No preview available
Exhibit CC 02-01-2011 No. 20 Scenic Circle Access Tcu)al CC #o From: Timm Borden CUPERRTINO To: City Council Date: February 1, 2011 Re: January 31, 2011 email from Rhoda Fry re: Scenic Circle Access Project This memorandum was prepared today in response to an e -mail from Rhoda Fry dated January 31, 2011 making additional comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration's responses to her original comments. It should be noted that the comment period ended December 6, 2010. Rhoda Fry's Email Comment #1: 1. My CEQA comment has been ignored. The document must analyze the fact that the access is to a local, regional, and in fact the De Anza National Trail. Previous access (which has been detailed in my previous commentary has trespass) occurred when the access was only to Blackberry Farm, not the trail. I hope that you will honor the CEQA process and put this fact forth, rather than ignoring it as has been done in my previous commentary. RESPONSE #1: The original comment (B11) focused on the potential for the project to result in cumulative effects on the parking situation at Stevens Creek Corridor Park rather than the location of the Juan Bautista De Anza National Historic Trail. The proposed project provides access to an existing segment of the Stevens Creek Trail which generally runs from McClellan Road in the south toward Stevens Creek Boulevard in the north. This existing segment of the Stevens Creek Trail through Blackberry Farm Park could ultimately connect to the greater Stevens Creek Trail system and the Juan Bautista I)e Anza National Historic Trail. However, the proposed project does not provide direct access to a currently designated portion of the Juan Bautista De Anza Trail. This comment does not raise any issues regarding the adequacy of the Initial Study. In addition the Response B6, contained in the responses to Rhoda Fry's December 6, 2010 comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, also responds to some of the concerns raised and is found below. Response B6: Limited access for local residents to cut t:arough the park has occurred at various times; however, this access has been closed in recent years. The proposed project could therefore be construed as the restoration of the access from the Scenic Circle neighborhood that used to be allowed from the west side of the creek to Blackberry Farm Park. However the access point was not operated as a formal unrestricted public access. The IS /MND correctly characterizes the existing condition, since public access to Blackberry Farm Park from Scenic Circle is not currently provided. As this comment points out, the proposed project would provide a new formal public access point to the park, when compared to both existing and past conditions. re) it I - Please refer to Response B3 and Section 3.1 Overview of the Proposed Project for background on how the proposed project came about. Rhoda Fry's Email Comment #2: 2. The response to my comment regarding the demise of the golf course ponds is incorrect: The current condition of the ponds predates the Phase I project." The photographic record of Google Earth supports this assertion. The original IS /MND clearly stated no changes to the ponds and that 2 agencies would need to be contacted if there were changes. When I noticed changes, I phoned them (one of them being the California Department of Fish and Game) and they were surprised by the demise of our naturalized wetland habitat. Moreover, I talked with three people involved in the project who all had the same story, a pipe was cut during construction and the water ran out. RESPONSE #2: Staff will respond to this comment separately. Rhoda Fry's Email Comment #3: 3. The notice of the November 29 meeting was too short. Council sidestepped the issue by saying it was informational only, however, staff begged for guidance. Guidance was given and decisions were based on that guidance according to subsequent minutes (which are in draft form, so I suppose that means that someone can go ahead and amend them now). The public was denied an opportunity to weigh in. RESPONSE #3: All legally required notice was provided and the public was provided with an opportunity to respond. Also see Response B1 below. For the November 29 meeting, staff issued an additional electronic notification on Tuesday November 23 to persons on the email notification list for Scenic Circle Access and for Stevens Creek Corridor. This November 23 notification was not required but was sent out as a courtesy. Response B1: During the Council meeting on November 29, 2010, City Staff provided a progress update on the Scenic Circle project and requested that the Council authorize bidding in December. Members of the public were given the opportunity to provide input on the project and IS /MND which was out for public circulation at the time of the meeting (the 30 -day comment period ended on December 6, 2010. All legally required notice was provided. The City Council's action at the November 29 meeting did not commit to construction of the current bid set or of the project in general. Award of a construction contract and subsequent implementation of the project will not occur prior to adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. No further response is required as the comment does not raise any environmental issues or questions about the adequacy of the Initial Study. Rhoda Fry's Email Comment #4: 4. I do hope that you consider the parking issues all around — it isn't fun when things go wrong. We know that if BBF does reach capacity that overflow is a real possibility because the project was not built to plan. Now you're making plans for more land use and I sincerely hope that balancing use and parking is taken into account. RESPONSE #4: This comment is noted. The MND does contain parking measures with 3 levels of parking controls. Thus, the parking concern has been responded to. Also the picnic area capacity has been reduced substantially. C c �../ � Il( � aO Linda Lagergren From: Jaya Krishnamoorthy [hijaya @yahco.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:21 AM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @grnail.com -roday Subject: Fw: Scenic Access - Project Hello to all, As a resident on Palo Vista Rd, I fully support the completion of this project for opening up access to Blackberry farm, through the Scenic Blvd entrance. Having kids who are ready to go to Middle school in the next year or so, I am anxious about the current route that children have to take walking from Kennedy /Monta Vista Schools along hte McClellan Rd -- which is curvy and prone to speeding cars. 1) I support the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. 2) It is important that the access be completed in time for the start of school in August to reduce the traffic risks faced by students on their way to school. 3) The City should work to protect the wildlife as they stated they will in the environmental report but still move ahead with the Winter schedule per the recommendation from Staff. 4) This project is a wise use of our tax dollars. 5) There is widespread support for the project from residents, the local schools, PTAs, and even some neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the access. We hope that the council will come to the right conclusion and approve the project in the Tuesday meeting. Thanks so much! Sincerely, Jaya Krishnamoorthy Resident of Cupertino, 10334 Palo Vista Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 1 ,c,9_,_,, .0. FIIBI Grace Schmidt From: Gail Seeds Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:10 AM To: Timm Borden; Terry Greene Cc: Kimberly Smith; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: (no subject) FYI From: AnneNg(aaol.com f mailto:AnneN0aol.coml Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 4:22 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; Mark Linder; Gail Seeds; saferidescupertinoCa�gmail.com Subject: (no subject) Honorable Councilmembers: On behalf of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, I urge you to approve your staffs recommendations to proceed with the construction of the trail and bridge ramps to accomplish access to Blackberry Farm from the west via Scenic Circle. The Friends backs not just the extension of the Trail but also access to it at many points. With more access, more folks can reach the Trail under their own foot or pedal power. In this case, the access also provides a safer and lower stress route to school for Kennedy and Monta Vista students. We compliment you on your consideration of the Scenic Circle neighbors, meeting with them and making adjustments based on their input. We also value the extra effort involved in the environmental analysis. Anne Ng 6031 Bollinger Road Friends of Stevens Creek Trail board member 1 cc ja - ! it EX Foll I B Date: January 31, 2011 Re: Written Communication for Blackberry Farm - Reopen the public dialog Dear City Council and Mr. Knapp, Barbara Stocklmeir is correct in her concern regarding people flying down the dip on their bikes; there is simply no way to stop on a dime and turn into the Stocklmeir driveway for the proposed Phase 2 trail. Alter our Phase 1 proposal was dismissed in 2001/02, gallows humor took over, and we decided that Phase 3 would surely include the purchase of a huge net to catch the suicide cyclists, and a scraper for those who missed the target. Instead of directing the new staff to implement the broken plan created by a previous city council and staff, I'II make one last attempt to encourage you to reopen the public dialogue in the form of a stakeholders' meeting to explore saner options; perhaps co- chaired by the new Director's of Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Community Development Background Because the 40 -year old golf course irrigation had been identified as failing, we felt this was an opportune time to adjust the golf course to allow for the trail to be on the east side of the creek. The intent was to get a dialogue started, but we were told the golf course was untouchable, and the golfing stakeholders were sent home. The proposal called for moving two golf holes into Blackberry Farm's former 1200 space parking lot; consolidating parking off Stevens Creek Blvd.; a trail on the east side of the creek - and with no new creek crossing bridge required. (Figure 1: 2002 Proposal) Another option was to move one hole into Picnic's parking lot, which allowed for more parking in the central lot for the pools, picnicking, and trail. Get out of jail free card 1 Please consider moving one golf hole into the dead ponds, which will free up golf hole number 9 for all sorts of things: creek restoration, an eastside trail, trail and event parking for Blackberry and the Stocklmeir property, and maybe a long overdue facility upgrade to the golf instruction area, and pro -shop. (Figure 2: 2011 Proposal). I imagine there are better ideas, but we will never know unless you reopen the public dialog for this broken plan. Thank you, Susan Sievert Attached: Figures 1 and 2 1 "The current condition of the ponds predates the Phase I project." Source: Responses to Public Comments Received on the IS /MN.D for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park (Project No. 9136), page 6. 0 a 0 L CL N O N O N ,--I N L Ql LL Figure 2: 2011 Proposal E B EL"., c / a — I — rl Linda Lagergren From: Rhoda Fry [fryhouse @earthlink.net] Vyt p e ryva l (5 Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 2:37 PM frcry d ffe f &Kt To: Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Kris Wang; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang Cc: City Clerk; David Knapp Subject: Scenic Circle Item #20 Dear Council Members — While I am not commenting on the merits of the project, I do have comments about the process: Responses to Public Comments 1. My CEQA comment has been ignored. The document must analyze the fact that the access is to a local, regional, and in fact the De Anza National Trail. Previous access (which has been detailed in my previous commentary has trespass) occurred when the access was only to Blackberry Farm, not the trail. I hope that you will honor the CEQA process and put this fact forth, rather than ignoring it as has been done in my previous commentary. 