Exhibits
r~~{HIBlu'
eelS-I-Of
o '( a.l CO"YY\ V)o\LJ V\ l C a..:{ \ 0\f'lS
50" Scoui'll"Cof'
Freight Train Railroad Crossing at Bubb and
McClellan:
..........:~,:i:~.'
(
...... I
...
i
....1
(/I........
\
'"
~
-0
.
~
..
. The Freight Train comes at peak hours sometimes
in the morning or afternoon when trafIic from 3
schools congest the roads.
. Cars are seen stopping on the railroad tracks when
the traffic light turns red
. Drivers coming from the McClellan Terrace
Apartments also utilize this gap to get into the flow
of traffic
· Students und pedestrimls cross the tracks on foot and are in danger too.
· Poses danger if the railroad crossing gates suddenly come dov,'n and if a car is still
parked on the tracks
· Even though there are flashing traffic lights when the train is
approaching, there are no stop signs on the road or
painted on the street. So people stop their cars over the
tracks.
. No tickets seem to be issued for this violation
I ~,
I
i--n,
.~\~~~'Df _~~.._
,J:!'i ('
, I
I
Rosario'AYe"'"
!_'~..m."mm.m.'
.......'..--.'_....
. j/
I · ~
Solution:
· At this crossing we have the common cross buck which is the basic
warning sign required at all public crossings. Cross buck installation
and maintenance is the railroad's responsibility. The city needs to
install more signs and warnings like stop signs painted on the road,
yellow Railroad Crossing signs: Their purpose is to attract the
driver's attention and get them to slow down or stop for the crossing and look and
listen for a train. It is the driver's responsibility to be in control of the vehicle and
stop as required by law. When approaching a public highway-rail crossing,
drivers will see the round, yellow advance warning sign. These and pavement
markings are generally installed by local or state agencies. Pavement
markings are the same as the advance warning sign, but the letters are painted
on the road surface and generally start at the advance warning sign and end
with a stop bar near the crossing._ There are no stop signs painted on the road.
· There should be some kind of a sign or marker that says the area should not be
blocked.
· This crossing should also be marked with a stop sign or yield sign. These
or any other type of sign or signal are determined by law and installed by the
state, county or municipal government.
· Traffic Camera installation to catch violators.
· Traffic tickets issued more frequently to warn people.
~ Issues of McClellan Rd.
There are two major safety issues pertaining McClellan Road.
. One point is the intersection of the railroad tracks and McClellan. During the morning
school hours, there are drivers there going to Monta Vista, Lincoln, and Kennedy. Most
of the drivers leave a gap at the railroad track. However, many drivers don't and they end
up blocking the entire track. Drivers coming from the McClellan Terrace Apartments also
utilize this gap to get into the flow of traffic. This is a very big hazard because of the
possibility that a train may come through in the time that the car is still in the gap. Many
people would panic in this kind of a situation, and would not know what to do. I think
there should be some kind of a sign or marker that says the area should not be blocked.
To enforce this there could be "mock trains" where the railroad gates come down as if a
train were coming.
. Another area of major concern is the pedestrian crossing in between Lincoln and Monta
Vista. In this school year alone, there have been multiple incidents where cars have hit
bikers going to Monta Vista and possibly Lincoln. Each time, the bikers have been hurt.
One person I know personally still suffers back pains and problems from the accident he
had suffered several months ago. One of the reasons for this is because the bikers try to
bike across the crossway. The drivers of the cars don't see them, and the bikers get hit.
Another reason is because the drivers simply don't pay attention. One solution to this is
by putting up signs that say by state law; pedestrians have the right of law at crosswalks.
Also, putting up a stop sign would help by giving pedestrians a chance to walk by. Still
another option would be to make the crosswalk a computerized one. If pedestrians push a
button, then stop signs would come out to let the pedestrians walk by.
"'i
'"
r-
o
I
I'
\l1
8
f~
~
-CD
'" '"
,g=
:;:i
~
~ \ r-. ,..f .-,
.'"
~i.
'- a
'" c:
i ~
..c::
e ~
0.. .0
E .i:
o e
\.I Q)
8"
C'.
c:c
8
a
OJ
.5
~
~
..
