16 Stevens Creek Corridor
i"(:\ I
,,~~
~'~J
~ .
.
CUPEIUINO
PARKS ANn R..EC'R,EATIO}J 4 DtvtTNISTR ATlObJ
ST AFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number ) ~
Agenda Date: 6/20106
SUBJECT
City Council certification of the Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISIMND) for the Stevens
Creek Corridor project (SCCP)
BACKGROUND
The City of Cupertino and The Santa Clara Valley Water District entered into a collaborative agreement
in July 2004 to jointly engage in planning and environmental review for Stevens Creek Corridor Park.
The partnership sought to implement a community vision for the corridor properties developed over
many meetings and much public input. The mutual goals of the organizations include providing public
recreational opportunities and creek restoration and protection.
The City Council made decisions regarding park planning over a three year period beginning with the
decision to change the operation of Blackberry Farm (forgoing revenue from the picnic operation) to
selecting trail alignments, determining appropriate neighborhood accesses, etc. An environmental
document has now been prepared that analyzes these decisions as part of an overall park plan. The
document was prepared with The City of Cupertino as the lead agency and The Santa Clara Valley
Water District as a responsible agency. The appropriate document for the project under CEQA was
determined to be the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Initial Studyl Mitigated Negative Declaration:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared if the findings of an Initial Study reveal that project
impacts can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. An EIR is prepared in those instances
where impacts cannot be mitigated. What is analyzed for the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) is the difference between what exists on the property now, and what will exist in the
future, with attention also given to construction impacts.
The technical studies prepared for the scep were the same as those that would have been prepared for
an EIR. Surveys for sensitive species were conducted over an eighteen-month period, archaeological
reconnaissance (including digging twelve trenches) was conducted, and hydrologic modeling efforts
were undertaken. Traffic counts were done. The conclusion was that the proposed project would not
result in significant impacts to the environment. Reduction in size of the picnic area and associated
parking areas, removal of pavement and restoration efforts undertaken with this project will result in an
improvement to the environment.
The environmental document you are being asked to certify was made available for public review on
April 28, 2006. It was sent to the State Clearinghouse for circulation to the appropriate regulatory
agencies. It was individually sent to Federal jurisdictional agencies. The announcement was mailed to
/~ -(
Printed on Recycled Paper
791 interested parties on the City's mailing list. It was advertised in the local paper. The project site
was posted. All of the comments received are included in your packet.
It is important to note that many of the comments received were not relevant to the eEQA review, but
rather, were the comments of individuals expressing disagreement with park design decisions already
approved by the Council. These decisions include use of the trail through Mcelellan Ranch, whether or
not there would be public access from Scenic Circle and the capacity of the picnic area. The decisions
were made after considerable public debate. The CEQA process did not re-visit Council decisions, but
rather, evaluated them for the environmental impacts.
Many of the comments received from the public during the review period regarded design decisions.
The purpose of the environmental review is to evaluate the impacts of implementing the design, not the
merits of design decisions that were made after much public debate.
Proposed Changes
This chart is a summary of the project changes.
a e - : evens ree orrl or as er an ropose an2:es
Existing Proposed
Blackberry Farm
[, [00 vehicle festival-style parking lot - impervious 350 vehicle festival-style parking spaces - permeable
surface material
452 square feet in two central catering buildings Old buildings replaced with a single 678 square foot
central catering building in the west bank picnic area
400 picnic tables 100 picnic tables
Utilities are located above-ground Utilities would be moved underground
8-foot wide bridge pedestrian bridge from festival Old bridge replaced with a new 14-foot wide
parking area and pool complex to Oak Grove picnic pedestrian/bicycle/light duty vehicle bridge from
area festival parking area and pool complex to Oak Grove
picnic area
Existing pool entrance New 188 square foot pool complex entrance kiosk
Snack bar located at pool complex Existing snack bar modified to have a second service
window open to park and trail users separate from the
pool complex service window.
Chain link fencing around pool Wood with metal screen fencing around pool
Pool area asphalt pavement Asphalt would be removed and replaced with
flagstone
Nine (9) horseshoe pits at various locations throughout Four (4) horseshoe toss pits, in west bank group
Blackberry Farm picnic area
Two (2) sand volleyball areas, located on the east One (1) sand volleyball court, in west bank group
bank, upstream of pool complex picnic area
Three (3) half courts located on the east bank, Two (2) half-courts, in west bank group picnic area
upstream of the pool complex
One (1) softball field, located on the east bank No change, existing field would remain
upstream of the pool complex
T bl 21St
C kC
. d M t PI P
dCh
2
I~-J-
Existing Proposed
Horseshoe Bend, Walnut Court, and Fallen Oak picnic Elimination of all picnic facilities at Horseshoe Bend,
areas Walnut Court and Fallen Oak including tables,
barbeque pits, horseshoe pits and adjacent paved
parking area.
Three (3) low flow creek vehicle crossings located in Removal of all three (3) low flow creek vehicle
Blackberry Farm crossings
Existing 1,020 square foot park maintenance facility Existing facility to be demolished and replaced with
with 1,940 square foot storage yard 1,200 square foot maintenance facility and 1,200
square foot fenced storage yard
Water diversion dam located upstream of Blackberry This water diversion dam would be removed
Farm picnic areas
Pedestrian bridge from east bank of Stevens Creek to This existing pedestrian bridge would be demolished
Fallen Oak picnic areas and removed.
Pedestrian bridge connecting main parking lot with This existing pedestrian bridge would be demolished
Sycamore and Hillside picnic areas and removed.
The 462 square foot Blackberry Farm park entry kiosk This park entry kiosk would be demolished and rebuilt
is currently at the corner of the conference center as a 96 square foot kiosk further down the driveway to
property at San Fernando Ave. increase queue lenmh
Conference center front landscaping with informal Existing landscaping would be removed, and formal
parallel parking pul I-in parking spaces would be created to
accommodate 5 cars.
[5-foot wide access road in front of private residence Adjacent residence to receive approximately 700
square feet of buffer landscaping between front yard
and park driveway.
Existing asphalt paved parking lot next to existing Creation ofa l7-car trailhead staging area with
softball complex, accommodates 200+ vehicles remodeled bathroom facilities. Demolition of
approximately 32,000 square feet of paved parking
space.
Blackberry Farm Golf Course and Stocklmeir Property
9-hole golf course No change proposed.
N/A Installation of a new 8- foot wide pedestrian and
bicycle bridge and a 8-foot tall recurved fence that
would follow the new curve of the creek from the
bridge along the new trail west to where the trail meets
the existing parking lot at the end of the 7th hole.
Blue Pheasant/Golf Course parking lot - 91 existing Re-striping ofthe existing lot would provide a total of
parking spaces 1 00 spaces.
N/A New crosswalk on Stevens Creek Blvd. at Phar Lap
Drive.
Existing 615 square foot golf course maintenance Existing building and yard would be demolished and
building and 6,425 square foot fence storage yard replaced with a 3,000 square foot golf course
currently located on the top of east bank of Stevens maintenance facility with a 2,000 square foot fenced
Creek in the festival parking area of Blackberry Farm yard and relocated below the existing conference
in the flood plain. center along the existing golf course fence line out of
the flood plain.