2. The response to my comment regarding the demise of the golf course ponds is incorrect: "The current condition of the ponds predates the Phase I project." The photographic record of Google Earth supports this assertion. The original IS /MND clearly stated no changes to the ponds and that 2 agencies would need to be contacted if there were changes. When I noticed changes, I phoned them (one of them being the California Department of Fish and Game) and they were surprised by the demise of our naturalized wetland habitat. Moreover, I talked with three people involved in the project who all had the same story, a pipe was cut during construction and the water ran out. 3. The notice of the November 29 meeting was too short. Council sidestepped the issue by saying it was informational only, however, staff begged for guidance. Guidance was given and decisions were based on that guidance according to subsequent minutes (which are in draft form, so I suppose that means that someone can go ahead and amend them now). The public was denied an opportunity to weigh in. 4. I do hope that you consider the parking issues all around — it isn't fun when things go wrong. We know that if BBF does reach capacity that overflow is a real possibility because the project was not built to plan. Now you're making plans for more land use and I sincerely hope that balancing use and parking is taken into account. Finally, I am seeing more and more communication from the City of Cupertino analyzing whether what is being done is "legal." How about considering what is honorable, appropriate and best serves the residents? I hope that y'all can start taking the high road and start doing what is right. Regards, Rhoda Fry 1 Linda Lagergren From: Judy Wilson [judykwils @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:18 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic circle access Hi all, I am writing to you all to implore you to vote yes on the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. This process has taken far too long and needs to finally get done! It is important that the access be completed in time for the start of school in August. We are living on borrowed time before there is some sort of terrible accident on McClellan Road and then we would be asking ourselves, "what took us so long "? This project is a wise use of our tax dollars and has widespread support in the community which includes most of the residents in the immediate vicinity and of course is supported by our local schools, teachers, parents, PTA and the students. Please, Please, vote yes on this and get the show on the road, the t' r cus n is over and the time for action has come. thank you for your consideration y Judy Wilson 11129 Clarkston Ave Cupertino, Ca 95014 1 Linda Lagergren From: Sonya Liang [sliang7 @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:34 AM To: City Council; David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic Access -- please make it happen Dear Sir/Madam: EXHIE3 I writing this letter to show that: 1) ► support the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. 2) It is important that the access be completed in time for the start of school in August to reduce the traffic risks faced by students on their way to school. 3) The City should work to protect the wildlife as they stated they will in the environmental report but still move ahead with the Winter schedule per the recommendation from Staff. 4) This project is a wise use of our tax dollars. 5) There is widespread support for the project from residents, the local schools, PTAs, and even some neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the access. Thanks Sonya(Rongsheng) Liang (408) 9961471 22430 Palm Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 1 Linda Lagergren From: Patricia Rod [plrod6 @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 8:12 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic Circle Access { Dear Cupertino City Council Members: This email is to inform you that I support the recommendations of the Staff to implement Scenic Circle access. It is important that the access be completed in time for the beginning of school in August 2011 in order to reduce the risk of children becoming injured or killed by traffic as they make their way to school. While it is important to protect wildlife in Cupertino, we need protect our children by to moving ahead with the winter schedule per the • recommendation of the Staff. Cupertino residents, schools and even some neighboring vicinities have expressed their support. I believe providing a safe and easy way for our children to get to school on their own is a wise use of our tax dollars. Sincerely, Patricia Rod Patricia L. Rod, RDMS, RDCS BayArea ScanService PO Box 2437 Cupertino, California 95015 -2437 408.219.8054 — 408.725.1316 (fax) plrod6Pgmail.com »Nrii 3EN 11AI ITV NU 1 F: e 'nai! coast hates an efectrr cornmunicotion Within the meaning b( the Elect runic Communications Privacy Act, 18 1.1SC 2510. Di,c+ Kr;r i strict!+ , I h: gent intended ' rilc :ender o: tlm me Ssasr. This c, )mm010(01inn may c1 Main co (r1entiol and pr ilcs >er1 mater , .r Ior the , ' use or .. .,, -.1 pr ,in vnne r1f r t own the int •rmrl J rr cipi _ , it r, s nn,+ constr a !. ,s o thr con(idenr ial :.r prig e d nGi urr O 1 0 comrnunic ir;n. Any rcv:cv c ,r, rii prohibited. I; ;tau arc not the intended recii dent please contact ■ he sender by return eicctronic mail anc! delete o of this JITin"1tmi : ier_ !!1w)!..: }'o.: 1)1:0 (003erc: tion. 1 Linda Lagergren From: Carol Lim [carollim2000 @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 10:13 P,M To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.co , f max,, Subject: Support for Scenic Circle Access A? Dear City Council Representatives, Just wanted to write to say thank you for your support to implement the Scenic Circle Access. We live nearby at 10180 Carmen Road, and we have two school age children. I've written to you in the past to remember to put our children's safety first, and with your support of this project, I believe you are doing that. I am writing again to ask that the access be completed in time for the start of school in August. I want to see that we are doing all we can to ensure that our children are safe on their way to school. This project is a wise use of our tax dollars, and has wide support not just by our neighbors, but also the local schools and PTAs. I appreciate that the city is working to protect the wildlife as stated in the environmental report, but please let's proceed with the Winter schedule per the recommendation from Staff. Thanks much, Carol Lim and Rune Jensen 1 Linda Lagergren From: Leon Burda [leonburda @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:09 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic Access We strongly support City council recommendations regarding to Blackberry Farm access from the Scenic Circle Please, make it happen this year! Thanks for moving forward on this important for many residents issue. Leon and Alla Burda, 22206 Quinterno Ct. 408 828 4162 , usi - `;'.:,\ e 4 A 1 Linda Lagergren From: Jenna Woodul Uenna @Iiveworld.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:36 PM . To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic Circle Access to Blackberry Farm As a resident of 10352 Palo Vista Road, near Scenic Circle in Cupertino, I want to make you aware that: 1) I support the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. 2) It is important that the access be completed in time for the start of school in August to reduce the traffic risks faced by students on their way to school. 3) The City should work to protect the wildlife as they stated they will in the environmental report but still move ahead with the Winter schedule per the recommendation from Staff. 4) This project is a wise use of our tax dollars. 5) There is widespread support for the project from residents, the local schools, PTAs, and even some neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the access. Thanks for your attention and support of the project. Jennifer Woodul 408.836.9645 E I 1 Linda Lagergren From: Janet Trankle [trankles @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:37 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle My name is Janet Trankle. I live at 10110 Adelheid Court in Cupertino. This street is part of the Meadows of Cupertino Homeowners Association, which is between Scenic Blvd. and the Stocklmeir Ranch. I have written you several times regarding access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. I have also attended several council meetings when this issue was on the agenda. I have been supporter of open access from Scenic Circle into Blackberry Farm both to give our children a safer way to ride their bicycles to school as well as to provide neighborhood access to all of us who live nearby. I want to thank you for approving this open access and I am writing now to let you know that I support the recommendations the Staff has made to implement the Scenic Circle access. I think it is very important that this project be completed in time for the start of school in August, also known as the Winter Schedule. I have a son who is a junior at Monta Vista and who has ridden his bicycle to school for years. This will be a much safer route for him and he plans to use this new route when he rides to school. Janet Trankle EX B 1 Linda Lagergren From: Carol Stanek [cstanek @echelon.com], Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:19 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp Subject: Agenda Item 20 - Scenic Circle Access to the Stevens Creek Trail - Please read Dear City Council Members, I am writing to ask that you adopt the recommendations of the City staff with respect to access from Scenic Circle. Below I have outlined comments on the following three aspects of the recommendation: • Environmental Review • Costs • Winter Schedule — Especially on this topic, I have spoken with Barbara Banfield, the City Naturalist, and have learned about how the nesting issue was managed during the restoration for Phase I which was undertaken during a similar timeframe (see below) Please consider the following as you come to your decision regarding this Agenda Item. I. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration CEQA Documents a. The environmental review found no significant detrimental impacts. b. The "less than significant impacts" do not warrant mitigation or have minimal mitigations. c. There are some beneficial environmental aspects of the project. Not all of these were even covered by the environmental review because it focused on the immediate vicinity of the access and not the upstream area that has been used as a makeshift crossing in the creek in the absence of this access. . d. There were 10 favorable public comments submitted regarding the review. All were local neighbors and two of these were even from Scenic Circle residents! e. There were only 5 public comments that required responses. None of these were from Scenic Circle neighbors. Three were from neighbors on the San Fernando side of the park and two were from residents knowledgeable in the environmental and habitat of the area. Staff responded to all aspects of their comments. There is nothing in these comments that should stand in the way of proceeding with the project. II. Increased Costs a. Although costs have increased from previous estimates, Staff has identified that some of these costs are due to neighborhood input that was directed by Council. b. Neighborhood outreach was necessary and, judging by the comments on the environmental report, successful. c. Staff has identified funds to cover these increased costs. d. It would have been appropriate for Staff to have notified Council of the magnitude of the increased costs two weeks ago when the mid -year CIP budget was reviewed. However, the bids had only been opened on the same day as the Council meeting and had not yet been fully reviewed. e. There is broad support for this access in the community and it represents a good use of our budget dollars. III. Winter Schedule a. The Winter Schedule allows completion of the project by the start of the next school year. This was an important Council goal which has been incorporated into the expectations of the residents tracking the progress of this project. b. The Winter Schedule bid is cheaper than the bid for the Summer schedule. c. Delay until after the "nesting season" is an unnecessary precaution because: i i. The City MUST comply with state and federal mandates to protect the habitats regardless of when the project is implemented. ii. The City Naturalist, Barbara Banfield has told me that risk to nesting birds causing delays in the schedule can be minimized or may not be significant because: 1. Staff and the contractor can take steps to deter birds from nesting in the few trees to be removed 2. Even if some birds nest in a sensitive area during the work, many are preyed upon by other wildlife, shortening the timeframe that they would be in the project's way 3. The fledgling period for birds that might be expected to nest is relatively short in most cases, about 18 days d. Sensitive work of this kind was successfully undertaken during the nesting season for Phase I of the Blackberry restoration. The work under that project was far more extensive than this project and was completed in July 2009, the same timeframe that is currently anticipated in the Winter Schedule. e. Cupertino has an experienced team in Terry Green, Gail Seeds and Barbara Banfield to oversee and manage this project and the contractor, all of whom were intimately involved in the Phase I restoration. To imply that the ONLY way the birds can be protected is to wait until after the nesting season