz I older version I basic HTML Learn more ®2010 Google - Terms - Privacy Policy - €fuzz Privacy Policy - Gmail Slog - Join the Gmail team - Google Home https: / /mail.google. corn/ mail / ?ui =2 &view= bsp&ver= lgygpcgurkovy 4/6/2010 Gmail - Move Full Steam Head Ahead to Open Scenic open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry F... Page 1 of 1 G q M —; ii S afe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Move Full Steam Head Ahead to Open Scenic open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm for pedestrians and bicyclists. Katie Allen <kdkatallen@yahoo.com> Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:57 PM To: citycouncil @cupertino.org Cc: saferidescupertino @gmail.com, markl @cupertino.org, davidk @cupertino.org, ralphq @cupertino.org Dear Honorable City Council Members: Please deny the reconsideration petition currently before you to change your stance in opening Scenic Circle. Note, your city staff can find no reason to consider the petition as it doesn't have any required grounds for reconsideration. Please move forward this important opening up of Scenic Circle to residents so they can easily access both the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry farm ASAP.... it's been postponed way too long! We need to believe that Government works again and not just for a few! Sincerely, Katherine D. Allen Lockwood Drive Cupertino CA https: // mail. google.com/ mail / ?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5 &view=pt& search= inbox &msg= 127d09edfa4649ac 4/6/2010 Gmail - Open Access From Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm For Pedestrians and Bicyclists Page 1 of 1 • i0 G i Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Open Access From Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm For Pedestrians and Bicyclists 1 message Patricia Rod <plrod6@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:15 PM To: citycouncil@cupertino.org, saferidescupertino @gmail.com, davidk @cupertino.org, ralphq @cupertino.org Dear Council Members: Thank you again for your unanimous decision regarding "Adoption of Resolution No. 10 -073, Denying the Petition of Susan Sievert et.al. seeking Council reconsideration of its decision to provide access from Scenic Circle to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. This is just to reinforce my support for the February 16th unanimous Council decision above. I urge the Council to deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before you which does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. Please move forward with this important project for our community. Sincerely, Patricia Rod Patricia L. Rod, RDMS, RDCS BayArea ScanService PO Box 2437 Cupertino, California 95015 -2437 408.219.8054 - 408.725.1316 (fax) plrod6 mail.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e -mail constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the i= lectronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510 Disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient doe ;; not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all copies of this communication. Thank you for your coopera' ion. https: // mail. google .com /mail/?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view =pt& search = inbox &th= 127c1aa7688fdb4d 4/6/2010 Gmail - Scenic Rd Access Page 1 of 1 i Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Scenic Rd Access 2 messages Mike Moore <skdmoore@gmail.com> Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:22 PM To: citycouncil @cupertino.org, saferidescupertino @gmail.com, markl @cupertino.org, davidk @cupertino.org, ralphq @cupertino.org Hello, Thank you for your continued support for access to schools through Scenic Rd. I have three kids who can use this safer route. Mike Moore 22350 Cupertino Rd 650 - 283 -9434 Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:35 PM To: Mike Moore <skdmoore @gmail.com> Thanks Mike! [Quoted text hidden] https: // mail. google .com /maiU ?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view =pt& search = inbox &th= 127c63266b0b6fa8 4/6/2010 Gmail - Opening of Scenic Gate Page 1 of 2 G I I N `, , Safe Rides <saferidescupertino @ gmaiIcom> i, 1Z Opening of Scenic Gate 4 messages Jonathan Parlan (jparlan) <jparlan@cisco.