The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 07-20-2021 Study Session Item No. 1 Blackberry Farm Golf Course Feasibility Study Options_Written CommunicationsCC 7/20/21 Study Session Item #1 Blackberry Farm Golf Course Written Communications 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Dave McLeroy <dave@greenleaf.com> Sent:Monday, July 19, 2021 2:12 PM To:City Council Subject:Blackberry golf course changes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1. How much does the water cost per year to irrigate the turf? 2. The water pressure looks fine when the system is running. What kind of pipe is in the ground? PVC? Iron? 3. Has a cost analysis for running wire to all manual valves and replacing these valves with modern electronic valves been conducted? 4. What is the annual contracted cost for maintenance on the golf course? 5. Does the golf course run in the black or is it subsidised by the general fund? Thanks, Dave McLeroy Landscape water conservation manager ‐‐ Dave McLeroy President (408) 205‐7775 Cell 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Giulianna Pendleton <giulianna@scvas.org> Sent:Monday, July 19, 2021 4:41 PM To:City Council Cc:Shani Kleinhaus Subject:Public Comment Item #1 Blackberry Farm Golf Course Attachments:7-20-21 Public Comment Blackberry Farm.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, Please see the attached public comment letter regarding the Blackberry Farm Golf Course. Thank you, Giulianna Pendleton Environmental Advocacy Assistant Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society 22221 McClellan Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 408-656-7978 giulianna@scvas.org July 19, 2021 City of Cupertino City Council Re: Item 1 on the July 20th, 2021 Agenda:Support for staff recommendations Dear Mayor Paul and Council Members: Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS), headquartered at McClellan Ranch for over 40 years,writes in support of staff's recommendation to update the study for minimal repairs to the golf course (option 1) and to study returning the golf course to natural habitat (option 3).Staff recommendations are based on community and Park Commissioner input from June 3rd, 2021. At this time, SCVAS does not support Option 2, the Preferred Alternative Renovated Course, which would greatly intensify disruptive use in this area. The reconfigured golf course and relocated club/restaurant; accommodating up to 200 people for events; creating additional parking spaces all introduce more light, noise and activities that are likely to disturb wildlife and degrade the habitat along Stevens Creek. The golf course as it is today provides some habitat that supports wildlife. With minimal repairs (option 1), the golf course can use water more responsibly and convert over one-acre of the course to a lowland native area. While this is not our preferred alternative, we recognize that with careful planning and with management of golfers'access, this could potentially provide some habitat value. Returning the golf course to its natural habitat (option 3) is our preferred option. This would provide the most habitat value to native wildlife,including birds, plants, insects, and other fauna. It would act as a connector, rather than fragmentor,of the Stevens Creek Corridor, which would further support wildlife. Moreover, community members would benefit from this conversion, as the Stevens Creek Corridor has more visitors annually than that of the Blackberry Farm golf course (55,000 versus 28,000). Connecting Blackberry Farm to the Stevens Creek Corridor would expand the nature experience for residents and visitors to the area. Located in this loved creek-side location, Blackberry Farm is in a favorable environment for increasing habitat value. Riparian corridors are sensitive,important habitats for both flora and fauna, such as the protected steelhead trout. With over 75 trees within the area currently, Blackberry Farm is in a favorable position to increase the amount of mature native trees and further enhance wildlife. SCVAS is excited about the study of restoring the golf course to its natural habitation (option 3). We are looking forward to the next steps, including a feasibility study for Option 3 that includes consideration of State and Valley Water grants as well as community outreach and surveys. Thank you, Giulianna Pendleton Environmental Advocacy Assistant Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society 1 Cyrah Caburian From:John Ennals <djsennals@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 3:58 PM To:City Clerk Subject:Ennals comments on Blackberry options Attachments:Ennals comments on Blackberry options CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. John Ennals, Florence Drive. My preference of the three options considered for the Blackberry farm Golf Course: 3. Deﬁnitely do not do the return to natural state: We walk the trail most days and witness the efforts in McClellan ranch to do this. They have failed. It's just an untidy mess of dead or dying plants, surrounded by weeds. It is costing a lot of money and will be unsightly, and generate no revenue to offset it's costs. The new parking area recently built at the ranch was landscaped professionally with native plants and then allowed to die. Please do not do this. 2. This proposal looks good - well researched and a credit to Cupertino. Finally solve the Blue Pheasant problem with a well designed facility that meets the needs of the golﬁng pubic. I am a golfer but ﬁnd the current state of the course not too fun to play, and nowhere to practice. The new ideas look like there is fun to be had for all ages. 1. If we cannot afford 2, then we have to do this. Nice to see the uptick in rounds during Covid. This is happening nationwide and has been a great boon to the golf business. But the Blue Pheasant and the other houses should be replaced too. Perhaps we can then ﬁnd space to incorporate some of the practice features of 2. 1 Cyrah Caburian From:Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:42 PM To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject:Comments Study Session 7/20/21 #1 Golf Course CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council Members, In your packet, there is a golf course history that starts at 2014. I hope that you could take a further look back. I am relying on memory because I do not have time to pull up the documents for the Stevens Creek Corridor Mitigated Negative Declaration. Since you’re pulling up old plans, I think that these plans need to be pulled up in order to make an informed decision. There are a few things that I recall that I think you should know. 1. There were naturalized ponds at the golf course that were of interest to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife because of the wildlife that it supported. The ponds were supposed to remain and now they are gone. I miss the red‐winged blackbirds that resided there. 2. Part of the original plan was to replace the watering system. At the time it was estimated to cost in the $250K range. Why did it take so long. 3. Public Works Director Ralph Qualls had said that the City owned water rights at the golf course, but after the creek work, the golf course switched to San Jose Water Company and the cost of operations increased. The plan did not mention a switch from onsite water to potable water. As to costs, if we’re going to talk about money, I think that we need more information: a) The report mentions the subsidy of the pool/picnic business. Can we please have that information in dollars in addition to percentages? Is the capital maintenance/improvement cost factored into the cost of the pools? b) Also, what is the cost of maintaining the golf course vs maintaining Memorial Park? I think they’d be about the same size. Or what would it cost to maintain it as a forest? I think that we also need to look at the Blue Pheasant as well as part of the whole picture. I’m glad to see that staff is not advocating for a huge new restaurant close to homes that would likely suffer from restaurant/bbq fumes. We know that for reasons unknown, it has been difficult to maintain infrastructure within the City (Memorial Park, fountains at Quinlan, Barn at McClellan Ranch, etc…). I also don’t think that it would be a good idea to attempt to create new businesses that would compete with other local businesses. So that leaves us with a simple golf course or a forest. Due to the wildlife corridor, per the original MND, the site is not well‐suited to night‐time lighting, so I don’t think that ball fields are the way to go as had been proposed in the past. It seems that golf has had a resurgence, which is nice to see because it provides a venue that is hard to replicate elsewhere. I’d advocate for either retaining golf or making the area to be a forest. Regards, Rhoda Fry