is over is simply misleading. Cupertino can and should work creatively to follow our own successful model to protect the habitats and still proceed carefully with the required work. It can and has been done. Cupertino has a great track record respecting the environment and the habitats of the many species that reside in our sensitive areas. We should absolutely respect the delicate balance that we have with these residents who can not speak up at City Council meetings; not just the birds but also the fish in the creek who will continue to be affected by makeshift crossings until the access is available. I do believe that Cupertino can and will respect the habitat and environment in the area of the access. And, further, this can be done with the Winter schedule and still have the access open by the beginning of the 2011 school year. Thank you for your careful consideration time and again to this access. I appreciate your continued support for this project. Respectfully submitted, Carol Stanek 10382 Mira Vista Rd. 2 Linda Lagergren From: Atul Tambe [aatambe @yahoo.com], Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:12 AM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: In Support of Scenic Circle Access Dear Sir, I would like to add my support to the petition to allow the Scenic Circle Access as planned. I wish we had this access when my kids were going to Monta Vista. It would have been a safe alternative to riding a bike on the treacherous and hilly Mclealan road. Please do the right thing. Thank you. - atul tambe 10239 Palo Vista Road Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 316 -4436 Signature Block Atul Tambe E -mail: aatambe @yahoo.com 1 Linda Lagergren From: Gerard Pallipuram [gpallipuram @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:29 AM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic Circle Access to Blackberry Farm Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and live close to the proposed Scenic Circle access to Blackberry Farm. I am writing to express my support for the recommendations of the Cupertino City Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. I believe, this project is a wise use of our tax dollars and represents the sentiments and has widespread support of the residents, PTA and the local schools. I would also like to urge the City to complete the access in time for the start of school in August to reduce the traffic risks faced by students on their way to school. At the same time, the City should work to protect the wildlife as they stated they will in the environmental report. Thanking you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, T , Gerard Pallipuram 10370 Palo Vista Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 EXHIBI 1 Linda Lagergren >> - From: AnneNg©aol.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 4:22 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; Mark Linder; Gail Seeds; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: (no subject) Honorable Councilmembers: On behalf of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, I urge you to approve your staffs recommendations to proceed with the construction of the trail and bridge ramps to accomplish access to Blackberry Farm from the west via Scenic Circle. The Friends backs not just the extension of the Trail but also access to it at many points. With more access, more folks can reach the Trail under their own foot or pedal power. In this case, the access also provides a safer and lower stress route to school for Kennedy and Monta Vista students. We compliment you on your consideration of the Scenic Circle neighbors, meeting with them and making adjustments based on their input. We also value the extra effort involved it the environmental analysis. Anne Ng 6031 Bollinger Road Friends of Stevens Creek Trail board member • 1 Linda Lagergren From: Lola Kashyap [Iolakashyap @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:22 AM To: City Council; David Knapp Subject: Scenic Circle access to Blackberry Farm I am writing to express my support for staff recommendations regarding Scenic Circle access to Blackberry farm. I urge the council to do your very best to ensure that access is ready for use by our neighborhood school children in August when schools reopen. This project has strong support from school administrators, members of the PTAs and other parents since it will help reduce traffic around our schools and provide a safer biking /pedestrian route for our children. So please ensure that it is implemented in a timely manner to provide maximum benefit for students starting the 2011 -2012 school year. Thank you. Lola Kashyap Palm Avenue Cupertino 1 Linda Lagergren From: sally nettleton [sallyjnettleton @hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 1:23 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino©gmail.com Subject: Scenic Circle Access Dear City Council, The Safety of students must be the first priority and I fully support the City in opening the Scenic Circle Access. It will indeed provide a safer way to school much needed, avoiding McClellan Road. It would be beneficial to all, to have the access opened for the beginning of the school year 2011/12 or sooner if possible. This is a much needed project and I support the use of tax dollars to fund this. I fully support this project as do many of our neighbors. Thank you in making this project successful. Regards Sally Nettleton 22431 Palm Ave Cupertino 408 446 -1426 1 Linda Lagergren From: Tom Scannell [tscanne1101 @earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:17 PM To: City Council; Mark Linder; Safe Rides; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: Bicycle and pedestrian access through Blackberry to Kennedy and Monta Vista To the members of the City Council of Cupertino I am writing the Council for the fourth time (see below) in favor of the access gate from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm area. I understand that this Tuesday, the Council is considering various topics regarding the implementation of the previous decision to open the access. I strongly support for the opening of the access as soon as possible. Best regards Tom Scannell ExHIBIT 10208 Cass Place Cupertino, Ca 95014 Cupertino Resident for (now) 31 years On 4/2/10 7:32 AM, "Tom Scannell" <tscanne1101 aQearthlink.net> wrote: To the members of he City Council I understand that the topic of access gate from Scenic Circle to Blackberry 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 possible. I think such access will provide a safer route to school for the students living on the west side of Cupertino as well as providing an excellent and convenient access to the Blackberry Farm city park for west side residents. Best regards Tom Scannell 10208 Cass Place Cupertino, Ca 95014 Cupertino Resident for 30 years Forwarded Message From: Tom Scannell <tscanne1101(c�earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:44:53 -0700 To: <citycouncil(a�cupertino.orq >, <markl @cupertino.org >, < saferidescupertino @gmail.com >, <manager @cupertino.orq> Conversation: Bicycle and pedestrian access through Blackberry to Kennedy and Monta Vista Subject: Bicycle and pedestrian access through Blackberry to Kennedy and Monta Vista To the members of the City Council I understand that the topic of access gate from Scenic Circle to Blackberry 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 possible. I think such access will provide a safer route to school for the students living on the west side of Cupertino as well as providing an excellent and convenient access to the Blackberry Farm city park for west side residents. Best regards Tom Scannell 10208 Cass Place Cupertino, Ca 95014 Cupertino Resident for 30 years On 12/12/09 9:40 AM, "Tom Scannell" <tscanne1101(c�earthlink.net> wrote: To the members of the City Council of Cupertino I understand that the City Council will be considering the opening of a gate in Scenic Circle to allow safe access to Blackberry farm for the young people making their way to Kennedy Junior High and Monta Vista High. While my schedule will not allow me to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday, I would once again like to express my support for this plan. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail (below), I think a small pedestrian /bicycle gate in Scenic Circle would be the natural, safer and easier route for the kids making their way from the west end of town to these schools. I would also like to support the access being open other than school hours. The restored Blackberry farm and its access through McClellan park is really a great addition to the City. I have incorporated the current path through Blackberry farm on my weekend "loop" walks through the neighborhoods and would appreciate the opportunity to include Scenic Circle route in my walk. It is a bit of a sad seeing the blocked off "bridge to nowhere" near the children's playground. It would be super if a path in Blackberry with access to Scenic Circle would also be made available to us walkers. acknowledge the concerns of my neighbors on Scenic Circle - egarding trash and "off- hours" partying in Blackberry Farm. These problems have existed for years and come whenever private homes are near public sites. I'm hoping that, amongst neighbors of good will, the opening of a small gate allowing pedestrian and cycling access can be dealt with. Best regards Tom Scannell 10208 Cass Place Cupertino, CA 95014 On 11/27/09 12:38 PM, "Tom Scannell" <tscannel101 anearthlink.net> wrote: Hello My name is Tom Scannell and I live at 10208 Cass Place in Cupertino. I have lived here for 25 years and Cupertino for 30 years. It has recently been brought to my attention that the City Council will be considering a petition at the November 30 City Council meeting regarding pedestrian /bicycle access through Scenic Boulevard /Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm and onto Kennedy Junior High and Monta Vista High School. 2 I want to let the City Council know that I fully support the formation of this task force and I am in favor of opening such a trail. My son is a graduate of Stevens Creek, Kennedy and Monta Vista. While he was attending Kennedy and Monta Vista my wife and I encouraged him (and all his friends) to use the then "unofficial access" through Blackberry rather than risking his safety riding his bike down the very heavily trafficked McClellan road. I know many other parents at our end of town also encouraged this practice. I was disappointed, but understood, when the "unofficial" access was lost during the Blackberry restoration. Now that the restoration is complete, I would like to support the opening of "official" access for the safety and convenience of the kids at this end of town. As a weekend walker I would also appreciate the opportunity to gain access to the newly restored Blackberry farm from Scenic. Once the other end of the Blackberry park is opened at Stevens Creek I think the path through the park to both McClellan and Scenic will make for a good circuit! With all this said, I fully appreciate the concerns that my neighbors on Scenic Blvd /Scenic Circle may have about public access through their neighborhood. I understand many of them were relieved when the access was closed. I am hoping that this task force can address both access and my neighbor's concerns. I am sure there must a reasonable accommodation that can be reached with good will on both sides. Tom Scannell 3 Linda Lagergren From: Kumaran Sangareddi [kumarjaya @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:29 FM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino ©gmail.com Subject: Support for scenic Circle access to Blackberry Farm Hi, I'm a resident of 10334 palo vista rd, cupertino. I support the scenic circle access to Blackberry farm. This will provide safer access to monta vista high and Kennedy Middle. Thanks, Kumaran Sangareddi. EXHIBIT • Linda Lagergren From: Myron Crawford [Mcrawford @MISSIONWEST.