Damaged water storage tank for golf course Damaged water storage tank that held well water to
irrigate the golf course would be demolished. An
existing 35,000-gallon underground cistern would be
reconditioned to provide irrigation for the golf course
3
I&. -]
Existing Proposed
and park. No change in side-stream diversion to golf
course ponds.
N/A A 5-foot wide trail connection would be constructed to
connect parking at Blackberry Golf Course with the
trail through the Stocklmeir Property
McClellan Ranch
N/A 2,000 square foot environmental education center with
2 classrooms, an office, and restrooms to be built on
an existing building pad formerly occupied by a
double-wide trailer
Parking lot - 3 I spaces No change
68 community garden plots 70 community garden plots
Area for 4-H facility - 17,277 sq. ft. Area for 4.H facility - 27,800 sq.ft.
N/A A bus turnout on McClellan Rd would be located in
front of Simms property
Design Process History
The most significant changes to park operation were deliberated by the City Council in a series of public
meetings. They included:
. The decision regarding whether or not to retain the golf course
. Whether or not to build an entry drive from Stevens Creek Blvd.
. The size and intensity of the Blackberry Farm picnic operation
. Location of the trail and type of trail use
. Stocklmeir property use by the Cupertino Historical Society
. Simms property rental, and
. Neighborhood access points
These design decisions were considered in light of the condition of the physical environment (such as the
eroding creek banks along the golf course) and sensitivity of habitats (such as the brown bat maternity
tree, kite nest). Information gathered informed the design development as it progressed. In this manner,
some of the potential project impacts were avoided through careful design.
The City eouncil reviewed the entire project and proposed creek alignment on January 5, 2006 prior to
the consultant beginning work on the environmental report, so that what was being analyzed would be
consistent with Council direction.
Golf CourselEntry DrivelPicnic Capacity Analysis
On October 6, 2003, the eity Council reviewed a report on the financial impacts of changing the current
Blackberry Farm operation. The Council considered profit currently generated from the 4000-person
capacity picnic facility and heard that the minimum number of picnickers required to make a for-profit
operation feasible was estimated at 1,000. The Council considered this data in light of a number of
schematic drawings and after taking much testimony. The Council decided on a program that retained
the golf course, reduced parking and the size of the picnic area and provided for a healthy amount of
4
I~--l{
habitat restoration. It was acknowledged that an 800-person facility would not produce profits, but it
was the facility size the Council determined to be the best compromise between revenue generation and
restoration. It is important to note that the minimum size necessary to keep the big Cupertino picnics in
Cupertino (Lions Club and C.C.S. barbeques) is 500. Council heard testimony form members of these
groups regarding retaining a large group picnic area at Blackberry Farm.
The golf course is most narrow at Stevens Creek Blvd., and after considering testimony regarding
retaining the golf course, the City Council opted against constructing a new entry drive. It was decided
that once the trail connected to Stevens Creek Blvd., the existing bus stop could be used to deliver
school groups to Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds via a short walk on the trail.
Stocklmeir Property Use by the Cupertino Historical Society
At this point the Cupertino Historical Society plans for the Stocklmier property are unknown. The City
Council passed a Resolution of Intent (to enter into an agreement with them for use of the property upon
reaching significant fund-raising goals). A copy of the resolution is attached. Their vision was to create
"Center for Living History" that would serve as a field trip destination for third graders and point of
interest for history affecinados. It was assumed that the majority of those visiting the site would come
by bus and be delivered to the bus stop along Stevens Creek Blvd. The text in the Initial
StudyIMitigated Negative Declaration that addresses the Center for Living History reads as follows:
liThe Cupertino Historical Society (CHS) is interested in opening the site to the public, however they
are still in the planning phases. The City Council has offered a long lease of the site to CHS
assuming CHS can develop a viable plan and raise the funds to implement it. The overall vision is to
use the site as a venue for learning about local history. Third-grade students would arrive by school
bus. There would also be some weekend hours for general visitation. Once the CHS plans are more
definite for the site, additional environmental review would need to be conducted. "
Since the eHS plans for the Stocklmier property are still in the development stage, it has not been
possible to integrate their design with the overall park plan. While we lack the funds to do the creek
work and construct the trail in the first phase, there is urgency for reaching agreement on the use of this
property and moving ahead with grant writing and permit application for this stretch of creek and traiL
We have learned through the hydrologic review that the concrete channel along the edge of the golf
course is failing and a sewer line lies behind the concrete armor. Loss of the bank stabilization could
cause significant damage to the sewer line and golf course.
The proposed project also includes restoration that would move the creek into the Stocklmier orchard,
but would retain the existing riparian vegetation currently on the west bank. The creek channel would be
re-routed to make the west bank the east bank. This restoration effort would preserve the habitat on the
west bank, provide an opportunity to create additional riparian habitat along the new channel bank and
convert the old eroding creek into a willow swale. The proposed realignment will widen the channel,
reconnecting the creek to the flood plane and reducing down-cutting of the creek bed. The downside is
that some orange trees will be lost and some ofthe land will be unavailable to CHS.
It is important for the trail to connect to Stevens Creek Blvd. as soon as possible. Delivering Blackberry
Farm bound busses to Stevens Creek Blvd. will be possible after the trail is completed, and students will
be able to access the picnic area via a short walk on the trail.
5
(G - S-
The trail alignment is planned to minimize impacts to adjacent property owners and mature oak trees.
The bridge is proposed to cross the creek in the vicinity of Stocklmeir Court; the trail can be constructed
more than 100 feet from the Meadows property line for most of the trail length.
Trail Alignment
The trail alignment has been most controversial through McClellan Ranch and months of testimony were
heard regarding the type of trail use. In the end, a compromise was made to construct a multiuse trail to
the far east side of the property, as far removed from the nature study path and creek corridor as possible.
Split rail fencing would be utilized at the fork in the trail to keep bike traffic from straying into the
riparian area. The purpose of the environmental review is not to second-guess this decision but to
evaluate its impact. No impacts were identified that would recommend that this decision change.
Simms Property Rental
The Council made the decision to rent this property at fair market value and not to use it as a caretaker
property. The revenue gained from this lease will help defray the maintenance and operation costs of
having a park in the corridor. We are making no changes to this property and, consequently are causing
no environmental impacts as a part of the proposed project.
Neighborhood Access
The City Council made the decision to close access to the park from Scenic Circle. Much comment has
been made that we have not adequately analyzed the safety consequences of this closure under CEQA.
However, since it was closed before the project started, we have no project related CEQA impacts.
Dogs
One aspect of the document that did not receive eouncil review, was use ofthe multi-purpose trail for
dog walking. Over the winter, staff spent time working out of the retreat center while the environmental
document was being drafted. Many residents use the corridor in the off season for walking - many with
dogs. It was proposed that dogs be allowed on the multi-use trail, but that they be restricted from
restoration areas. Staff recognizes that this will present an enforcement challenge, but cannot conceive
of opening the area to the community then prohibiting current users with dogs. Staff thought the
appropriate time to raise this issue was with the environmental review, not after the park is constructed.
CEQA comments received during the public comment period are summarized by category, in the
attached charts.