-:l
c:
::)
~
C'.
ell:ct
.~ 8
c:-
~.~
ell VI
...?:-
~g
~c:c
VI
a c:
VI ,2
-.: a
a ~
~8"
~tM~~~
t"-g2u~c:t::
...... ::::I _ t':. ~ 00
~:E~:d,,;g
c;~ 5 ~.~ U 'E N
a~Ee~e~
B ~.5 ~ ~ 8- 2
-g ,~ ~ E :; OJ ~
11 ~ -g ~ .rf'~ .~
:::: ee t-' ""0 l- .-
~ .~ ~ > <E ~ ~
:::e~~~~~
......._~O-=.--
o 0.0 E 0.. t:: ;; "'C
C;; '~ ~ ,5 ~ '0 -3
~.;;; t -0 1A OJ 1l
cu~;;~o~
] ~;; g.g OJ.'. ~ <f'-
~~ri!(~g"g::::,~E~
2':=""_>"'ocO.>"c
2 < '&, ~ '~ g ~ .5 ::: ~ 6
';;; .~ ';/; ~ .,g ..g -i:: ~ '" c ~
0.> :3il -<= C " OJ '" - '" '" 2
'~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ G g~ 8
1A .5 -5'~ 8 ~ -5 S 'f; ,~:
~OJo'>;:l",>>;:l~"gu<S
~.s ~ ] 5 ~ ~ ~ E~!l
,5 ~ ~ "g ~ t; t;:; s.sa
:Zg..c",c6"gi38SE'
.~ ~ ~ E,~ ~ ~ ~ f; <: ~ 8.'~
)r... ~ ._ Vl Vl .- ;;>-" - 1..0 .ot: :n 0. 1..0
::;,; ~ 5 ~a-;;~]<So ~.: 1A
;:0. > OJ~ ~t 0;-0 i3u <:~,;;
.D _ cu -5 8 a.g ~ :g ~ ~
~ E l::
,-r
I
'\
...... fl
r..)
.
~
:~ ~
~ ~ LU ~
<( (.) ~ u
~ ~ ~
en & S
~ ~ ~
ll: ~ 2::
:E E <(
~ D1 ~
III
II
.E"
<>
-=
-"
=>
<I:
~
"'"'
~t
'"
""
t
o Z ~
~ ~ ~ ~
8.g ~ & &
&: ~ ~ ~ ~
.;.
=
~
..2
- :;
: ~ .~
~ E
.t-
->-
z~
.::
~~
~
:j
i;
~
!
c
o
~ ~
. .
~ :;
I ~ 0 III *i
"'"'
~
C'.
l:!
-:l -'"
-;: . u --g ~
~"2-B~~
~ ~~BO
1:; ~ ~ ff.5
~ ~ Vl <.t: 5
o:::.E~~
0<( :< ~ sO::
o :{; > c-"!
V g ~ ~ ,g .;
GJ '-< C r;. ~ 5
-:E ~.t:~~~
== .D.O _ e5 r..l
-i ~ [~ 'E ~
~ > v :c CJ t:
o~:~~~
::t~~.g]5
-<=
:J] l- .g-
;; c.8 ~.9
p: t:: ..g .::
0.0 v .~ 0 .~ g
.: .D ~ _~ 2)-;::
~~8.68.:-9
c.. ~ ~ ",.J::::"O
~ .2 -= ~ "~ g
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :: -
6~~ci.:.=~.9
~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~
;g"E c::..g E~~
v ~ 0 Oi: ~ ""0 0
~~]]il2g
v v ::: ro I v'-
~g.~b.g~~
.::: ~.5 5.a; ~
"2 bn.9-
~ ~ ~.2
]2u-o":;
> c... v"C ......
~~~~~
-=~~~5
vi E 8 ~ ~
5h v Vl"- L....
~~.5';.8
~"~-~ ~~
;; c E g. VJ
~ ~ ~ o.'~
-= E ~ .5 ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~""ES:~-=
O~E~]
o
C>
'"
";'
<
o N
U '"
~:~ ~
8 >- :::-
::: ~ -;;;
o ('j u
"~ -E. 0
E v) ~
~ ~~
.~.~ ~
o E ~
~ ~ ~
0-'"
~ (5 ~
Cc..!6-l-07
::tt I \
Silicon Valley
Association of REALTORS III
L__~~HIB.