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:41 AM To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building; City Council; Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.3313 or Subject: Sternuous Objection to Agenda Itme 18 To Requirements In Excess Of Cal Green BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Bandley Drive Cupertino, C4 95014 -2188 Ph (408) 725 -0700 Fax (408) 725 -1626 mcra H fbrd(amissionwest. coat 1/29/11 Mayor & Council Members E xHIBI City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph 408 -777 -3308 3251 Fax 408 -777 -3333 cityclerk @cupertino.org; manager @cupertino.org; planning @cupertino.org; building @cupertino.org; citycouncil®cupertino.org Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.3313 or akis@cupertino.org. Dear Mayor & Council Members, Reference: Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code Subject: Objection To Imposition Of Muncipal Mandatory Green Building Standards In Excess Of The California Green Building Standards Code and Objections To Provisions in the Cal Green Building Code Objections To City Council Agenda 2 -1 -11 Item18 Ord 11 -2074 Aki Snelling & Council Members, We remain even more opposed to this proposed ordinance after reading the staff report. Not only are you saddling us.with the administration Leeds compliance cost you impose a $2 /sf deposit on non residential buildings. Are you aware that the LEEDS consulting compliance fees are equal or greater than the architectural fees, in addition to that are the jobsite and administration costs, you are imposing an unnecessary cost burden just so you can beat your chest and claim you "out greened" the adjacent cities. This is a terrible and unjust ordinance. WE OBJECT STRENUOUSLY TO ANY AND ALL REQUIREMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE CAL GREEN BUILDING CODE AND TO SOME PROVISIONS IN THE CAL GREEN CODE. The State of Californian Building Standards section explicitly stated that the new green building code WOULD NOT apply to any existing non residential building, would not apply to any TI in an existing non residential building, would not apply to any existing non residential shell building or to any initial or subsequent TI or alteration in that building. We object to the proposed ordinance applying to any non 1 residential building other than new non residential buildings constructed after January 1, 2011. You should not require anything beyond State requirements. You can contact the state representative listed below regarding non residential buildings: Enrique Rodriguez Associate Construction Analyst State of California Building Standards Commission 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833 -2936 Ph (916) 236 -0845 Fax (916) 263 -0959 enrique.rodriguez(a,dgs.ca.gov Other objections we have to the Cal Green Building Code are: A number of Cal Green requirements amount to political pandering adding unnecessary additional costs. We have never seen a memo from the city that recommends reducing cost and expenses for citizens, why doesn't the city set up a council approved bonus plan for employee suggestions that when implemented reduce cost for the citizens. The city council and employees of the city just don't get it, if you are going to save jobs, you need to quit raising costs with everything you do. You should create an Economic Ombudsman and committee that reviews proposed polices and ordinances for economic practicality before they move forward. 1) Bicycle Parking We have definite objections to required bicycle parking. a. I was by the City of Santa Clara the other day and looked around at their main City Hall office complex. They had 4 or 5 bicycle racks and everyone of them was empty. They have 16 covered bike stalls that may have been occupied or half empty. They have roughtly 538 stalls including 87 on the streets which their visitors use extensively as the streets are vehicle friendly so at the very most they had 3% of their parking used by bicycles. They probably have several hundred employees working there. They don't have any significant demand for bicycle parking in the heart of a city with a stable employee base. It is totally baseless then to require the percentages of bicycle parking being mandated in the proposed code. If a City Hall complex doesn't generate any significant bicycle demand there certainly isn't going to be any significant demand in an industrial park in south San Jose or anywhere else where any significant residential is miles away. b. If the employers have a demand for bike racks from employees they'll get put in but no more than one temporary bike rake should be required. If bicycle parking demand arises then you could require that bicycle parking be provided by converting required vehicle parking stalls as necessary. c. Where is it written that you have to provide covered parking for a $200, $500 or a even $1500 bicycle but not a $20,000 $30,000 or $40,000 automobile or a $20,000 Harley Davidson. Covered parking should not be required for bicycles this is a totally ridiculous requirement. d. Providing covered bicycle parking creates more impervious surface areas which runs counter to stated public policy of minimizing impervious surfaces. e. We don't oppose those that ride bicycles but, be reasonable and rational. 2 2) Parking & Clean Air Vehicles - Marking Spaces For "Clean Air Vehicles ". This is ludicrous for several reasons a. All electric vehicles are not clean air vehicles or zero emission. Most likely 70 to 80% or more of the electricity used for a vehicle recharge comes from a coal or hydrocarbon fueled power plants. All you have done using an electric vehicle is just transfer the point of origin of the fossil fuel pollution. Hybrid vehicles will be moving more towards plug in's which again merely transfers the point at which pollution occurs. b. The true zero emissions vehicle is one powered by pure hydrogen in a fuel cell, but there are currently only two economical ways to obtain hydrogen, steam reforming from hydrocarbons and that has CO2 as a byproduct and electrolysis. Electrolysis is only economical when you have excess electrical power from nuclear power plants that can produce hydrogen in off hours as they do in France. The nuclear fuel cost is free for off hours electrical generation as nuclear fuel rods decay at the same rate regardless of whether they are being used or not. There is wear and tear on the mechanical equipment but that is true in all electrical generation. If cities, states and environmentalist were truly concerned with zero emissions, curbing CO2 and fossil fuel use they would be promoting and supporting nuclear power. c. A good majority of the hybrid vehicles are imported which have knocked a significant number of your citizens out of jobs, decreased your tax revenue, caused you to lay off employees, caused needed infrastructure improvements or maintenance to be deferred or totally canceled. While some foreign based vehicle manufacturers assemble here, they import the high value components, engines and transmissions. Assembly of a vehicle only requires 12 to 16 total man hours. d. A good number of the imported vehicles come in from countries that erect barriers to US manufactured goods but benefit from easy US import policy again eliminating job creation here. e. Requiring striping and lettering for "clean air vehicles" is unjustified and adds initial cost and requires ongoing extra maintenance costs. If you want to do something for clean air and the economy start advocating and put some effort to promoting nuclear fueled power production and removing impediments to it. Be honest with yourself. 3) Water Meters a. Requiring water meters for individual tenants is totally ridiculous. In 90% of the cases you are dealing with individual office worker needs not process water. Individuals need water, they are going to use water and just because the boss gets to see a water meter in the tenant space that does not guarantee that the tenant or employees will look at it or even pay that much attention to the water bill. The demand for water is driven by personal needs not cost or consumption. Is the employee not going to use the restroom because they just looked at the water meter? b. We had one of the plumbing designer /contractors that has done a lot of work for the company take a look at what you are proposing based on a two story R &D facility of 67,500 sf and looked at the water demand and costs for submetering. b 1. The first floor of 33,750 sf would generate 169 employees using 2100 gallons per day for showers and roughly 3000 gallons per day for personal 3 needs. Roughly 56 people or 11,290 sf generate 1000 gallons per day exclusive of shower use. The new code requires a meter for every tenant space with a consumption of 100 gallons per day. b 2. Each additional meter and piping would cost $1500 to $2000 per meter. b 3. There would be additional maintenance cost. b 4. There would be additional cost for meter reading and administration. The requirement for separate water meters its simply not justified. If you want to educate employees about conservation of water, then educate them not bludgeon property owners with extra meter costs. Your code provisions won't accomplish conservation because you have more water meters in a building, you are merely heaping more unnecessary costs on building owners for no valid reason. 4) Material resuse and recycling requirements Instead of going to the dumps and landfills and making them meet and provide documentation and meet goals on diversion and recycling, the City or state makes every permitee post deposits, generate a demo diversion plan, report, wait, follow up and then finally get a deposit back, all of which consumes a significant amount of administration and lost interest cost to the permitee. In addition the City expends a significant amount of administration running the program. I would bet it cost the City several hundred dollars to a thousand to write the refund check by the time you add all the program administrative cost in. l[t would be more effective to administer the landfills and leave the permittess alone. When you impose requirements on the landfills they will in turn set their pricing in ways that will cause the permittee's to comply with diversion and recycling without all of the unnecessary administrative costs the City is now causing. Permittee's may or may not comply under the current City program but if the landfills are required to comply, the permittee's will wind up complying by proxy, and if the non permittee's dump down some canyon, well you can't control that anyway. Our field superintendents already respond to the landfill pricing in that it either costs them more for non segregated material or incentivizes them for segregated waste disposal or recycling credit. Don't make hundreds of thousand permittee's and City employees have to administrate and generate reports when you can accomplish the same thing by regulating a handful of land fills and waste facilities. 5) Requiring documentation for ongoing systems maintenance is simply another case of overkill. 6) There should not be any incentives; expedidited plan checks or FAR increase or any other incentive of any kind for projects that exceed Cal Green nor disincentives of for any project that just meets Cal Green. Any construction methods or materials should be based strictly on market economics and at the discretion of the developer or building owner. Any methods or materials that require incentives; which amount to subsidies, are not economically viable and should not be mandated nor incentivized. Just look at the Solyndra snafu in Fremont, CA where the US Government spent $535 million underwriting a failed solar manufacturing project. If something is viable it does not need a subsidy. 4 7) Politicians and local bureaucratics talk about "you can't export green jobs" as if that is something great. That's like saying we can keep everyone employed by everyone taking turns selling each other hamburgers in fast food franchises owned by the Chinese and Japanese that they bought with profits made from selling Americans, automobiles, machinery and electronics and electronic parts. You as government officials should start helping business by scrapping your green building ordinance and start thinking about how you can reduce the cost of doing business in the USA. The Cal Green Code should be scrapped as well as it is has some very ridiculous requiements in it as well. You need to do something that changes the tide so that the USA is providing automobiles, machinery and electronics and electronic parts to the Chinese, Japanese and other countries not the other way around. As you can see the Cal Green Code is adding additional and unnecessary cost strictly as a result of political reasons and pandering to environmental groups. Please do not add additional mandatory requirements. Please do look at these Cal Green requirements and start working on eliminating a number of these unwise code Cal Green requirements. Thank you for your consideration, Myron Crawford 5 Linda Lagergren From: Yi Huang [yisunhuang @yahoo.corn] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:00 AM To: City Council Subject: Scenic Circle Access Dear City Councils: 1 understand that this Tuesday, you are going to vote again regarding to the Scenic Circle access. I support the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access, and I hope that the access can be completed in August 2011. Thank you. Yi Sun Huang 10075 Carmen Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 i CC -2-1 --11 Linda Lagergren ; 2 e ) From: codeheadO @gmail.com on behalf of Suman Cherukuri [suman @cherukuris.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 1:52 FM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic Access od OA/ Hello, I would like to express my support for Scenic access by August. My son starts going to Kennedy and I want him to use his bike to go to school. This will be much more safer for him rather than riding on McClellan. I also; 1) support the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. 