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:40 AM To: saferidescupertino©gmail.com Dear City Council, I fully support your unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. Please deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before you, which, as noted by Staff, does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. I would like to request that the City Council move forward with the project as decided in February as it will benefit many Cupertino residents. Sincerely, Jonathan Parlan 22367 Starling Drive Los Altos CA 94024 Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:04 PM To: "Jonathan Parlan (jparlan)" <jparlan @cisco.com> Hi Jonathan, Was this just a copy to Saferides? I didn't see the citycouncilftc pertino,org email address on it. I just thought I'd check to make sure you also sent it to them. Thanks for your support. Carol [Quoted text hidden] Jonathan Parlan (jparlan) <jparlan@cisco.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM To: Safe Rides <saferidescupertino @gmail.com> Hi Carol, https: / /mail. google. com /mail/?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5 & view =pt &search = inbox &th= 127bf2 ea564cdc51 4/6/2010 Gmail - re -open a gate at Scenic Circle Page 1 of 1 • G m .._,II Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> 1 2 re -open a gate at Scenic Circle 2 messages Mark Guan <markguan @gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM To: citycouncil©cupertino.org, saferidescupertino @gmail.com, markl @cupertino.org, davidk @cupertino.org, ralphq@cupertino.org Dear City Council, I fully support your unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. Please deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before you, which, as noted by Staff, does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration.* *I would like to request that the City Council move forward with the project as decided in February as it will benefit many Cupertino residents. Sincerely, Mark Guan 11725 Ridge Creek Ct, Cupertino, CA 95014 Safe Rides < saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:08 PM To: Mark Guan <markguan @gmail.com> Thanks Mark! [Quoted text hidden] https: / /mail.google.com /mail/ ?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view = =pt& search = inbox &th= 127c0aa3264fd4a0 4/6/2010 Gmail - Scenic Circle access Page 1 of 1 G NI , Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Scenic Circle access 2 messages Lola Kashyap <lolakashyap@gmail.com> Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:58 PM To: citycouncil @cupertino.org, mark) @cupertino.org, davidk@cupertino.org, ralphq©cupertino.org I would like to congratulate the city council for voting unanimously to reopen Scenic Circle access to Blackberry Farm. You have heard numerous pleas from parents, students, school administrators and other residents, who for several months have expressed great concern for students' safety as they walklbike to school on McClellan Road. With your unanimous vote in favor of access, you have clearly demonstrated your regard for the safety and well -being of our students who currently face unnecessary risks on a daily basis. I strongly urge you not to be dissuaded from proceeding with this project by those who continue to try to block its progress. It is vitally important that our students be provided a safer route to school without any further delay. Lola Kashyap Palm Avenue Cupertino Lola Kashyap <lolakashyap@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:05 PM To: Barry Chang 4 Cupertino City Council <barry4cupertino @gmail.com> Thanks, Barry. The Staff Report correctly points out the frivolous nature of the allegations in the Reconsideration Petition. I strongly urge you and other city council members to follow staff recommendation and stick to your decision to reopen access. I am volunteering at the Measure B phone bank on Tuesday evening and may not be able to make it to the city council meeting on time. Thank you once again for your concern for students' safety! Lola On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Barry Chang 4 Cupertino City Council <barr�r4cupertino @gmail.com> wrote: Hi Lola, Thank you very much for your input about the Scenic Gate to Blackberry Farm. [Quoted text hidden] Barry Chang Cupertino City Councilmember www.barry4cupertino.com barry4cupertino@gmaii. corn 408 - 688 -6398 "Your referral is the best compliment that I can receive." Please consider the environment before printing this email. https: / /mail.google.com /mail/ ?