-n~.'1
~
May 1, 2007
The Honorable Kris Wang
Mayor
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Dear Mayor Wang and Councilmembers,
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the draft ordinance to amend Cupertino's
Municipal Code Chapter 14.18 regarding Heritage and Protected trees. We commend the
city's efforts in initiating this process to protect the aesthetic and environmental value of
its trees while easing the burden on property owners who are attempting to abide by the
tree ordinance.
We congratulate the Planning Commission and City staff for taking serious steps to
increase homeowner compliance with the tree ordinance and support the clarification and
simplification of the ordinance; however, we have a few concerns with the draft
ordinance. We share the concerns of the City arborist and staff that the City and property
owners could be adversely impacted by the addition of new species to the protected tree
list Under the current tree ordinance, the City has been unable to fulfill some of the
minimum obligations, and the addition of further administrative requirements or
protected trees at this time could likely be detrimental to the goal of a clear, rational and
enforceable ordinance. We agree with staff's original assessment that the inclusion of
more trees to the protected tree list is contrary to the goal of simplifying and clarifying
the ordinance. '
There is no specification as to types of "oak tree" to be protected, and all "native" oaks
are named protected trees in its place. We believe more clarification is necessary for oa...~ -\re e5
homeowners to adequately comply with the law. The ordinance should include a list of
oaks considered native or provide some standard to be used to determine which species
are native. In addition, the City arborist did not recommend adding the Bay Laurel and
the Western Sycamore to the protected tree list, as was done by the Planning
Commission, citing problems with both trees breaking or dropping limbs and posing a
potential hazard to safety or property.
We are also mindful of the burden on homeowners posed by the proposed replacement
tree guidelines and in-lieu fees. We support the reduction of the original replacement
standard with a 2-to-l guideline. We believe that Planning Commissioners Marty Miller
and Gilbert Wong have made a compelling argument for a 1-to-l guideline in most
circumstances.
19400 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 100 · Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: 408.200.0100 · Fax: 408.200.0101 · www.silvar.org
Under the draft ordinance, if a protected trees under 36 inches in diameter "cannot be
reasonably planted on the subject property" an amount equal to the market price and
installation costs for the replacement tree would be contributed by the applicant to a
newly created tree fund. For Heritage and protected trees larger then 36 inches, the
appraised value, which can be quite high, of the removed tree must be paid to the tree
fund. The creation and management of the proposed new fee is contrary to the
Commission's stated intention to clarify and simplify this chapter of the Municipal Code.
Further, the proposed reduction in the upfront tree removal permit cost could be more
than offset by the addition of an in-lieu fee, eliminating the cost incentive for property
owners to comply with the new law.
If the Council feels that such a fund is necessary, the fee should be capped, especially for
homeowners and larger trees, so the cost does not go above what would normally be
required of the property owner if they were able to replace it on site. And given that the
intent of the fund is to maintain Cupertino's tree canopy when trees are removed, the
funds should be used solely for trees and not for general landscaping.
We are also concerned that language allows the approval authority to dictate a specific
location on private property where a replacement tree(s) must be planted. While the City
should ensure that homeowners adhere to setbacks that protect private and public
property (sewers, utility lines, sidewalk, fences, foundation, etc.), to mandate that a tree
be planted in a specific spot on private property, or face additional fees, is a great
intrusion and will discourage compliance.
The tree management plan, as crafted by the Planning Commission, will be an effective
tool to prevent overgrowth, premature death of large trees and damage to private
property. To allow the highest number of homeowners to utilize this tool, Cupertino
should accept management plans for pre-existing landscapes at no higher cost than the
initial tree removal permit fee.
The draft ordinance also broadens who can apply for the designation of a Heritage tree.
We would urge the City to accept l;U1 application only with the notification and consent of
, all affected property owners.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on possible amendments to the Municipal
Code chapter on Heritage and Protected trees and look forward to working with the
Council to help property owners in Cupertino understand and abide by the ordinance.
Sincerely,
Paul Cardus
Government Affairs Director
Silicon Valley Association ofREALTORS@
Kimberly Smith
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Adam Montgomery [amontgomery@silvar.org]
Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:24 AM
Kimberly Smith; Grace Schmidt
Comment Letter Regarding Agenda Item 11
Attachments:
Tree_L TR_item#11.pdf
~1
~
Tree~L TR~item# 11.
pdf (118 KB)
Good Morning,
Attached to this email is a comment letter regarding agenda item 11 of tonight's City
Council meeting, from the Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS@. I have already sent
this letter to the Mayor and City Councilmembers.