6
( & ~lo
CEQA Comments (summarized by category)
Breon, Craig
Eden, Joyce M.
Fry, Rhoda
Jamison, Deborah
Troetschler, Ruth
Walton, Joe and Faith
Parking Traffic Air Agriculture Noise ~~~~ Biology
Quality
. .' fr.
X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X
County of Santa Clara, Parks & Recreation Dept. yes
Meadows of CUpertir:lo _ .. m _ uu_____. _.m__n ____yes
Santa Clara Valley Audoboll ~o~iE!ty . .. .. yes
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority no
Santa Clara Valle Water District
X
X
X
X
X
Chen, Hugh no
Davis, Helene yes
Fable, Scott y~s X
----------- . ...--....--. -
Ferro, Nathalie Schuler yes X
--...-.------
Fry, Rhoda yes X
Grossman, Aaron, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail yes X
Hoxsie, Ronda yes X
Jamison, Deborah no
Kanter, Dr. Martha and Mr_ Carl Brown yes X
Kashyap, Lola yes. X
----------.....
Knapp, K. yes X
Kolb, Adrian yes X
Koski, May yes X
Lee, Simon yes X
Merkhofer, Jean Marie yes X
Montijo, Denise yes X
Ng, Anne ye~ . X
. . ___ ___no.
Oleas, Paul yes X
--. Orvick, Linda es X
6""""
I Stanek, Carol es X
-.)
X
Commenters b
Tsai, Alex
immers, Karen
CEQA
comments
no
es
Air Water Trail User Public Public
Parking Traffic Quality Quality Estimates Services Agriculture Noise Safety Biology
Butcher, Andy
Butcher, Audrey
Eden,Joyce
Foulkes, Mike
Fry, Rhoda
Griffin, Jennifer
Jamison, Deborah
KQI!iki, Jo~.~u
Levy, Robert
McKenna, Mark
Rau, Nicole
alton, Joe
. yes
no
yes
no
yes X X X
no
X
X
X
X
. yes
Yl3!>
no
no
no
X
x
X
Chien, Cary
Gieler, Lisa .
Miller, Marty
Saadati, Taghi
Won . Gilbert
no
yes
yes
no
x
X
X
X
Fry, Rhoda
Green!itein, . David
JaTl1ison ,ge_b()!ah
Levy, Bob & Louise
Ng, Anne
Scionti, David J.
Stanek, Carol
sai, Alex
no
. yes.
no
________ n_...__ _..
no
yes
no
x
X
X
X
Fre , Rhoda
Griffin, Jennifer
Le ,Bob
es
no
no
X
.
-.
<;--
\
C(l
CONCLUSION
A complete set of comments received is in your packet; the response to comments, prepared by our
CEQA consultant Thomas Reid Associates, is next in order. The findings of the environmental review,
as stated in the Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration include:
. The proposed project will provide recreational opportunities in the 60-acre Stevens Creek
Corridor Park. All significant impacts can be either avoided or reduced through the
implementation of mitigation measures.
. Design features of the project include mitigation measures and Best Management Practices
directly incorporated into the project description to either avoid, minimize or reduce
environmental effects to a level of less-than-significant and
The Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate document for the project.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Certify the Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for the Stevens Creek Corridor Project.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO elTY COUNCIL:
~JX-.jyVL--
Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director
Parks and Recreation Department
~Jw.~~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
7
1&-1
THOMAS
REI D ASSOCIATES
545 Middlefield Rd" Suite 200
Menlo Park, CA 94025 Fax:
www.traenviro.com
Tel: 650-327-0429
650-327 -4024
Environmental Impact Analysis . Ecological Studies . Resource Management
Memo
To:
Terry Greene, City Architect, City of Cupertino
Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Cupertino
Rachael Keish, Project Manager, HNTB
From:
Christine Schneider, TRA Project Manager
Subject:
Responses to CEQA comments generated during the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master
Plan and Restoration Plan Initial Study public review, April 28-May 30, 2006
Date:
June 13,2006
The City of Cupertino has prepared an Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration (ISIMND) for the
Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan. The City of Cupertino is the Lead Agency
for the project. The Santa Clara Valley Water District is a Responsible Agency for the project.
The findings for this project state that:
. The proposed project will provide enhanced riparian habitat for the federally-listed Steelhead
trout, and
. The project's negative effects can be avoided or reduced through the implementation of
mitigation measures as listed in the IS/MND.
The 30-day public review period for this ISIMND was from April 28, 2006 to May 28, 2006. Since May
28 fell on Memorial Weekend, the City extended the review period to the close of business on May 30,
2006.
Twelve members of the public provided comments at the City of Cupertino Planning Commission
meeting on May 23,2006. The Planning Commissioners also provided comments on the project. During
the 30-day public comment period, 3 agency letters, 2 letters from organizations, and 6 letters from the
public were received. In addition 22 comments were received on the City's website and eight emails
were received on the project. Lastly, three members of the public commented on the project at the
Environmental Review Committee meeting on May 10, 2006. A complete listing ofthe comment letters
or commenters (as appropriate) is listed in the table below.
There is no provision in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statues or Guidelines that
stipulates that a Lead Agency must respond to comments generated during the public comment period of
an ISIMND. Section 15074 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
"Prior to approving a project, the decisionmaking body of the lead agency (City of Cupertino City
Council) shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with
I ~ -fD
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 2
any comments received during the public review process. The decisionmaking body shall adopt the
proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis ofthe whole
record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial
evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agencyts independent judgment and
analys is. "
While the City of Cupertino may make findings without a formal response to every comment received
during the 30-day public review period, it is the City's intent to offer responses to those comments that
are substantive enough to merit a CEQA response. To this end, we have made master responses to
comments on the following eleven environmental issues:
I) Parking
A) Blue Pheasant Parking Lot
B) 17- Car Staging Area in Blackberry Farm
2) Traffic
A) Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety on McClellan Road
B) Mcclellan Road is Too Narrow In Places For Buses to Pass Bicyclists Safely
C) Bus Trips In and Out Of Blackberry Farm
D) Overall Increase in Traffic in Byrne Avenue Neighborhood And Roundtrips
3) Air Quality
A) Dust, Particulate Matter
B) Dioxins
4) Water Quality
A) Polluted Sediment
B) Golf Course Ponds (Also Addressed In Biology Below)
5) Trail & Park User Numbers
A) Trail User Numbers Underestimated
B) Park User Numbers Underestimated
6) Public Services
A) The Snack Stand Will Result in Additional Trash and Additional Vector Problems
B) Need For Increase in Patrol Because of Trail
7) Agriculture
A) Loss of95 Orchard Trees in Stocklmeir Orchard as a Result of Creek Realignment and
Trail
B) Impacts To Stocklmeir Orchard by Trait Bisecting It
C) Impacts To Stocklmeir Orchard by Creek Realignment
D) Impacts To Orchard if Trail Through Stocklmeir Not Implemented
8) Noise
A) Noise Associated With New Golf Course Maintenance Facility
B) Overall Increase in Noise, Construction Noise
9) Public Safety
A) Removal of Trees Along the San Fernando Entrance Which Protect the Nearby Homes
From Golf Balls
10) Biology
A.I) Minor Initial Study Clarifications
A.2) Species Occurrence Data/Biological Surveys
A.3) Dudley's Lousewort
B.l) Dogs, General Impacts
8.2) Dogs, Adaptive Management
C) Impacts to Mcclellan Ranch Meadow
D) Tree Loss/Mitigation
f~-U
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June /3, 2006
Page 3
E) Bat Impacts/Insect Problems
F) Wildlife Impacts Once Park Opened Year-Round
G) Impacts to Raptor Nest Trees
H) Off-Trail Impacts
I) Long-Term Mitigation Needed For Long-Term Biological Impacts
J) List Of Species Missed in Revegetation Plan and Species Missed During Surveys
K) Palm Trees
L) Golf Course Ponds
M) Bluebird Habitat At Old Orchard Area of Mcclellan Ranch
11) Appropriateness of an Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration for This Project
A) An EIR Should be Prepared for This Project Due to Conflicts With the Mcclellan Ranch
Master Plan, Ordinance 710 and Biological Impacts of The Project
B) An EIR Should Be Prepared Because of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts
This following table of commenters shows who commented, in what format, whether their comments
were CEQA-related and what section of the Response to Comments they can find a response to their
CEQA-related comments.