2) support that the City should work to protect the wildlife as they stated they will in the environmental report but still move ahead with the Winter schedule per the recommendation from Staff. Thanks, Suman Cherukuri EXHIBI 22487 Palm Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 (650) 278 -6254 1 C / a —I - - Linda Lagergren a6 From: Rhoda Fry [fryhouse @earthlink.net] vnu 1 I pt pise P 1 Olt 5 Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 2:37 PM `{ of ffe t e To: Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Kris Wang; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang Cc: City Clerk; David Knapp Subject: Scenic Circle Item #20 Dear Council Members — While I am not commenting on the merits of the project, I do have comments about the process: Responses to Public Comments 1. My CEQA comment has been ignored. The document must analyze the fact that the access is to a local, regional, and in fact the De Anza National Trail. Previous access (which has been detailed in my previous commentary has trespass) occurred when the access was only to Blackberry Farm, not the trail. I hope that you will honor the CEQA process and put this fact forth, rather than ignoring it as has been done in my previous commentary. 2. The response to my comment regarding the demise of the golf course ponds is incorrect: "The current condition of the ponds predates the Phase I project." The photographic record of Google Earth supports this assertion. The original IS /MND clearly stated no changes to the ponds and that 2 agencies would need to be contacted if there were changes. When I noticed changes, I phoned them (one of them being the California Department of Fish and Game) and they were surprised by the demise of our naturalized wetland habitat. Moreover, I talked with three people involved in the project who all had the same story, a pipe was cut during construction and the water ran out. 3. The notice of the November 29 meeting was too short. Council sidestepped the issue by saying it was informational only, however, staff begged for guidance. Guidance was given and decisions were based on that guidance according to subsequent minutes (which are in draft form, so I suppose that means that someone can go ahead and amend them now). The public was denied an opportunity to weigh in. 4. I do hope that you consider the parking issues all around — it isn't fun when things go wrong. We know that if BBF does reach capacity that overflow is a real possibility because the project was not built to plan. Now you're making plans for more land use and I sincerely hope that balancing use and parking is taken into account. Finally, I am seeing more and more communication from the City of Cupertino analyzing whether what is being done is "legal." How about considering what is honorable, appropriate and best serves the residents? I hope that y'all can start taking the high road and start doing what is right. Regards, Rhoda Fry 1 Linda Lagergren From: Sonya Liang [sliang7 @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:34 AM To: City Council; David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic Access -- please make it happen Dear Sir /Madam: I writing this letter to show that: 1) I support the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. 2) It is important that the access be completed in time for the start of school in August to reduce the traffic risks faced by students on their way to school. 3) The City should work to protect the wildlife as they stated they will in the environmental report but still move ahead with the Winter schedule per the recommendation from Staff. 4) This project is a wise use of our tax dollars. 5) There is widespread support for the project from residents, the local schools, PTAs, and even some neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the access. Thanks Sonya(Rongsheng) Liang (408) 9961471 22430 Palm Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 1 Linda Lagergren From: Judy Wilson [judykwils @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:18 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino ©gmail.com Subject: Scenic circle access Hi all, I am writing to you all to implore you to vote yes on the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. This process has taken far too long and needs to finally get done! It is important that the access be completed in time for the start of school in August. We are living on borrowed time before there is some sort of terrible accident on McClellan Road and then we would be asking ourselves, "what took us so long "? This project is a wise use of our tax dollars and has widespread support in the community which includes most of the residents in the immediate vicinity and of course is supported by our local schools, teachers, parents, PTA and the students. Please, Please, vote yes on this and get the show on the road, the time for discussion is over and the time for action has come. thank you for your consideration Judy Wilson 11129 Clarkston Ave Cupertino, Ca 95014 1 Linda Lagergren From: Patricia Rod [plrod6 @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 8:12 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @>,gmail.com Subject: Scenic Circle Access Dear Cupertino City Council Members: This email is to inform you that I support the recommendations of the Staff to implement Scenic Circle access. It is important that the access be completed in time for the beginning of school in August 2011 in order to reduce the risk of children becoming injured or killed by traffic as they make theft way to school. While it is important to protect wildlife in Cupertino, we need protect our children by to moving ahead with the winter schedule per the recommendation of the Staff. Cupertino residents, schools and even some neighboring vicinities have expressed their support. I believe providing a safe and easy way for our children to get to school on the r own is a wise use of our tax dollars. Sincerely, Patricia Rod Patr c a Rod, ROMS, ROCS BoyAreo Sc0nService PO Box 2437 Cupertino, California 95015 -2437 408.219.8054 ti 408.725.1316 (fax) pj od6(0gmail.com 1 Linda Lagergren From: Carol Lim [carollim2000 @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 10:13 AM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino@gmail.com Subject: Support for Scenic Circle Access Dear City Council Representatives, Just wanted to write to say thank you for your support to implement the Scenic Circle Access. We live nearby at 10180 Carmen Road, and we have two school age children. I've written to you in the past to remember to put our children's safety first, and with your support of this project, I believe you are doing that. I am writing again to ask that the access be completed in time for the start of school in August. I want to see that we are doing all we can to ensure that our children are safe on their way to school. This project is a wise use of our tax dollars, and has wide support not just by our neighbors, but also the local schools and PTAs. I appreciate that the city is working to protect the wildlife as stated in the environmental report, but please let's proceed with the Winter schedule per the recommendation from Staff. Thanks much, Carol Lim and Rune Jensen 1 Linda Lagergren From: Leon Burda [leonburda @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:09 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @>,gmail.com Subject: Scenic Access We strongly support City council recommendations regarding to Blackberry Farm access from the Scenic Circle_ Please, make it happen this year! Thanks for moving forward on this important for many residents issue. Leon and Alla Burda, 22206 Quinterno Ct. 408 828 4162 1 Linda Lagergren From: Jenna Woodul Uenna @liveworld.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 3:36 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic Circle Access to Blackberry Farm As a resident of 10352 Palo Vista Road, near Scenic Circle in Cupertino, I want to make you aware that: 1) I support the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. 2) It is important that the access be completed in time for he start of school in August to reduce the traffic risks faced by students on their way to school. 3) The City should work to protect the wildlife as they stared they will in the environmental report but still move ahead with the Winter schedule per the recommendation from Staff. 4) This project is a wise use of our tax dollars. 5) There is widespread support for the project from residents, the local schools, PTAs, and even some neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the access. Thanks for your attention and support of the project. Jennifer Woodul 408.836.9645 1 Linda Lagergren From: Janet Trankle [trankles ©sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:37 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino@gmail.com Subject: Access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle My name is Janet Trankle. I live at 10110 Adelheid Court in Cupertino. This street is part of the Meadows of Cupertino Homeowners Association, which is between Scenic Blvd. and the Stocklmeir Ranch. I have written you several times regarding access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. I have also attended several council meetings when this issue was on the agenda. I have been supporter of open access from Scenic Circle into Blackberry Farm both to give our children a safer way to ride their bicycles to school as well as to provide neighborhood access to all of us who live nearby. I want to thank you for approving this open access and I am writing now to let you know that I support the recommendations the Staff has made to implement the Scenic Circle access. I think it is very important that this project be completed in time for the start of school in August, also known as the Winter Schedule. I have a son who is a junior at Monta Vista and who has ridden his bicycle to school for years. This will be a much safer route for him and he plans to use this new route when he rides to school. Janet Trankle 1 Linda Lagergren From: Carol Stanek [cstanek @echelon.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:19 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp Subject: Agenda Item 20 - Scenic Circle Access to the Stevens Creek Trail - Please read Dear City Council Members, I am writing to ask that you adopt the recommendations of the City staff with respect to access from Scenic Circle. Below I have outlined comments on the following three aspects of the recommendation: • Environmental Review • Costs • Winter Schedule — Especially on this topic, I have spoken with Barbara Banfield, the City Naturalist, and have learned about how the nesting issue was managed during the restoration for Phase I which was undertaken during a similar timeframe (see below) Please consider the following as you come to your decision regarding this Agenda Item. I. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration CEQA Documents a. The environmental review found no significant detrimental impacts. b. The "less than significant impacts" do not warrant mitigation or have minimal mitigations. c. There are some beneficial environmental aspects of the project. Not all of these were even covered by the environmental review because it focused on the immediate vicinity of the access and not the upstream area that has been used as a makeshift crossing in the creek in the absence of this access. d. There were 10 favorable public comments submitted regarding the review. All were local neighbors and two of these were even frorn Scenic Circle residents! e. There were only 5 public comments that required responses. None of these were from Scenic Circle neighbors. Three were from neighbors on the San Fernando side of the park and two were from residents knowledgeable in the environmental and habitat of the area. Staff responded to all aspects of their comments. There is nothing in these comments that should stand in the way of proceeding with the project. II. Increased Costs a. Although costs have increased from previous estimates, Staff has identified that some of these costs are due to neighborhood input that was directed by Council. b. Neighborhood outreach was necessary and, judging by the comments on the environmental report, successful. c. Staff has identified funds to cover these increased costs. d. It would have been appropriate for Staff to have notified Council of the magnitude of the increased costs two weeks ago when the mid -year CIP budget was reviewed. However, the bids had only been opened on the same day as the Council meeting and had not yet been fully reviewed. e. There is broad support for this access in the community and it represents a good use of our budget dollars. III. Winter Schedule a. The Winter Schedule allows completion of the project by the start of the next school year. This was an important Council goal which has been incorporated into the expectations