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view ==pt& search = inbox &th= 127bce214dda04df 4/6/2010 Gmaii - Op the bypass Page 1 of 1 Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Open the bypass Feldman Rich <richard.feldmanOattmeP Thu. Apr 1, n10 at 10:05 PM Ell■d Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:07 PM Rich Feldman <richard.feldmanOatt.net> Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:12 PM rpm imaill?ni=2&ik=2 46:2O10 Sinai! - Scenic Circle Gate to Blackberry Page 1 of 1 Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@grn aii,com> Scenic Circle Gate to Blackberry r ne. Diana Farsai dfarsaicasbcgobal.net> Thu, Apr 1. 2010 at 10:05 PM To org, org, d t 0 ni or") was very pleased to hear the unanimous decision made by City Council, on February 16th, to reopen the Scenic Circle access to Blackbemy Fruin and Stevens Creek Trail As -a resident tvyho lives on Ct.= en Rd. with two 12 - year old children, who would benefit tremendously frotrit aving a a-cress to Blackberry Farm via Scenic Circle, I would Ile to voice my support. My household would like to urge City Council to deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before them, which, as noted by Staff does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsdiration. We ask, respectfially, that City Council move forward with this important project for Cupertino residents with the utmost ur Than you, Diana Farsai 10106 e MIR en Rd Cupertino Safe Rides <saferidescupertindel,amaii.corn> Thu. Apr 1. 2010 at 10:08 PM aana F arS ' a (1 al net Thanks Liiark-_ keep posted https:Slinaii. =11 6 ' 0 1 U - -Scenic Trail Access Page 1 of 1 Safe Rides <safendescupertino@gmaii.rom> Scenic Trail Access ...H and A Esquivel <jiliandai@earthlink.net- Thu, Apr I, 2010 at 9:41 PM H:lePP1- •-itroil Escitir 9ffiancialaearthlink.net> To: satendestuperting(1;!gmakcom markhicKupernno.org, ralphq(gcuperung.ord Dear Countri Meinoers, P..s. long terM resl ' p [ t hebrLidl.y 10111 Linarlirno (lief ISIOn te reopen the access tH ste\,...ens L.:reek: Thad ancl Rack:Dem/ h utge you to aenv {he recomi-dderanon petMen that is curt under consideration Wnrfrid OeS not meet any of Me grourld',i Tot tenonsiderapon. we L ,re happ,/ that this wffi pv. more children strionl and ualS roa Ai and Aitonso L 104'12 NoeHAve ful g50 nin k Safe Rides <saferidesrupertino@gmail.rom> Thu, Apr I, 2010 at 10:05 PM 1o: and AI Esquivel 9Handaitiii k.net:=- Thanks kii keep you pry:Tit:ed. fr:Eirol https:Limailoogle. aill?ui=2&ik=246449b9a5&view=pt&search=inboxikth=127bcd32d 4/6/2010 Page 1 of 1 le You replied on 4/1/2010 5:17 PM. 1 / I Carol Stanek From: oleas @aol.com [oleas @aol.com] Sent: Thu 4/1/2010 5:08 PM To: citycouncil©cupertino.org Cc: saferidescupertino @gmail.com; markl @cupertino.org; davklk @cupertino.org; ralphq @cupertino.org Subject: Blackberry Farm Access From Scenic Circle Attachments: Cupertino City Council Members, I wish to affirm and commend your recommendation to proceed with Blackberry Farm access from Scenic Circle. As an avid bike rider, I know how dangerous McCellan Road can be. I shudder to think of school kids navigating that road trying to get to school on time, whether on a bike or on foot. Access via Scenic Circle is a logical way to reduce road congestion with our kid's safety in mind. I understand that a reconsideration petition for this project has been filed. I ask you to deny this petition in order to promote the safety of the school kids who live west of Stevens Creek. As you know, your own staff has determined that this petition does not meet the required grounds for reconsideration. Please move forward with this important access. I've been a Monta Vista resident for the past 15 years and have seen the neighborhood change over time. Frankly, there are more kids on the west side now that when we first moved here. Communities that thrive adapt and are clever is finding simple solutions to problems like road congestion. This Council has shown that courageous foresight. Press on. Yours, Paul Oleas Palm Ave Cupertino CA 408 - 253 -8523 https: / /dylan. echelon. com /exchange /cstanek/ Personal / Scenic% 20Access /ReconsiderationB lackberry%2... 