1&-/2-
Terry Greene and Therese Smith
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 4
Parking Traffic
Public
Services Agriculture Noise
Biology EIR
Breon, Craig yes
Eden, Joyce M. yes X X X X X X
Fry, Rhoda yes X X X X X X X X
Jamison, Deborah yes X X X X X X X
Troetschler, Ruth yes X
alton, Joe and Faith es
Countyof Santa_ Clara, Parks & Recreation Dept. ... - _..n.'.
Meadows of Cupertino I
Santa Clara Valley Audobon Society X I X
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority I
Santa Clara Valle Water District
Chen, Ijllgh_ . .un ..___ ...-----.. ..-.. -- .-....-.. -- -- - --------- .--. .-.-.---...-----.-
Qa...is. Helene yes X . .. . I .
Fable, Scott yes X I
Ferro, Nathalie Schuler yes X I
Fry, Rhoda yes X I X
Grossman, Aaron, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail yes X I
Hoxsie, Ronda yes X I
Jamis~n_,[)~!l9r~h _. no 1
Kanter, Dr. Martha and Mr. Carl Brown yes X I
Kashyap, Lola yes X I
Knapp, K. yes X I
Kolb, Adrian yes X I
Koski, May yes X I
Lee, Simon yes X I
Merkh<?f~!)~eaJ1 Marie yes X L
. ... .-- ...... ,.
Montijo, Denise yes X I
Ng, Anne yes X J
Oleas, Paul yes X I
_.
r;;- Orvick, Linda es X
I
-
V
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 5
Air Water Trail & Public Public
CEQA Parking Traffic Park User Agriculture Noise Biology EIR
Quality Quality Services Safety
Commenters b comments Estimates
Stanek, Carol es X
T sai, .e,ll;l)( no
Zimmers, Karen
Butcher, Andy yes
Butcher, Audrey no I
Ed~~,Joyce . yes X I
Fi)ulke.s,-Mike no I
. n_._.__......_n
Fry, R~C?cla__ yes X X X X X I
Griffin, Jennifer no I
Jamison, Deborah yes X X I
Kolski, John yes X I
Levy, Robert no I
McKenna, Mark no I
Rau,--I\licol~ no I
.. _._ n_.__. n . ----..-..-.. , -- -- ~. ~ --.-----
Walton, Joe es
Chien, Cary no
Giefer, Lisa X
Miller. Marty X X X
Saadati, Taghi
Won, Gilbert
Fry, Rhoda no
Greenstein. David yes X X
Jamison, Deborah no
Levy, Bob & Louise no
Ng, Anne yes X
Scionti.pavicJ J~ no
Stanek, Car91 yes X
Tsai, Alex no
- es X
i
-
~
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 6
CEQA Air Water Trail & Public
Parking Traffic Park User Public
Commenters by Category Quality Quality Agriculture Noise Biology EIR
comments Estimates Services Safety
Griffin, Jennifer no
Levy, Bob no
-
G'
1
--
'-'\
Terry Greene and Therese Smith
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 7
I. Responses to Comments
GENERAL COMMENT 1: Parking
tA) Blue Pheasant Parking Lot
Some commenters were concerned that the number of proposed spaces at the Blue Pheasant parking lot
will be inadequate to serve the project and may result in parking impacts in the Phar Lap neighborhood
and additional traffic impacts in the Byrne Ave. neighborhood as people are diverted to the Blackberry
Farm parking lot.
General Response lA:
Based on the parking study prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for the project (Appendix 0
of the Initial Study), it is projected that the demand for the Blue Pheasant parking lot on peak summer
days would require an additional 12 spaces. This amount takes into account the increased demand on the
parking lot as a result of the proposed trail and other features of the proposed project. People could park
at this lot to access the trail through the Stocklmeir property once it is constructed.
Based on the existing space for the parking lot including using the old frontage road, a total of nine spaces
will be added to the parking lot. This would be three short of the projected demand on peak summer
days. This is most likely to occur on the weekend when both golf course and trail users would be using
this parking lot. However, there are approximately 12 curbside spaces along Stevens Creek Boulevard
that could be utilized for this project. These 12 spaces would provide the additional spaces needed during
peak periods in the summer.
The Initial Study, on page 3-110, stated a sign would be placed atthe Blue Pheasant parking lot that
directed people to the Blackberry Farm parking lot if the Blue Pheasant parking lot was full. [n
consultation with the traffic consultant for the project, the implementation of a sign rerouting people to
Blackberry Farm for parking is not realistic because it would be hard for people to find their way to
Blackberry Farm from the Blue Pheasant parking lot if they are not familiar with the specific
neighborhood area. This would also result in additional traffic in the Byrne Ave. neighborhood.
As a result of these comments and response from the City of Cupertino's traffic consultant for this
project, the 3rd paragraph on page 3-110 ofthe Initial Study will be modified as follows: (Note that
~ shows text to be removed, and that underlined text shows new text). The following
change is also listed in Section II of this memo under Summary of Revisions to the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
"These summaries show that of the three parking areas, both the Central Parking Area and the Southern
Parking Area has adequate demand for both proposed and cumulative parking capacity, and the number of
additional spaces needed at the Northern Parking Area is 12. After consultation with the City of
Cupertino's Fire Marshal, it was determined that the Northern Parking Area could not accommodate the
additional 12 spaces and that the maximum new spaces allowed that can fit in this area is nine. These
nine spaces would be added to the Northern Parking Area as part of this project. However, this addition
of nine spaces is still three short of the projected 12 spaces needed. +heref-ore, as part ofthe-preposed
projeet, a sign would-be ereeted--at-the-Blue PheasaRt parkiRg let-that woulEklireet trail users to
Btael4Jerrj farm 'Nhere a Rew 17 ear stagiRg area would-be eORstfueted to accommodate trail users. Trail
. .
paRdflg lots would-be Of/eR year rouRd. With--tke-ehaRges l-isted-iR-#lis paragraph to the Northern Parking
Area, and-w#h-uti.JimtioR of..the new J.ets..-l.is.teere, no Rew impacts from iAadequate parldRg eapaeity
~There are approximately 12 curbside spaces along Stevens Creek Boulevard that could be
utilized for this project during heavy weekend times in the summer. when both the golf course and trail
((; -{ 0
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 8
users would be using this parking lot the most. These 12 spaces would provide the additional spaces
needed during these peak periods. Since the trail proiect would only contribute parking demand during
the day. the existing parking problems at night would not be affected by this proiect."