of the residents tracking the progress of this project. b. The Winter Schedule bid is cheaper than the bid for the Summer schedule. c. Delay until after the "nesting season" is an unnecessary precaution because: i i. The City MUST comply with state and federal mandates to protect the habitats regardless of when the project is implemented. ii. The City Naturalist, Barbara Banfield has told me that risk to nesting birds causing delays in the schedule can be minimized or may not be significant because: 1. Staff and the contractor can take steps to deter birds from nesting in the few trees to be removed 2. Even if some birds nest in .a sensitive area during the work, many are preyed upon by other wildlife, shortening the timeframe that they would be in the project's way 3. The fledgling period for birds that might be expected to nest is relatively short in most cases, about 18 days d. Sensitive work of this kind was successfully undertaken during the nesting season for Phase I of the Blackberry restoration. The work under that project was far more extensive than this project and was completed in July 2009, the same timeframe that is currently anticipated in the Winter Schedule. e. Cupertino has an experienced team in Terry Green, Gail Seeds and Barbara Banfield to oversee and manage this project and the contractor, all of whom were intimately involved in the Phase I restoration. To imply that the ONLY way the birds can be protected is to wait until after the nesting season is over is simply misleading. Cupertino can and should work creatively to follow our own successful model to protect the habitats and still proceed carefully with the required work. It can and has been done. Cupertino has a great track record respecting the environment and the habitats of the many species that reside in our sensitive areas. We should absolutely respect the delicate balance that we have with these residents who can not speak up at City Council meetings; not just the birds but also the fish in the creek who will continue to be affected by makeshift crossings until the access is available. I do believe that Cupertino can and will respect the habitat and environment in the area of the access. And, further, this can be done with the Winter schedule and still have the access open by the beginning of the 2011 school year. Thank you for your careful consideration time and again to this access. I appreciate your continued support for this project. Respectfully submitted, Carol Stanek 10382 Mira Vista Rd. 2 Linda Lagergren From: Atul Tambe [aatambe @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:12 AM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: In Support of Scenic Circle Access Dear Sir, I would like to add my support to the petition to allow the Scenic Circle Access as planned. I wish we had this access when my kids were going to Monta Vista. It would have been a safe alternative to riding a bike on the treacherous and hilly Mclealan road. Please do the right thing. Thank you. - atul tambe 10239 Palo Vista Road Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 316 -4436 Signature Block Atul Tambe E -mail: aatambe @yahoo.com 1 Linda Lagergren From: Gerard Pallipuram [gpaliipuram @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:29 AM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @ gmail.com Subject: Scenic Circle Access to Blackberry Farm Dear City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino and live close to the proposed Scenic Circle access to Blackberry Farm. I am writing to express my support for the recommendations of the Cupertino City Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. I believe, this project is a wise use of our tax dollars and represents the sentiments and has widespread support of the residents, PTA and the local schools. I would also like to urge the City to complete the access in time for the start of school in August to reduce the traffic risks faced by students on their way to school. At the same time, the City should work to protect the wildlife as they stated they will in the environmental report. Thanking you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Gerard Pallipuram 10370 Palo Vista Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 1 Linda Lagergren From: AnneNg @aol.com Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 4:22 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; Mark Linder; Gail Seeds; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: (no subject) Honorable Councilmembers: On behalf of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, I urge you to approve your staffs recommendations to proceed with the construction of the trail and bridge ramps to accomplish access to Blackberry Farm from the west via Scenic Circle. The Friends backs not just the extension of the Trail but also access to it at many points. With more access, more folks can reach the Trail under their own foot or pedal power. In this case, the access also provides a safer and lower stress route to school for Kennedy and Monta Vista students. We compliment you on your consideration of the Scenic Circle neighbors, meeting with them and making adjustments based on their input. We also value the extra effort involved in the environmental analysis. Anne Ng 6031 Bollinger Road Friends of Stevens Creek Trail board member Linda Lagergren From: Lola Kashyap [lolakashyap @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:22 AM To: City Council; David Knapp Subject: Scenic Circle access to Blackberry Farm I am writing to express my support for staff recommendations regarding Scenic Circle access to Blackberry farm. I urge the council to do your very best to ensure that access is ready for use by our neighborhood school children in August when schools reopen. This project has strong support from school administrators, members of the PTAs and other parents since it will help reduce traffic around our schools and provide a safer biking /pedestrian route for our children. So please ensure that it is implemented in a timely manner to provide maximum benefit for students starting the 2011 -2012 school year. Thank you. Lola Kashyap Palm Avenue Cupertino i Linda Lagergren From: sally nettleton [sallyjnettleton ©hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 1:23 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic Circle Access Dear City Council, The Safety of students must be the first priority and I fully support the City in opening the Scenic Circle Access. It will indeed provide a safer way to school much needed, avoiding McClellan Road. It would be beneficial to all, to have the access opened for the beginning of the school year 2011/12 or sooner if possible. This is a much needed project and I support the use of tax dollars to fund this. I fully support this project as do many of our neighbors. Thank you in making this project successful. Regards Sally Nettleton 22431 Palm Ave Cupertino 408 - 446 -1426 1 Linda Lagergren From: Tom Scannell [tscannell0l @earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 2:17 PM To: City Council; Mark Linder; Safe Rides; Cupertino City Manager's Office Subject: Bicycle and pedestrian access through Blackberry to Kennedy and Monta Vista To the members of the City Council of Cupertino I am writing the Council for the fourth time (see below) in favor of the access gate from Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm area. I understand that this Tuesday, the Council is considering various topics regarding the implementation of the previous decision to open the access. I strongly support for the opening of the access as soon as possible. Best regards Tom Scannell 10208 Cass Place Cupertino, Ca 95014 Cupertino Resident for (now) 31 years On 4/2/10 7:32 AM, "Tom Scannell" <tscannell0l @earthlink.net> wrote: To the members of he City Council I understand that the topic of access gate from Scenic Circle to Blackberry 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 possible. I think such access will provide a safer route to school for the students living on the west side of Cupertino as well as providing an excellent and convenient access to the Blackberry Farm city park for west side residents. Best regards Tom Scannell 10208 Cass Place Cupertino, Ca 95014 Cupertino Resident for 30 years Forwarded Message From: Tom Scannell <tscannell0l@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:44:53 -0700 To: <citycouncil(a,cupertino.org >, <markl@a.cupertino.org >, < saferidescupertino >, <manager cupertino.org> Conversation: Bicycle and pedestrian access through Blackberry to Kennedy and Monta Vista Subject: Bicycle and pedestrian access through Blackberry to Kennedy and Monta Vista To the members of the City Council I understand that the topic of access gate from Scenic Circle to Blackberry 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 possible. I think such access will provide a safer route to school for the students living on the west side of Cupertino as well as providing an excellent and convenient access to the Blackberry Farm city park for west side residents. Best regards Tom Scannell 10208 Cass Place Cupertino, Ca 95014 Cupertino Resident for 30 years On 12/12/09 9:40 AM, "Tom Scannell" <tscanne1101 c1.earthlink.net> wrote: To the members of the City Council of Cupertino I understand that the City Council will be considering the opening of a gate in Scenic Circle to allow safe access to Blackberry farm for the young people making their way to Kennedy Junior High and Monta Vista High. While my schedule will not allow me to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday, I would once again like to express my support for this plan. As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail (below), I think a small pedestrian /bicycle gate in Scenic Circle would be the natural, safer and easier route for the kids making their way from the west end of town to these schools. I would also like to support the access being open other than school hours. The restored Blackberry farm and its access through McClellan park is really a great addition to the City. I have incorporated the current path through Blackberry farm on my weekend "loop" walks through the neighborhoods and would appreciate the opportunity to include Scenic Circle route in my walk. It is a bit of a sad seeing the blocked off "bridge to nowhere" near the children's playground. It would be super if a path in Blackberry with access to Scenic Circle would also be made available to us walkers. I acknowledge the concerns of my neighbors on Scenic Circle regarding trash and "off- hours" partying in Blackberry Farm. These problems have existed for years and come wherever private homes are near public sites. I'm hoping that, amongst neighbors of good will, the opening of a small gate allowing pedestrian and cycling access can be dealt with. Best regards Tom Scannell 10208 Cass Place Cupertino, CA 95014 On 11/27/09 12:38 PM, "Tom Scannell" <tscanne11014earthlink.net> wrote: Hello My name is Tom Scannell and I live at 10208 Cass Place in Cupertino. I have lived here for 25 years and Cupertino for 30 years. It has recently been brought to my attention that the City Council will be considering a petition at the November 30 City Council meeting regarding pedestrian /bicycle access through Scenic Boulevard /Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm and onto Kennedy Junior High and Monta Vista High School. 2 I want to let the City Council know that I fully support the formation of this task force and I am in favor of opening such a trail. My son is a graduate of Stevens Creek, Kennedy and Monta Vista. While he was attending Kennedy and Monta Vista my wife and I encouraged him (and all his friends) to use the then "unofficial access" through Blackberry rather than risking his safety riding his bike down the very heavily trafficked McClellan road. I know many other parents at our end of town also encouraged this practice. I was disappointed, but understood, when the "unofficial" access was lost during the Blackberry restoration. Now that the restoration is complete, I would like to support the opening of "official" access for the safety and convenience of the kids at this end of town. As a weekend walker I would also appreciate the opportunity to gain access to the newly restored Blackberry farm from Scenic. Once the other end of the Blackberry park is opened at Stevens Creek I think the path through the park to both McClellan and Scenic will make for a good circuit! With all this said, I fully appreciate the concerns that my neighbors on Scenic Blvd /Scenic Circle may have about public access through their neighborhood. I understand many of them were relieved when the access was closed. I am hoping that this task force can address both access and my neighbor's concerns. I am sure there must a reasonable accommodation that can be reached with good will on both sides. Tom Scannell 3 Linda Lagergren From: Kumaran Sangareddi [kumarjaya(gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 3:29 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino@gmail.com Subject: Support for scenic Circle access to Blackberry Farm Hi, I'm a resident of 10334 palo vista rd, cupertino. I support the scenic circle access to Blackberry farm. This will provide safer access to monta vista high and Kennedy Middle. Thanks, Kumaran Sangareddi. 