4/6/2010 Gmail - Access from Scenic to Stevens Creek Trail for schools Page 1 of 2 NI ._,.. I I G ,, S afe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Access from Scenic to Stevens Creek Trail for schools 3 messages jinnyfruin @aol.com <jinnyfruin @aol.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:28 AM To: saferidescupertino @gmail.com, citycouncil @cupertino.org, mark) @cupertino.org, davidk @cupertino.org, ralphq@cupertino.org *Dear City Council, I'm a resident of the Stevens Creek Elementary School area, who winds my way down McClellan to transport two boys to school at Kennedy and in the future to Monta Vista I really would like to see a safe way to school for the boys, which would also mean less traffic, since I wouldn't need to drive. I fully support your unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. Please deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before you, which, as noted by Staff, does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration.* *I would like to request that the City Council move forward with the project as decided in February as it will benefit many Cupertino resident3. Sincerely, Jinny Fruin Forwarded message From: Safe Rides <sa_feridescupertino@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:23 PM Subject: Tell the City Council (AGAIN) to Move Full Steam Head Ahead to Open Scenic To: saferidescupertino@gmai Due to a frivolous Reconsideration Petition filed by a handful of Scenic neighbors, on April 6th the City Council is required to once again review their unanimous decision to open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm for pedestrians and bicyclists. City Staff has carefully reviewed the petition and determined that: "In reviewing the Petition and Addendum to reconsider the Council's decision to provide access from Scenic Circle to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park, *staff cannot find any relevant evidence or proof of facts that support any of the grounds for reconsideration* as required by CIVIC Section 2.08.096 B 1 -5." The Staff Recommendation is: "Adoption of Resolution No. 10 - 073, *Denying* the Petition of Susan Sievert et.al. seeking Council reconsideration of its decision to provide access from Scenic Circle to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park." *But we still need emails to Council so they know we have not lost interest and we are still paying attention. Please once again send emails that *: 1) Reiterate your support for the February 16th unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. https: / /mail.google.com /mail/ ?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view =pt &search = inbox &th= 127bf91efdaf7a34 4/6/2010 Gmail - Scenic Circle Page 1 of 1 Safe Rides <saferidescupertino©gmail.com> Scenic Circle 2 messages Kim Fisher <kimfisher9@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:28 AM To: citycouncil @cupertino.org Cc: saferidescupertino @gmail.com We want to once again express our support for reopening the gate between Scenic Circle and Blackberry Farm and encourage you to deny reconsideration of the petition that would block the access. Thank you, Kim and Brooks Fisher 10122 Adelheid Court Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:09 PM To: Kim Fisher <kimfisher9 @gmail.com> Thanks Kim! [Quoted text hidden) https: // mail. google. com/ maill ?