IB) .7-car staging area in Blackberry Farm
Some commenters felt that the 17-car staging area proposed in Blackberry Farm should be eliminated
since it causes impacts due to its location in the middle of the park. They felt that all the parking should
be consolidated in one area in the northern part of the park.
General Response IB:
The City Council directed that a separate parking lot be provided for trail/park users so that free access
would be accommodated during the 100-day season of Blackberry Farm operation. Therefore, the
Master Plan for the project proposes a separate 17-car staging area in the same area that up to 200 cars
now park for picnicking adjacent to the creek. Since this is replacing existing parking, and is greatly
reducing the size of the existing parking lot, no new environmental impacts related to the 17-car staging
area would be expected to occur.
GENERAL COMMENT 2: Traffic
2A) Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety on McClellan Road
Many comments were submitted expressing concern over the closure of the Scenic Circle access into
Blackberry Farm, the removal of the existing pedestrian bridge crossing the creek that local residents have
used.
General Response 2A:
The CEQA document prepared for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan
focuses on the physical impacts caused by the proposed project and the changes to existing conditions.
The decision by the Cupertino City Council to close off the Scenic Circle access into Blackberry Farm
was made separately from the proposed project, and is therefore considered an existing condition. This
closure is not part of the proposed project and thus is not being analyzed in the project's CEQA
document.
2B) McClellan Road is too Narrow in Places for Busses., to Pass Bicyclists Safely
Some commenters expressed concern over bicyclist safety along the narrow, up-hill portion of McClellan
Road, west of McClellan Ranch where Mira Vista intersects McClellan Road. The concern is that there is
not room for a bus to safely pass a slow moving bicyclist on this up-hill portion of road.
General Response 2B:
Table 4 in Traffic Report prepared for the project (Appendix D) shows that the project would result in a
weekday increase in traffic of approximately 1.4 percent for McClellan Rd. west of Byrne A venue and
approximately 5 percent on McClellan Road east of Byrne Ave. Some of this increase in traffic,
particularly on weekdays, would be school busses dropping school and camp groups off at McClellan
Ranch. Based on projected usage of McClellan Ranch after the environmental education classroom is
open, there would be up to 1-2 field trips a day which would result in 2-4 bus trips to McClellan Ranch.
The proposed change in traffic under the project would fall within the range of normal day-to-day
variation. The increase in park related traffic to McClellan Ranch is small in relation to the normal levels
of traffic on surrounding roads, therefore, project-related traffic would not significantly affect existing
safety issues along McClellan Road.
(& -/1
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 9
2C) Bus Trips In and Out of Blackberry Farm
Some commenters expressed concern over the number of bus trips reported in the traffic report (44
roundtrip busses), and that the project will result in an overall increase in traffic.
General Response 2C:
Page 3-104 of the Initial Study describes existing traffic volumes and how the traffic counts were taken
for the traffic impact analysis. The text states: "School and camp groups who currently use the facilities
at Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch travel to andfrom the site in school busses. The school busses
access Blackberr~ Farms using San Fernando Avenue. During the days when traffic counts were taken
(June 1 ~June 71') bus traffic rangedfrom 0 to 44 roundtrips at Blackberry Farms. The high number of
school busses on certain days was because the Farm was hosting an end of year school picnic."
Although the text notes that the 44 roundtrips for school buses was high, it is possible that this number of
busses could occur during other periods of peak use in the summer. Under the proposed project, existing
school and camp programs would continue at Blackberry Farms so the level of bus traffic into Blackberry
Farms would be similar to that experienced under existing conditions.
The environmental education programs offered at McClellan Ranch are expected to expand over time and
will result in more bus traffic on McClellan Road. This increase in bus traffic, along with regular
passenger vehicles, is minor (and listed in General Response 28). This amount reflected in the projected
increase in traffic volumes on McClellan Road stated in the Initial Study text and shown in Tables 1,3,
and 4 in the Traffic Report (Appendix D).
2D) Overall Increase in Traffic in Byrne Ave neighborhood and Roundtrips
Commenters stated that the project would result in an overall increase in traffic and were concerned about
specific roadway segments (Byrne and San Fernando Avenues) and the expected change in traffic.
Readers found the term "roundtrip" confusing.
General Response 2D:
The term "roundtrip" means one vehicle trip in and one vehicle out. For example, the 44 bus roundtrips
counted during the traffic counts consisted of 22 buses going into Blackberry Farms and 22 busses
leaving Blackberry Farm.
The proposed operational changes in Blackberry Farm will result in changes in the existing traffic
patterns associated with the facility. The Project Description ofthe Initial Study describes the operational
changes to Blackberry Farm in detail. Currently the park is open 100 days/year, from early May to late
September and it can serve a maximum of 4,000 people at the group picnic grounds and pool. The park is
closed to visitor use the remainder of the year (October to April). The existing main parking lot
accommodates up to 900 vehicles in festival style parking (parking stalls with no stripes outlining parking
stalls, meaning that cars can park closer together), and the parking area next to the softball complex can
accommodate up to 200 vehicles, for a total of I, I 00 spaces.
Under the proposed project, Stevens Creek Corridor Park would be open 365 days/year for trail use and
programs at the McClellan Ranch (no group picnics or swimming). The picnic grounds and pool would
be open the same 100 days as under current conditions. The picnic grounds will be greatly reduced in
capacity. Instead of serving a maximum of 4,000 people per day, the grounds will serve a maximum of
800 people per day. The main parking lot will be reduced in size so that it would accommodate 350-cars
instead of900 cars. The smaller lot in the central area of Blackberry Farm would be reduced from
accommodating 200 vehicles to 17 vehicles.
These changes in facility use result in changes in traffic patterns to the site and are described in the
Appendix A, Traffic Report. On page 9 of Appendix A, it is stated that "[t]he results indicate that on
16~( !
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 10
weekdays the planned change in park activities and the expected change in the number of participants will
cause a slight increase in traffic volumes on the roadways in the vicinity. The greatest increase is expected
for the segment of McClellan Road east of Byrne. At this location, average daily weekday traffic may
increase by a little less than five percent (less than 250 vehicles). All other study locations were projected
to experience lesser levels of increased traffic."
"The results for weekend days showed that there would generally be less traffic on most ofthe nearby
roadway segments. The expected decline in area traffic on weekend days is attributable to a significant
reduction in picnicking at Blackberry Farm. The most notable traffic reduction will occur on Byrne
Avenue. Reductions of more than 300 vehicles (15 to 20 percent) per weekend day are projected for the
segments of Byrne Avenue north and south of San Fernando Avenue. The expected change in traffic on
Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road is projected to be less due to slight increases in activity at
McClellan Ranch, the golf course and the Blue Pheasant Restaurant. Only the segment of McClellan
Road east of Byrne Avenue is projected to experience an increase in weekend traffic. Weekend day traffic
on this segment is projected to increase from about 4,705 to 4,766 daily vehicle trips. This represents a
1.3 percent increase in daily traffic."