1 Linda Lagergren From: Myron Crawford [Mcrawford @MISSIONWEST.com] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:41 AM To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building; City Council; Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.3313 or Subject: Sternuous Objection to Agenda Itrne 18 To Requirements In Excess Of Cal Green BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC 10050 Bann 7ey Drive Cupertino, C i 95014 -2188 Pk (408) 725 -0700 Fax (408) 725 -1626 mcrrnti fordo rnksionwest.com 1/29/11 Mayor & Council Members City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph 408 -777 -3308 3251 Fax 408- 777 -3333 cityclerk @cupertino.org; manager @cupertino.org: planning @cupertino.org; building @cupertino.org; citycouncit@cupertino. org Aki Honda Socking at 408.777.3313 or akis@cupertino.org. Dear Mayor & Council Members, Reference: Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code Subject: Objection To Imposition Of Muncipal Mandatory Green Building Standards In Excess Of The California Green Building Standards Code and Objections To Provisions in the Cal Green Building Code Objections To City Council Agenda 2 -1 -11 Item18 Ord 11 -2074 Aki Snelling & Council Members, We remain even more opposed to this proposed ordinance after reading the staff report. Not only are you saddling us.with the administration Leeds compliance cost you impose a $2 /sf deposit on non residential buildings. Are you aware that the LEEDS consulting compliance fees are equal or greater than the architectural fees, in addition to that are the jobsite and administration costs, you are imposing an unnecessary cost burden just so you can beat your chest and claim you "out greened" the adjacent cities. This is a terrible and unjust ordinance. WE OBJECT STRENUOUSLY TO ANY AND ALL REQUIREMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE CAL GREEN BUILDING CODE AND TO SOME PROVISIONS IN THE CAL GREEN CODE. The State of Californian Building Standards section explicitly stated that the new green building code WOULD NOT apply to any existing non residential building, would not apply to any TI in an existing non residential building, would not apply to any existing non residential shell building or to any initial or subsequent TI or alteration in that building. We object to the proposed ordinance applying to any non 1 residential building other than new non residential buildings constructed after January 1, 2011. You should not require anything beyond State requirements. You can contact the state representative listed below regarding non residential buildings: Enrique Rodriguez Associate Construction Analyst State of California Building Standards Commission 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130 Sacramento, CA 95833 -2936 Ph (916) 236 -0845 Fax (916) 263 -0959 enrique.rodriguez(a,dgs.ca.gov Other objections we have to the Cal Green Building Code are: A number of Cal Green requirements amount to political pandering adding unnecessary additional costs. We have never seen a memo from the city that recommends reducing cost and expenses for citizens, why doesn't the city set up a council approved bonus plan for employee suggestions that when implemented reduce cost for the citizens. The city council and employees of the city just don't get it, if you are going to save jobs, you need to quit raising costs with everything you do. You should create an Economic Ombudsman and committee that reviews proposed polices and ordinances for economic practicality before they move forward. 1) Bicycle Parking We have definite objections to required bicycle parking. a. I was by the City of Santa Clara the other day and looked around at their main City Hall office complex. They had 4 or 5 bicycle racks and everyone of them was empty. They have 16 covered bike stalls that may have been occupied or half empty. They have roughtly 538 stalls including 87 on the streets which their visitors use extensively as the streets are vehicle friendly so at the very most they had 3% of their parking used by bicycles. They probably have several hundred employees working there. They don't have any significant demand for bicycle parking in the heart of a city with a stable employee base. It is totally baseless then to require the percentages of bicycle parking being mandated in the proposed code. If a City Hall complex doesn't generate any significant bicycle demand there certainly isn't going to be any significant demand in an industrial park in south San Jose or anywhere else where any significant residential is miles away. b. If the employers have a demand for bike racks from employees they'll get put in but no more than one temporary bike rake should be required. If bicycle parking demand arises then you could require that bicycle parking be provided by converting required vehicle parking stalls as necessary. c. Where is it written that you have to provide covered parking for a $200, $500 or a even $1500 bicycle but not a $20,000 $30,000 or $40,000 automobile or a $20,000 Harley Davidson. Covered parking should not be required for bicycles this is a totally ridiculous requirement. d. Providing covered bicycle parking creates more impervious surface areas which runs counter to stated public policy of minimizing impervious surfaces. e. We don't oppose those that ride bicycles but, be reasonable and rational. 2 2) Parking & Clean Air Vehicles - Marking Spaces For "Clean Air Vehicles ". This is ludicrous for several reasons a. All electric vehicles are not clean air vehicles or zero emission. Most likely 70 to 80% or more of the electricity used for a vehicle recharge comes from a coal or hydrocarbon fueled power plants. All you have done using an electric vehicle is just transfer the point of origin of the fossil fuel pollution. Hybrid vehicles will be moving more towards plug in's which again merely transfers the point at which pollution occurs. b. The true zero emissions vehicle is one powered by pure hydrogen in a fuel cell, but there are currently only two economical ways to obtain hydrogen, steam reforming from hydrocarbons and that has CO2 as a byproduct and electrolysis. Electrolysis is only economical when you have excess electrical power from nuclear power plants that can produce hydrogen in off hours as they do in France. The nuclear fuel cost is free for off hours electrical generation as nuclear fuel rods decay at the same rate regardless of whether they are being used or not. There is wear and tear on the mechanical equipment but that is true in all electrical generation. If cities, states and environmentalist were truly concerned with zero emissions, curbing CO2 and fossil fuel use they would be promoting and supporting nuclear power. c. A good majority of the hybrid vehicles are imported which have knocked a significant number of your citizens out of jobs, decreased your tax revenue, caused you to lay off employees, caused needed infrastructure improvements or maintenance to be deferred or totally canceled. While some foreign based vehicle manufacturers assemble here, they import the high value components, engines and transmissions. Assembly of a vehicle only requires 12 to 16 total man hours. d. A good number of the imported vehicles come in from countries that erect barriers to US manufactured goods but benefit from easy US import policy again eliminating job creation here. e. Requiring striping and lettering for "clean air vehicles" is unjustified and adds initial cost and requires ongoing extra maintenance costs. If you want to do something for clean air and the economy start advocating and put some effort to promoting nuclear fueled power production and removing impediments to it. Be honest with yourself. 3) Water Meters a. Requiring water meters for individual tenants is totally ridiculous. In 90% of the cases you are dealing with individual office worker needs not process water. Individuals need water, they are going to use water and just because the boss gets to see a water meter in the tenant space that does not guarantee that the tenant or employees will look at it or even pay that much attention to the water bill. The demand for water is driven by personal needs not cost or consumption. Is the employee not going to use the restroom because they just looked at the water meter? b. We had one of the plumbing designer/ contractors that has done a lot of work for the company take a look at what you are proposing based on a two story R &D facility of 67,500 sf and looked at the water demand and costs for submetering. b 1. The first floor of 33,750 sf would generate 169 employees using 2100 gallons per day for showers and roughly 3000 gallons per day for personal 3 needs. Roughly 56 people or 11,290 sf generate 1000 gallons per day exclusive of shower use. The new code requires a meter for every tenant space with a consumption of 100 gallons per day. b 2. Each additional meter and piping would cost $1500 to $2000 per meter. b 3. There would be additional maintenance cost. b 4. There would be additional cost for meter reading and administration. The requirement for separate water meters is simply not justified. If you want to educate employees about conservation of water, then educate them not bludgeon property owners with extra meter costs. Your code provisions won't accomplish conservation because you have more water :meters in a building, you are merely heaping more unnecessary costs on building owners for no valid reason. 4) Material resuse and recycling requirements Instead of going to the dumps and landfills and making them meet and provide documentation and meet goals on diversion and recycling, the City or state makes every permitee post deposits, generate a demo diversion plan, report, wait, follow up and then finally get a deposit back, all of which consumes a significant amount of administration and lost interest cost to the permitee. In addition the City expends a significant amount of administration running the program. I would bet it cost the City several hundred dollars to a thousand to write the refund check by the time you add all the program administrative cost in. It would be more effective to administer the landfills and leave the permittess alone. When you impose requirements on the landfills they will in turn set their pricing in ways that will cause the permittee's to comply with diversion and recycling without all of the unnecessary administrative costs the City is now causing. Permittee's may or may not comply under the current City program but if the landfills are required to comply, the permittee's will wind up complying by proxy, and if the non permittee's dump down some canyon, well you can't control that anyway. Our field superintendents already respond to the landfill pricing in that it either costs them more for non segregated material or incentivizes them for segregated waste disposal or recycling credit. Don't make hundreds of thousand permittee's and City employees have to administrate and generate reports when you can accomplish the same thing by regulating a handful of land fills and waste facilities. 5) Requiring documentation for ongoing systems maintenance is simply another case of overkill. 6) There should not be any incentives; expedidited plan checks or FAR increase or any other incentive of any kind for projects that exceed Cal Green nor disincentives of for any project that just meets Cal Green. Any construction methods or materials should be based strictly on market economics and at the discretion of the developer or building owner. Any methods or materials that require incentives; which amount to subsidies, are not economically viable and should not be mandated nor incentivized. Just look at the Solyndra snafu in Fremont, CA where the US Government spent $535 million underwriting a failed solar manufacturing project. If something is viable it does not need a subsidy. 