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5 &view search= inbox &th= 127bf915dafbb 4/6/2010 Gmail - Scenic Gate Reconsideration Petition Page 1 of 1 Gm j Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Z1 Scenic Gate Reconsideration Petition 2 messages Linda Hurtado <Linda - Hurtado a@comcast.net> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM To: saferidescupertino@gmail.com Dear City Council, I fully support your unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. Please deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before you, which, as noted by Staff, does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. My son currently rides his bike everyday to Kennedy Middle school via Stevens Creek at Foothill Blvd to Orange Ave. We need to provide our kids with a safe route to school and not on roads that have a 35 mph speed limit. I would like to request that the City Council move forward with the project as decided in February as it will benefit many Cupertino residents. Sincerely, Linda Hurtado Safe Rides <saferidescupertino a@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:08 PM To: Linda Hurtado <Linda- Hurtado@comcast.net> Thanks again Linda! [Quoted text hidden] https: // mail. google .com /mail/?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view =pt& search = inbox &th= 127bf8d1e4599b0b 4/6/2010 Gmail - Reopening Scenic Circle Access Page 1 of 1 G . m s.., I Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Z- 7 Reopening Scenic Circle Access 2 messages linda.orvick@comcast.net <linda.orvick@comcast.net> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:21 AM To: citycouncil @cupertino.org, saferidescupertino©gmail.com, rnarkl @cupertino.org, davidk @cupertino.org, ralphq @cupertino.org Dear City Council, I fully support your unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. Please deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before you, which, as noted by Staff, does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. I would like to request that the City Council move forward with the project as decided in February as it will benefit many Cupertino residents. A safe route to school should be a priority for the council. We have 5 children who have all ridden or will ride to both Kennedy and Monta Vista. Sincerely, Linda and Ken Orvick 22294 Starling Drive Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:08 PM To: linda.orvick@comcast.net Thanks Linda! I'm disappointed by the Courier article today that only spews the bogus claims from the petition and doesn't even mention that none of the claims have any basis for a reconsideration. Oh well. We're doing what we can to be sure the Council reads their own Staff Report and knows what it says. Thanks again! Carol [Quoted text hidden] https: / /mail.google .con /mail / ?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view =pt& search= inbox &th= 127bf53b02a37ad5 4/6/2010 Gmail - (no subject) Page 1 of 1 ,,,-ti Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Z � (no subject) 2 messages John Wang <john wang01@yahoo.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:14 AM To: saferidescupertino @gmail.com Dear City Council, We fully support your unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. sincerely. John Wang Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM To: John Wang <john_wang0l @yahoo.com> Thanks again John. [Quoted text hidden] https: // mail. google .com /mail / ?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view =pt& search = inbox &th= 127bf4d8d880ca88 4/6/2010 Gmail - Scenic Circle Access to Blackberry Farm Page 1 of 1 NI _, i Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Z 4 Scenic Circle Access to Blackberry Farm 2 messages Meg <megfkay@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:49 AM To: citycouncil©cupertino.org, saferidescupertino©gmail.com, markl @cupertino.org, davidk @cupertino.org, ralphq @cupertino.org Dear City Council members: I am writing to say that I, as a 13 -year close neighbor of Blackberry Farm, 1) Reiterate my support for the February 16 unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. 2) Urge Council to deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before them, which, as noted by Staff, does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. 