GENERAL COMMENT 3: Air Quality Impacts
3A) Dust, Particulate Matter
A comment was raised about the air quality impacts to public health as a result of the project, the
measures taken to reduce dust/particulate matter and monitoring devices.
General Response 3A:
As stated in the Initial Study, page 3-10, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (the
air district in which Cupertino is located) is in attainment for all federal air quality standards except for
ozone, which the BAAQMD is designated a "marginal nonattainment" area. The designation of
"marginal nonattainment" is for those air quality districts that are currently in transition to becoming "an
attainment" area. Air districts must demonstrate no violations of the air quality standard for three
consecutive years before being designated an attainment area for that pollutant.
For State standards, page 3-10 also states that, the BAAQMD also exceeds State ambient air quality
standards for ozone and particulate matter (PMw and PM25) and that all other pollutants are designated as
"attainment" or "unclassified."
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1999) "The determination of significance with respect to
construction emissions should be based on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented....
If all the control measures indicated in Table 2 (as appropriate, depending on size ofthe project area) will
be implemented, then air pollutant emissions from construction activities would be considered a less than
significant impact."
The following Best Management Practices (BMPs)(from Table 2 ofthe BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines
1999) are mitigation measures already included in the project that would avoid potentially significant air
quality emissions (dust/particulate matter, in particular) during construction (as stated on page 2-25 and
again on page 3-]2 to 3-13 of the Initial Study):
.
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at
least two feet of freeboard.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
(~~(7
.
.
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page / /
· Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
· Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public
streets.
· Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded
areas inactive for 10 days or more).
· Enclose, cover, or water twice daily or apply (non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand, etc.).
. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
· Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
· Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,
pages 14 and 15).
If all of the above mentioned BMPs are included in the project, the "air pollutant emissions from
construction activities would be considered a less than significant impact (BAAQMD 1999)".
Installation of monitoring devices is not one of the recommended mitigation measures listed in the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Table 2 (1999) to avoid potentially significant impacts during construction.
While construction equipment emits carbon monoxide and ozone precursors, these emissions are included
in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans, and are not expected to impede
attainment or maintenance of ozone and carbon monoxide standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD 1999).
With respect to hazardous pollutants in the soil and dust/particulate matter, Page 3-63 of the Initial Study
states that "a search of the California Department of Toxic Substances Hazardous Waste and Substance
List (also known as the Cortese List) did not yield properties in the project area or in the immediate
vicinity. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-I as stated on Page 3-63 requires performance of "soil
testing for pesticide residue where major soil disturbance will occur (such as areas of the creek
realignment). If pesticides are detected, appropriate contaminated materials and handling protocol prior
to and during any soil disturbance would be followed." The portions of the creek realignment that pass
through former agricultural areas (i.e., at the Stocklmeir property) where based on past practice, pesticides
may be encountered will be tested during design for that portion of the project.
3D) Dioxins
One of the commenters was concerned about exposure to dioxins as a result of the project.
General Response 3D:
The proposed project will not result in a substantial additional exposure to dioxins. According to the
EP A, the major sources of dioxin are: trash bum barrels; land application of sewage sludge, coal fired
utilities, residential wood burning, metal smelting, and diesel trucks.
Busses, which generally run on diesel fuel, currently come in and out of Blackberry Farm and also drop
offkids at Linda Vista Dr. to go on field trips to McClellan Ranch. The amount of busses coming into
Blackberry Farm would not change as a result of the proposed project. There will be additional busses
dropping off students at McClellan Ranch once the environmental education classroom is open, but this is
on the order of 2-4 bus trips a day based on 1-2 field trips a day. Improvement in current bus operation
will occur when the proposed trail is connected to Stevens Creek Boulevard. This would improve the
current bus traffic situation on San Fernando, as children could be dropped off on Stevens Creek
Boulevard and walk the short distance to Blackberry Farm. Therefore, the proposed project would not
produce additional dioxins such that would create a significant health impact.
GENERAL COMMENT 4: Water Quality
{~.-16
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June /3, 2006
Page /2
4A) Polluted Sediment
One commenter was concerned about the handling and exposure of potentially polluted sediment in the
creek.
General Response 4A:
With respect to handling and exposure of polluted sediment in the creek disturbed by project activities,
abandoned creek channels would be backfilled, leaving all the sediment in place. The air quality BMPs
listed in Response 3A above would minimize air quality emissions in areas where in-stream features
would be removed from the existing creek bed (i.e. low flow vehicle crossings, removal and/or
replacement of existing pedestrian bridges).
In addition, the following three stream maintenance BMPs would be incorporated into the project (All
BMPs are listed in Appendix A of Initial Study).
3.17 Reuse Sediments and Gravels As Appropriate
Where practical, the District will reuse removed sediments and gravels. Sediments that are considered for
re-use will be tested for hazardous materials and graded for structure as necessary in order to determine
their appropriateness for re-use and consistency with BMPs 1.3 and 3.16. When sediments or gravels are
reused, the District will ensure that the reuse does not cause any additional erosion, siltation, or other
negative environmental consequences. Reuse will be considered within the context of environmental,
regulatory, and fiscal consequences.
HM-12 Hazardous Materials Management
Measures shall be implemented to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled and the quality of
water resources is protected by all reasonable means.
I. Prior to entering the work site, all field personnel shall know how to respond when toxic
materials are discovered.
2. The discharge of any hazardous or non-hazardous waste as defined in Division 2, Subdivision 1,
Chapter 2 of the California Code of Regulations shall be conducted in accordance with applicable
State and federal regulations.
WQ-4: Handle Sediments so as to Minimize Water Quality Impacts
Sediments shall be stored and transported in a manner that minimizes water quality impacts.
1. Wet sediments may be stockpiled outside of a live stream or may be stockpiled within a
dewatered stream so water can drain or evaporate before removal.
2. This measure applies to saturated, not damp, sediments and depends upon the availability of a
stockpile site.
3. For those stockpiles located outside the channel, water draining from them will not be allowed to
flow back into the creek or into local storm drains that enter the creek, unless water quality
protection measures recommended by the R WQCB are implemented.
4. Trucks may be lined with an impervious material (e.g. plastic), or the tail gate blocked with dry
dirt or hay bales, for example, or trucks may drain excess water by slightly tilting their loads and
allowing the water to drain out.
5. Water shall not drain directly into channels (outside of the work area) or onto public streets
without providing water quality control measures.
6. Streets shall be cleared of mud and/or dirt by street sweeping (with a water sweeper), as
necessary, and not by hosing down the street.
I ~-11
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 13
4B) Golf Course Ponds
One commenter was concerned about polluted golf course pond water spilling into the creek.