4 7) Politicians and local bureaucratics talk about "you can't export green jobs" as if that is something great. That's like saying we can keep everyone employed by everyone taking turns selling each other hamburgers in fast food franchises owned by the Chinese and Japanese that they bought with profits made from selling Americans, automobiles, machinery and electronics and electronic parts. You as government officials should start helping business by scrapping your green building ordinance and start thinking about how you can reduce the cost of doing business in the USA. The Cal Green Code should be scrapped as well as it is has some very ridiculous requiements in it as well. You need to do something that changes the tide so that the USA is providing automobiles, machinery and electronics and electronic parts to the Chinese, Japanese and other countries not the other way around. As you can see the Cal Green Code is adding additional and unnecessary cost strictly as a result of political reasons and pandering to environmental groups. Please do not add additional mandatory requirements. Please do look at these Cal Green requirements and start working on eliminating a number of these unwise code Cal Green requirements. Thank you for your consideration, Myron Crawford 5 Linda Lagergren From: Yi Huang [yisunhuang @yahoo.corn] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 9:00 AM To: City Council Subject: Scenic Circle Access Dear City Councils: I understand that this Tuesday, you are going to vote again regarding to the Scenic Circle access. I support the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access, and I hope that the access can be completed in August 2011. Thank you. Yi Sun Huang 10075 Carmen Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 i CC_ ja -I —II Date: January 31, 2011 Re: Written Communication for Blackberry Farm - Reopen the public dialog Dear City Council and Mr. Knapp, Barbara Stocklmeir is correct in her concern regarding people flying down the dip on their bikes; there is simply no way to stop on a dime and turn into the Stocklmeir driveway for the proposed Phase 2 trail. After our Phase 1 proposal was dismissed in 2001/02, gallows humor took over, and we decided that Phase 3 would surely include the purchase of a huge net to catch the suicide cyclists, and a scraper for those who missed the target. Instead of directing the new staff to implement the broken plan created by a previous city council and staff, I'II make one last attempt to encourage you to reopen the public dialogue in the form of a stakeholders' meeting to explore saner options; perhaps co- chaired by the new Director's cf Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Community Development Background Because the 40 -year old golf course irrigation had been identified as failing, we felt this was an opportune time to adjust the golf course to allow for the trail to be on the east side of the creek. The intent was 1:o get a dialogue started, but we were told the golf course was untouchable, and the golfing stakeholders were sent home. The proposal called for moving two golf holes into Blackberry Farm's former 1200 space parking lot; consolidating parking off Stevens Creek Blvd.; a trail on the east side of the creek - and with no new creek crossing bridge required. (Figure 1: 2002 Proposal) Another option was to move one hole into Picnic's parking lot, which allowed for more parking in the central lot for the pools, picnicking, and trail. Get out of jail free card 1 Please consider moving one golf hole into 1:he dead ponds, which will free up golf hole number 9 for all sorts of things: creek restoration, an eastside trail, trail and event parking for Blackberry and the Stocklmeir property, and maybe a long overdue facility upgrade to the golf instruction area, and pro -shop. (Figure 2: 2011 Proposal). I imagine there are better ideas, but we will never know unless you reopen the public dialog for this broken plan. Thank you, Susan Sievert Attached: Figures 1 and 2 1 "The current condition of the ponds predates the Phase I project." Source: Responses to Public Comments Received on the IS /MND for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park (Project No. 9136), page 6. 1 c CD N O N O O Ln Figure 2: 2011 Proposal CC / ( 9-1-1 I aC) Grace Schmidt • From: Gail Seeds Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:10 AM To: Timm Borden; Terry Greene Cc: Kimberly Smith; Grace Schmidt Subject: FW: (no subject) FYI From: AnneNg(aaol.com jmailto:AnneNg@aaol.comj Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 4:22 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; Mark Linder; Gail Seeds; saferidescupertino(Igmail.com Subject: (no subject) Honorable Councilmembers: On behalf of the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, I urge you to approve your staffs recommendations to proceed with the construction of the trail and bridge ramps to accomplish access to Blackberry Farm from the west via Scenic Circle. The Friends backs not just the extension of the Trail but also access to it at many points. With more access, more folks can reach the Trail under their own foot or pedal power. In this case, the access also provides a safer and lower stress route to school for Kennedy and Monta Vista students. We compliment you on your consideration of the Scenic Circle neighbors, meeting with them and making adjustments based on their input. We also value the extra effort involved in the environmental analysis. Anne Ng 6031 Bollinger Road Friends of Stevens Creek Trail board member 1 ioDF'Y Co(reded COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C G a _ - + f CITY HALL / <4. j 19 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 d TELEPHONE: ( 408) T'7 -3308 www.cupertino.org CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: February 1, 2011 Subj ect Green Building Ordinance (continued from January 18) Recommended Action Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 11 -2074 and draft Resolution Description Application: MCA - 2010 -04 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building Ordinance (See Attachment A, Ordinance No. 11 -2074) and related fees and deposits (See Attachment B, Model Resolution). BACKGROUND Council Authorization on the Green Building Ordinance Process On January 19, 2010, the City Council authorized staff (See Attachment R, January 19, 2010 City Council report) to proceed with developing a draft Green Building Ordinance, per the Phase II recommendations by the Santa Clara County Cities Association in partnership with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (See Attachment C, Phase II recommendations). The Council authorized a budget of $25,000 to complete the process (including one city -wide postcard notice). The Phase II recommendations are criteria and thresholds for development, including new construction and renovation/remodeling projects, that aim to support the use of healthy building materials and construction methods, and promote energy, water and resource efficiency and conservation by adherence to rating systems called LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and GPR (Green Point Rated) that were developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and Build It Green (BIG) respectively. Key Community Outreach Efforts May 2010: City -wide notices were sent out inviting residents, businesses and members of the development community interested in participating in the Green Building Ordinance Focus 2-e,C7 l'aUM r Groups. A non - profit environmental consulting group, Global Green, was retained to assist the City through facilitation of the focus group meetings and to develop a draft ordinance. June 7, 2010: The City held its first Green Building Ordinance Focus Group meeting at De Anza College's LEED Platinum Kirsch Center. The meeting was attended by over 60 participants, and included a tour of the Kirsch Center, a presentation on the purpose and concepts of green building and the Phase II recommendations, and small group discussion sessions to encourage participants to provide input on elements of the green building ordinance. July 13, 2010: In response to the focus group participants' comments, the Planning Commission held an educational workshop in order to better understand the green rating systems under consideration. The workshop included a presentation by Shiloh Ballard of Silicon Valley Leadership Group who provided an overview of the Phase II recommendations. Additionally, David Kaneda, Cupertino Planning Commissioner, provided an overview of the Cal Green building codes, the state's new green building code requirements for new construction that became effective on January 1, 2011. July 29, 2010: The City held its second and final Green Building Focus Group meeting, at which time a draft Green Building Ordinance was presented to participants and the core elements of the draft ordinance were discussed. Staff and Global Green received many comments and suggestions at both of the focus group meetings (See Attachments D and E - focus group comments) from participants that represented the residential, business and development community in Cupertino. Attachment F provides additional comments received on the Draft Green Building Ordinance. City staff also provided outreach of the ordinance process by hosting a booth at the City's 2010 Earth Day event, meeting with key stakeholders (e.g. businesses and commercial property owners, including Apple), addressing participants at the Mayor's Community Congress and at a Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Committee meeting, and posting information in the Cupertino Courier, Cupertino Scene, and via online through the City's green building webpage, Facebook and Twitter. DISCUSSION Planning Commission On October 12, 2010, October 26, 2010 and November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Green Building Ordinance (See Attachments G, H & I, October 12, October 26, and November 9 Planning Commission staff reports, respectively). The draft ordinance was refined to incorporate the comments and suggestions the City received from the focus group meetings and from meetings with key stakeholders in the community. The Commission recommended approval of the draft ordinance on a 3 -2 vote (Chair Brophy and Commissioner Miller voted no). A detailed discussion of the Planning Commission's recommendation is provided later in this report. Chair Brophy and Commissioner Miller did not support the draft green building ordinance, noting that the City should focus on reducing energy consumption/utility use on existing Z0 j cc / I / / #- aD Linda Lagergren From: Jaya Krishnamoorthy [hijaya @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:21 .AM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino ©gmail.com i-oday Subject: Fw: Scenic Access - Project Hello to all, As a resident on Palo Vista Rd, I fully support the completion of this project for opening up access to Blackberry farm, through the Scenic Blvd entrance. Having kids who are ready 11:o go to Middle school in the next year or so, I am anxious about the current route that children have to take walking from Kennedy /Monta Vista Schools along hte McClellan Rd -- which is curvy and prone to speeding cars. 1) I support the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. 2) It is important that the access be completed in time for the start of school in August to reduce the traffic risks faced by students on their way to school. 3) The City should work to protect the wildlife as they stated they will in the environmental report but still move ahead with the Winter schedule per the recommendation from Staff 4) This project is a wise use of our tax dollars. 5) There is widespread support for the project from residents, the local schools, PTAs, and even some neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the access. We hope that the council will come to the right conclusion and approve the project in the Tuesday meeting. Thanks so much! Sincerely, Jaya Krishnamoorthy Resident of Cupertino, 10334 Palo Vista Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 1 Linda Lagergren X3s From: codehead0 @gmail.com on behalf of Suman Cherukuri [suman @cherukuris.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 1:52 PM To: City Council Cc: David Knapp; saferidescupertino @gmail.com Subject: Scenic Access O CI OA/ Hello, I would like to express my support for Scenic access by August. My son starts going to Kennedy and I want him to use his bike to go to school. This will be much more safer for him rather than riding on McClellan. I also; 1) support the recommendations of the Staff to implement the Scenic Circle access. 2) support that the City should work to protect the wildlife as they stated they will in the environmental report but still move ahead with the Winter schedule per the recommendation from Staff. Thanks, Suman Cherukuri 22487 Palm Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 (650) 278 -6254 1 cc 07./t /,i CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE January 27, 2011 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on January 27, 2011. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Project 9136 (EA- 2011 -01) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park (City -owned property) DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Proposed project would construct an approximately 270 foot long trail to connect Scenic Circle to the existing Stevens Creek Trail in Blackberry Farm Park via an existing pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek. Also included is construction of approach ramps, stairway, retaining wall, access point at Scenic Circle, and plantings. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and is determined to be insignificant. imm Borden Director of Public Works g/erc/REC EA- 2011 -01