3) Ask Council to move forward with this important project for Cupertino residents with the utmost urgency. I also suggest that we open the gate soon (right away), without first constructing the expensive handicap - accessible entrance, for a trial period of a year or more, to see if this access causes big problems or brings the expected benefits. This would seem to make sense all around. Sincerely, Meg K. Brosnan 22067 San Fernando Court Safe Rides <saferidescupertino @gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:04 PM To: Meg <megfkay c©gmail.com> Thanks again Meg! [Quoted text hidden] https: / /mail.google .con /mail/?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view =pt& search = inbox &th= 127bf37098f39f39 4/6/2010 Gmail - FW: Tell the City Council (AGAIN) to Move Full Steam Head Ahead to Open Scenic Page 1 of 1 Gm ,,,i I Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> FW: Tell the City Council (AGAIN) to Move Full Steam Head Ahead to Open Scenic 2 messages Frank Rittiman <its4u@comcast.net> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:49 AM To: citycouncil©cupertino.org Cc: markl©cupertino.org, davidk @cupertino.org, ralphq @cupertino.org To whom it may concern; We reiterate our support for the February 16 unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. We also urge Council to deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before them, which, as noted by Staff, does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. We also ask Council to move forward with this important project for Cupertino residents with the utmost urgency. This is in the interest of our students safety. If this proves unacceptable to locals, we suggest they document any unacceptable behavior, with witnesses, and pictures, etc. to prove their accusations. If enough evidence is created, it should be re- submitted to council a later time. Sincerely Frank & Joan Rittiman 10405 Melissa Ct. 408 - 253 -1742 or 52 phone 408 - 253 -9838 fax Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:04 PM To: Frank Rittiman <its4u @comcast.net> Thanks again! [Quoted text hidden] https: // mail. google .com /mail/ ?ui= 2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view =pt &search = inbox &th= 127bf36afa1e22d3 4/6/2010 Gmail - Open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Ft for pedestrians and bicyclists Page 1 of1 - Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmaii.Lom> 7) Open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm for pedestrians and bicyclists 2 meb!,;taile!3 Zimmers, Karen <karen.zimmersevimed.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:18 AM oi "citycouncli(lyiii pertirop <iiitycoun o.orti>, "sarenciescupertme,a'igmail.torri" 't otcr Dear founcii Members, i um there is a petition to reconsider the un aim npub , :tpen rhe Fort 5:atm ot the children our neighborhood_ As there is no relevant ei'inden re/pp:Dot of tacts that support arr,„ grounds Tor rc,„-„Tw pLAE iers rioy-ve tor With thiS proiect. It this petition tor reconsideration is approved, then a ore Prierltv !=iet, where unanimous d made the counsel (that r.,10 relevant evIdenCK f; tor reconti deflation) en, corning Liack to the counsel over and over aptain and progress on proiectsionli halt_ ridnk vou toi ZIMM e IS Safe Rides <saferidesrupertino@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM i t K,Tiren zmrirsirrito.con again Karen! https://in ail, g o ogle. c ormin aill?ui---2&ik=246449b9a5S:view=pt&search=inbox&th-127b1I a4 e 05 e 9 4/6/2010 Gin ail - Bicycle zuld pedestrian access through Blackberry to Kennedy and Monta Vista Page -.--, ,-- 1 of , _ c,, . _ ...._ ._. , .....- A ._ ;.. :„._,.....,.,;., - Safe Rides <saferidescupertino0gmall.corn> - 4.)i Bicycle and pedestrian access through Blackberry to Kennedy and Monta Vista Torn Scannell <tscannell010earthlink.net Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:40 AM my cojvcoun tmiCiiiiiiiiiigifidiiiiiiiiiin [fii satenuesisubertincifiligmah.Lium To the rri embers at the [sib,/ Council of C...upe trio l linpierstand that Vie uty i_ouncie will he id...cirdnt line or_ienir et a gate in :-3r/eriii i to .