General Response 4B:
The Blackberry Farm Golf Course is subject to water quality regulations as well as regulations that
govern the use of pesticides and fertilizers (California Department of Pesticide Regulations). There are
strict regulations on the use of pesticides, particularly when use is adjacent to or near a water body_ Such
regulations affect the timing and type of application, buffer zones, weather conditions, materials allowed
to be used, etc. These requirements will not change as a result of the project. Any violations of water
quality or pesticide regulations would be subject to enforcement by the regulatory agency. In addition,
the location or operation of the golf course ponds would not change as a result of the project; this
condition would remain, with or without the project.
GENERAL COMMENT 5: Trail & Park User Numbers
SA) Trail User Numbers Underestimated
Some commenters suggested that trail user estimates were too low and did not consider the possible
extension of the trail to Linda Vista Park and Stevens Creek County Park should the old quarry haul road
(private property) and closed quarry (private property) ever become available for public trail use.
General Response SA:
The trail user estimates were developed by comparing the trail setting in Cupertino (primarily residential
neighborhood with potential to connect to a long distance trail) to other trails in the San Francisco Bay
area and then applying actual trail counts from existing trails in similar settings to the proposed Stevens
Creek Trail. The proposed I. IS-mile trail extending through the Stevens Creek Corridor Park will serve
local residents interested in nature observation, exercise and relaxation. The project site is surrounded by
single-family residential neighborhoods. In the future connect this trail may connect to one other
neighborhood park, Linda Vista Park, and possibly to a regional park, Stevens Creek County Park. Linda
Vista Park is located only 0.30 mile from the southern terminus of the proposed trail. Since the total
length of trail to connect to Linda Vista Park is only 0.30 mile, this extension would not significantly
lengthen the proposed Stevens Creek Corridor Park trail. The possible future trail extension would appeal
to a similar user group, residents ofthe local neighborhood.
In the future, it is possible that the trail may extend beyond Linda Vista Park through a closed quarry
(private property) to Stevens Creek County Park. If a trail were extended all the way to Stevens Creek
County Park, it would only attract trail users who are willing to travel on steep trails across exposed
quarry slopes(more than 15% grade throughout the length of the trail. It is anticipated that this user group
would be relatively small due to the limiting conditions of the quarry terrain.
The proposed Stevens Creek Corridor trail usage was compared to four existing trails in the area: I) the
existing Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View, which is a regional trail with direct connections to
CalTrain, Light Rail, large employment centers and residential neighborhoods; 2) San Francisco Bay
Trail in Redwood Shores, a regional trail in a residential area, 3) San Francisco Bay Trail at Shoreline At
Mountain View, a regional park located along two developed regional trails systems and 4) San Francisco
Bay Trail at Bothin Marsh in Mill Valley, a regional trail linking residential neighborhoods to shopping
centers and the bay shoreline. Actual trail survey data for all four sites were reviewed when projecting
trail use in the Stevens Creek Corridor Park. Peak weekend trail use in Downtown Mountain View (listed
as Trail #1 above) was 100-trail users/hour; at Mountain View At Shoreline regional park (listed as Trail
#3 above) was 68-trail userslhour; at Bothin Marsh (listed as Trail #4 above) was 206 trail users/hour; and
at Redwood Shores (listed as Trail #2 above) was 15 trail userslhour.
The Redwood Shores trail setting most closely approximates the Stevens Creek Corridor Park trail
setting. Thus, the peak weekend trail use at Redwood Shores was multiplied by the peak number of trail l'
It - L'L
Response to Comments
City o/Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page /4
use hours (during peak daylight hours) to arrive at 200 trail users per hour. Typically, peak user hours
occur only a few hours a day (during the "peak times"), but in our estimate this peak number was
assumed for the entire day, to derive "worst-case" usage numbers.
The trail user estimate in the Initial Study uses peak estimates of users and peak hours for the full 365
day/year to arrive at a trail user estimate of 73,OOO/year. Under the proposed project, Stevens Creek
Corridor Park would be open 365 days/year for trail use and programs at the McClellan Ranch nature
center (no group picnics or swimming). The picnic grounds and pool would be open the same 100 days
as under current conditions. So, while the trail user numbers are high, the use of peak estimates was an
effort to capture potential future uses should the trail be extended. In addition, the trail user estimate was
also expanded to capture McClellan Ranch educational activities (7,500 additional users/year) and
Blackberry Farm picnic users (8,500 additional users/year) that might also take advantage of the traiL
The estimate in the Initial Study therefore uses peak hour estimates and includes other additional uses to
arrive at 89,000 users per year (73,000 trail users +7,500 McClellan Ranch users who could walk the trail,
+ 8,500 picnic users who could walk the trail == 89,000 trail users per year).
5B) Park User Numbers Underestimated
One commenter suggested that Blackberry Farm park use would double with the addition of the trail.
General Response 5B:
The current permitted picnic use is 4,000 people/day/l 00 days per season totaling 400,000 picnic
visitors/100-day season. The actual picnic use is approximately 95,000 picnic visitors/season. Weekday
use averages 350 people/per day. Weekend use is significantly higher with peak days between 2,000 and
4,000 users. The total picnic season use estimate of95,000 picnic visitors/season does not include casual
visitors to the park the remaining 265 days/year nor does it include activities centered around McClellan
Ranch.
The new permitted picnic use will be 80,000 visitors/l OO-day season. However, just as the actual use
today does not meet the permitted use, it is anticipated that the actual use will be less. The market seems
to bear an average of 350 peoplelday on weekdays and weekend use will now be capped at 800
people/day. Applying these actual use numbers would indicated that Blackberry Farm new use would be
44,900 picnic visitors/season (350 visitors x 78 weekdays == 27,300 plus 800 visitors x 22 weekends or
holidays = 17,600 == 44,900 picnic visitors/season). In addition, one might anticipate that weekday may
rise slightly due to the park improvements. Thus, the new actual picnic use might approximate 50,000
visitors/IOO-day season.
As indicated above in Comment Sa, the projected trail use numbers were calculated using peak estimates
of users and peak hours of daylight for the full 365 day/year to arrive at a trail user estimate that might be
observed if and when the trail is extend to Linda Vista Park and Stevens Creek County Park. The trail
user estimates represent potential maximum usage numbers. It is extremely unlikely that this level of trail
use will actually occur. Even if one half of this new trail use, 36,500 trail users/year, and the projected
picnic use of 50,000 people/season was observed than the total new use would be 86,500 visitors/year.
The use would also be dispersed throughout the corridor.
GENERAL COMMENT 6: Public Services
6A) The snack stand will result in additional trash and additional vector problem
Some commenters were concerned that the addition of a snack stand window for trail users will result in
additional trash and an additional vector problem for the park.
{~-2J
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page /5
General Response 6A:
Currently there is an existing snack bar with a window that opens towards the pool. The project proposes
adding an outside window so that people using the trail and park can purchase snacks without having to
enter the pool area. It is not a new snack facility, it is just a new window. This will probably result in
additional trash from the trail and park users, however there will be trash receptacles located throughout
the park and along the trail.
Blackberry Farm has had problems in the past with trash accumulating because garbage used to be picked
up the day after a large picnic event. However, Blackberry Farm has resolved its' garbage management
issues by removing the garbage by the end of the day of operation and has implemented a plan of
emptying cans throughout the day.