Thank you,
Adam
<<Tree_LTR_item#ll.pdf>>
Adam Montgomery
Government A~fairs Coordinator
Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS@
19400 Stevens Creek Blvd. #100
Cupertino, Ca. 95014
408-200-0100 (Main)
408-200-0108 (Direct)
650-223-4597 (Cell)
408- 2 00- 0101 (Fax)
amontgomery@silvar.org
www.silvar.org
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this
e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this
information by a person other than the intended recipient is
unauthorized and may be illegal.
1
5/1107
Page 1 of2
#/ft,
Linda Lagergren
From: Jay Kamdar [jay@magsil.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:02 AM
To: David Knapp
Cc: City Council
Subject: RE: Appeal to City's decision about the fence adjacent to 10060 Carmen Road
"", i../ ~
..a.._-...l CIJ ,
~
'..;. ...f:._._,
Dear Mr. Knapp and Respected City Council,
This is to inform you that due to very heavy business travel I won't be able to attend the May 1st hearing at the City Council. I
apologize for any inconvenience caused, After talking to few experts on such City matters I was advised to go get signatures and
have many people attend the hearing, Unfortunately, though very important issue, I can not afford anytime to devote on this at this
point For next few months I have very unpredictable travel schedule and so I have decided not to request any reschedule of this
hearing, I am withdrawing my request I am registering my complaint without requesting a hearing with the council as below, It is
up to the Council to ignore, address and take any action as it desires:
I want to request to the City Council to re-examine City's decision process and hopefully reconsider my sincere request to bring the
fence height down from 6" to 3' that would ensure concerns of all parties - the safety and the openness, I condone City's decision
and how it issued a permit to my neighbor without much respect to public at large, On a public property it is City's job to seek
inputs from other neighbors and pay attention to their feelings, The City should have reached out to Carmen Road residents at
large and seek their input prior to issuing such permit The council can fix this if it so choose, This is a wrong precedent set by the
city and Council will have to face the consequences in the future.
- Jay Kamdar
Home: 408-343-1177
Cell: 408-497 -1177
From: Jay Kamdar [mailto:jay@magsil.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 1:03 PM
To: 'David Knapp'
Cc: 'City Council'
Subject: Appeal to City's decision about the fence adjacent to 10060 Carmen Road
Dear Mr, Knapp and Respected City Council,
I have received a notice from the City denying my appeal regarding the installation of a fence at the end of Carmen RoacL I feel
that a more serious considerations need to be given to my request and so I would like to appeal to the City Council. Due to
excessive business travel I have planned through April '2007 I would like to request the hearing date to be scheduled in the month
of May,
My request to the City was not for a removal of the fence, My request is to find a solution to maintaining openness and green view
of the Carmen Road Street. During the hearing I had proposed a solution that will address the openness of the Carmen Road and
at the same time addressing the safety concerns of two neighbors who have built the fence, I requested that the fence height be
brought down from 6' to 3', In the City's lelter dated March 15, 2007 the hearing officer has failed to acknowledge and address my
proposed solution and it seems that the letter goes into long details justifying City's decision purely from a legal point of view,
I condone City's decision process in this matter, As I have pointed out. City has let my two neighbors build a fence without seeking
inputs from any other neighbors and their feelings, I find it hard to believe that the City is OK with anyone building the fence first on
the City property and then issuing the permit later. Shouldn't City have asked the simple question that how come all these years
the City let Carmen Road residents live with a simple guard rail and an "end of the street sign"? It would be prudent for the city to
think that others must have raised their children on Carmen Road and how come they never complained about the safety and
asked the City to build a bigger fence?? It is because people like I have enjoyed the openness and the view from the Carmen
Road, I do not know of any safety issues during past many years that I have lived on the Carmen Road, The City should have
reached out to Carmen Road residents at large and seek their input prior to issuing such permit. I want to request to the City
Council to examine City's decision process and hopefully reconsider my sincere request to bring the fence height down from 6" to
3' that would ensure concerns of all parties - the safety and the openness,
4/30/2007