---yrifi," vR. schedule mil not allow me to attend the Ctii,, LH 3 on Tnesidi 1 yvniiirj once agaihi It express rHy sppeori, ter fel [ eius 1 lifi ifi flin ,--- 1111P1 P 1,: 1 inink a ! ! i"bln gate in :: LiIrCie iiiiiiiiiikiiiiil Iiii the natural, safer:and ei rii tiiiiii thic kirci making fi from thiiri WPct itill cli town to thp!=; 1 IN Olaid alSO like tO 2 LipPOrt ttle •iicicebb being dpeil ether then school nouns I hie restored HIackherry tarm iand its pi-ii-i iisi iTiiiiiiiiii t aiiiiiiifiiiiiii to p. iiiiifii_ i have ._ Ihe durrent path through Biaickberry I arm rin [FY V. Id Hi-jr WiTiik!::: thr °gh trit nt, ghborhoods and would appreciate the opportunity to Li Lot ot si sisid !seeing the blocked oft "bridge to mai/vile! ell nei ti rie or 's plialyiprourio. If w (Dula be super it a oath in H1, ,,,..vitil --iccA!--;. fu ,F,-",, ;::: vvol 1 acknitirwiericie the concerns ot rriii_,,i neight ion l'icenic: Circle regarding trash and - ott-nouts; pertying in Blacikberry that, artl or 1 g St r lei !Oil: ofb of gisiod wili, the is:ice:11i! ig of a sulaili jate iiiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiiriiiii f ii i :it id , , , : ! ,in;i: y ,,,,,, ,, i1 I he dealt . itifith. Eiest regards 1021_18 Cass i i-"i aCiii9 95014 iiiDrii 1 I, 121iiiiitiiiiiii 1238 PM, 'Torn :Scannell' <tscanneliLlil iillisii:.- iiik.riPt> wrote, Hello f horn e is Torii ll-lcianell and I live at 10202 Ciass Place in iiiIiHireTtififi. I f it-- ifiled 'mete for 25 .,/eiaitis i L.:Impel tcir , yew is . it has recently been brio; ight tin rm,/ attention that the. i.I l ty c,.onni,:ill 1.ii be considering a pietition at the Nevem:per 60 Lily t.-Oancl weiefiiiiii reigalidiniii peuestn,,if liblCyCle ii1CL.,j,-,:, thrOUgh :E BiliitileVardiSCenif: :irde to paii,,[-terriij Farm aria onto Vi ennedv junior High arid r'../h:1t2 Vic;t2 High SthOei. 1 Warit tO iet the City Council know that I fully support the formation of this task force and i arri in favor of opening such isti trail. ityly son is a tgraduate of Stevens: ilil,[esik, Vi:Herinedy ;and Manta Vista_ . lv"iilinile he WEIS ii iiiiiiii_iit i fiiiiiiiiifili aii_iiii_iiiei=ii," thr otigh Blackberry rather than risking his safety riding his Liike nciwn the 'Yerii hei trafticiR•ed McClellan nciad. i knolsiii ri other 17renit!=; . ,ft InIt ,ilid ft ttywn iPissi encouraged this practice_ was disappointed, but Lindens Hod, ..i/vJieri the llurinfili , ia " ai.ii iei--ii-, 'was lost during the Blackberry restoration. https:iiinalgoogje.comimailiTui=2&lk=246449b9a5&vie 4/612010 Gm-al - Bicycle and pedetrian access through Blackberry 1� Kennedy and Morita Vista Page 2of 3 Now that therestorabon odd like to support the opomnQ ^ ottioi-3| ^ m,ess tor thesder arid oonvenienoeof the k|dsaLthis end ottovvn. /AS mwe eke n0 vvoLUG a|so appreciate the op:tipzr gain access tip the new|yrastonaU Blackberry twin tram Once the other enci cif the B|aoKbeny park is opened st Stevens Creek: | �h|nk �th' ;he 8zra good o|r ou|U VNLh all this said, | fully appreciate the cor/cerns that on r|no|e may h�ve�bout�ubUo�uce�� 1hnoughthe/rnPighborhood many or them were relieved when d/e uuoe�� w�s o|o��d | �m homng th��t�is t�sk �on�e omn ��dnsss both �cuesy �nd mynei�h�o�s oonoerns | �m sune �Uera must � re�son��|e �000mmoUoUon �hs� o�n be ne�o�e� w|Lh QoodvvUi on bot� s|�es Tom :Scannell Safe Rides <mmferidwmcupmrtino@gmmmiicnmn> Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 10:31 AM To� TomScanne|| ��c�|deon85O�4��comc�stn�� Thanks Tom This is ten|fic| Card Torn Scannell <tscmnne||01@e arthUnk.net> Mon, Feb 15.2O1Oot@:44AK8 lo� c�ycounci|��cu��rUnoorg. m�M«|��cu�e��noorg. ����r|�escupedino���m�i|com. m�nmger��cupeA1noorg To��e�em�erso�Lhe��{�yCounc/| ! understand that the top)o of gate om B|aokbehy fann the "My oounci/ agendia. Uketoexpnass:Hy tforthe Lib poss|b|e thin, , provide o safer route to school tor the students Uv|ng on the west sNe ofCuPorl|r L. prov|U|ng aneiXIoeUent andoonven|en1 Lo the B|aii_iikbehy harm oiLy park for west side residents, Bes�rsgar�s Tom�oormeU �S2O8CossP�mue 95014 tor3O ��ors � .. Safe Rides <saferidescupertinogrnaiLcorn> Mon, Feb 15 To: Torn :H3cenne|| °- |Uean05O140comcastnet Thanks, adia|n.Tern! Torn Scannell <taoonne||01enartM|inh.net� Fri, Apr 2.2D10mt7:32Ak0 To: citycounc||(ckcuoerbnoorg. Mark L|nile/����rkL��cu���inoor�� ���eR|des . [Id // �Qe��cup��|noor� https:limaitgoogle.corninur- 41512010 Grn ail - Bicycle and pedestrian access through Blackberry to Kennedy and Monta Vista P ag e 3 of 3 To the members of he City Council understand that the topic of access gate from Scenic Circle to Blackberr farm is once again on the city council agenda. I would once again like to express my strong support for the opening of the access as soon as pos3ible. I think such access will provide a safer route to school for the students living on the ‘Aiest side of Cupertino as \A ell as providing an excellent and convenient acces: to the Blackberry Farm city park for west site residents. Rest regards Tom Scannell 10208 Cass Place Cupertino. Ca 95014 Cupertino Resident for 30 years Forwarded Message From: Torn Scannell <tscannel101 eearthlinknet> [Date: rvion, 15 Feb 2010 09:4453 -0700 To: <citouncila,cupertino.org>, <mark1(5)ouertino org>, <saferidescupertinoacmaii.com; <rnanagercgcupertino org> Conversation: Bicycle and pedestrian access through Blackberry to Kennedy and Monta Vista Subject: Bicycle and pedestrian access through Blackben to Kennedy and Monta Vista Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gm.com> Fri. Apr 2,2010 at 2:02 PM Thanks hi aill7ui=2& bc2a80 4/61201n Gmail - Open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Pam for pedestrians and bicyclists 13 ,1_ ,, e i of Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmaii.com> 1) Open access from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm for pedestrians and bicyclists Amanda Hockley<amandaevhockley-crooks.com> Fri, Apr 2,2010 at 12:09 AM o (J:=1 H ocki ‹simansia(cDnockiev_crooks corn:, Dear Sirs, I would like to reiterate my support for the February lA unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. This is a much needed path for the safety of the children in the area and from the 'green aspect. it will decrease the amount of traffic and provide a hkealthier way for the children to get to school. Please deny the reconsideration petition that is curreltly before the council, which, as noted by Staff, does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. would urge you to move forward troth this important project for Cupertino residents with immediate effect as its benefits far outweigh any objections. Best wishes Amanda Hockley Monta vista 8,, Kenn e d v s Hdierif Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmaii,com> Fri, Apr 2,2010 at 2:01 PM Toi .A4 Hockley , :5rnan1a6:01 - 10d.de,e_crook!3 Thanks Anianda https:Ilinaii.00:crle.comilnaill'?ui=2&ik 4/6/2010 Gmail - Keep the Gates Open! Page 1 of i Safe Rides <saferidesrupertino@dmail.com> 0, Keep the Gates Open! 2 rf Matanai matangir5comcastnet> Fri, Apr 2,2010 at 12:05 AM Dr sanaf H davidkid)c ora raipn: Safe Rides <saferidescupertinotagmaii.com> Fri, Apr 2,2010 at 2:00 PM n littps: !int ail goo gle. aill?ui=2&ik---244449b9a5&view—pt&search=inbox 416/2010 Gmail - Opening Scenic gate - -- pls move forward... Page 1 of 1 Gm ,_ Safe Rides <saferidescupertino@gmaiicom> Opening Scenic gate - -- pis move forward•.• 2 messages Loy Oppus <loy.oppus @gmail.com> Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:21 PM To: citycouncil @cupertino.org Cc: saferidescupertino @gmail.com, markl @cupertino.org, davidk @cupertino.org, ralphq @cupertino.org Dear City Council, I fully support your unanimous Council decision to reopen the access from Scenic to the Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. Please deny the reconsideration petition that is currently before you, which, as noted by Staff, does not meet any of the required grounds for reconsideration. I would like to request that the City Council move forward with the project as decided in February as it will benefit many Cupertino residents. Sincerely, Loy Oppus -Moe 7560 Waterford Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Safe Rides <saferidescupertino @gmail.com> Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:25 PM To: Loy Oppus <loy.oppus@gmail.com> Thanks Loy. Hope all is good. Carol [Quoted text hidden] https: / /mail.google.com /mail/ ?ui =2 &ik= 246449b9a5& view —pt& search = inbox &th= 127bcf7998bebe65 4/6/2010