68) Need for increase in patrol because of trail
One commenter raised the issue of the trail needing more patrol once it is open to the public.
General Response 68:
According to the Initial Study, page 3-97: "The Santa Clara County Sheriff Department provides police
patrol services, criminal investigation, traffic enforcement, accident investigation and tactical teams for
the City of Cupertino. The project could potentially increase the need for police protection services
because the trail would be located in areas not previously open to the public (eg. Stocklmeir property).
However, this would not result in the need for new police facilities to be constructed. The City proposes
to hire a City Parks Service Officer to patrol the park and trail, which would offset the potential increase
in need of police protection services.
In order to ensure a safe design of the trail, the project would incorporate the following Design Guideline
from the Santa Clara County Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use and Management Guidelines
(1999):
UD - 2.5 Sight Distance: Clearing widths and trail curvature design should be provided to assure
an optimum 100-foot (30.4 m) average sight distance where possible. If sight distance on curves,
around hills or through densely vegetated areas are less than 100 feet (30.4 m), safety signs and
reduced speed limits should be considered."
The City of Cupertino has examined the maintenance and park patrolling issue and has anticipated
providing 84 hours/week of Park Service Officer time to provide for patrol, operation and maintenance
along the corridor. Park Service Officers will combine light duty maintenance activity with code
enforcement responsibilities. This plan will ensure that patrols will be done at the park on a regular basis.
GENERAL COMMENT 7: Agriculture
7 A) Loss of 95 orchard trees in Stocklmeir orcbard as a result of creek realignment and trail
Many commenters were concerned about the loss of 95 trees at the Stocklmeir orchard as a result ofthe
proposed trail and creek realignment.
General Response 7 A:
According to the Initial Study, page 3-8: "Approximately 95 orchard trees would be lost to accommodate
the proposed creek realignment and trail. There is a total of 175 orchard trees consisting of 144 orange
trees and 31 other orchard trees (walnut, loquat, olive, lemon and tangerine) in the orchard, thus
approximately 54% of the orchard would be removed. The orange orchard, for the most part, is in good
condition and is still productive. However, the orchard is not currently maintained and could benefit from
regular fertilizing and mulching. Some trees are past their prime or are dying. As much of the existing
1'- z.-Lt
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page J 6
orchard (80 trees) would be retained as possible and would be actively maintained by the City to prevent
further loss of orchard trees. Service groups would still be able to harvest oranges for food bank
organizations from the remaining trees.
Historically, citrus orchards were not the main type of orchard in Santa Clara Valley, as stone fruits were
more predominant orchard type (e.g. plums, apricots, cherries). The orange orchard was a hobby orchard
planted by Mr. Stocklmeir. The loss of some of the orchard trees is not considered a significant impact
under CEQA."
It should also be noted that the orange orchard was planted in the I 980s and prior to that, was historically
a commercial walnut orchard (Cupertino Courier April 27, 2005). Some people have referenced this
orchard as a "heritage" orchard. The Cupertino heritage tree ordinance considers "heritage" trees to
include, "any tree or grove of trees which, because of factors including, but not limited to it's historic
value, unique quality, girth, height, or species, has been found by the Architectural and Site Approval
Committee to have a special significance to the community." The Cupertino Architectural Site Approval
Committee has not designated the Stocklmeir orchard as "heritage."
7B) Impacts to Stocklmeir Orchard by Trail Bisecting It
Several commenters were concerned that the Stocklmeir orchard would be impacted by the proposed trail
bisecting the orchard. One of the concerns raised was that by increasing the margins of the orchard, there
could be an increase in pests and disease of the trees adjacent to the trail. Another concern is that
impacting the ground cuts off the natural water supply from the surface and cuts off the air supply to the
trees.
General Response 78:
The proposed trail would result in the removal of 5 orange trees and would also bisect the orchard by
traveling through it rather than around it. While it is possible that by increasing the margins ofthe
orchard could result in additional pests and disease of the trees, which could then in turn result in more
trees being lost, the orchard which is not currently maintained will be more actively maintained as part of
the project. This includes regular fertilizing and mulching. According to the Initial Study, page 3-8: "As
much ofthe existing orchard (80 trees) would be retained as possible and would be actively maintained
by the City to prevent further loss of orchard trees. Service groups would still be able to harvest oranges
for food bank organizations from the remaining trees.
Historically, citrus orchards were not the main type of orchard in Santa Clara Valley, as stone fruits were
more predominant orchard type (e.g. plums, apricots, cherries). The orange orchard was a hobby orchard
planted by Mr. Stocklmeir. The loss of some of the orchard trees is not considered a significant impact
under CEQA."
7C) Impacts to Stocklmeir Orchard by creek realignment
One commenter was concerned that the creek realignment will result in additional Oak root fungus
spreading to the orchard. According to the commenter, Oak root fungus is in the ground at the Stocklmeir
property and that it needs soil moisture to survive. By disturbing the soil for the creek realignment, the
fungus could spread to the orchard. The commenter stated that Oak root fungus does not affect orange
and walnut trees but does affect apricot and prune trees.
General Response 7C:
As the commenter acknowledged, oak root fungus does not affect orange trees, therefore, it should not
affect the existing orange orchard. However, there are 31 other trees on the property including walnut,
loquat, olive, lemon and tangerine. The Oak root fungus could spread to some ofthese trees that are not
resistant. Since it could affect the other trees on the property, these trees could be lost if indeed the oak
root fungus is spread as a result of the project. However, the potential loss of these trees is still not
considered a significant impact under CEQA. , ~ _ '1)
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 17
7D) Impacts to Orchard if trail through Stocklmeir not implemented
One of the commenters stated implementing the trail through the Stocklmeir orchard at a later phase as
proposed in the Master Plan would result in potential impacts to the Stocklmeir site resulting from
undirected and uncontrolled access.
General Response 7D:
The trail would be implemented in phases as funding becomes available. If the trail is implemented in
different phases, the trail would be closed off at the end of each completed segment until the final phase
can be constructed. Therefore, no impacts to the Stocklmeir orchard would occur.
GENERAL COMMENT 8: Noise
8A) Noise associated with new golf maintenance facility
One commenter was concerned about the noise associated with moving the golf maintenance facility
closer to nearby homes.
General Response SA:
Two maintenance yards will be removed and replaced by the proposed action. The Blackberry Farm park
maintenance facility near the terminus of San Fernando Avenue and San Fernando Court would be
removed and replaced at its current location. The types of activities occurring at or from this maintenance
facility would not change as a result of the project.
The Blackberry Farm Golf Course maintenance facility, currently located on the east bank of Stevens
Creek, would be removed and relocated further from the creek,just north of the existing conference
center. The golf course maintenance facility would be moved to reduce the incidence and risk of
flooding, and would consequently result in placing the maintenance facility closer to homes on San
Fernando Avenue.
The Blackberry Farm Golf Course maintenance facility is for the most part a storage area for supplies and
equipment. Most of the work activity is performed on the golf course itself and is therefore is an existing
condition that would not change as a result of the project. Repair of equipment occurs as needed. The
new golf course maintenance building is proposed to be 3 times larger than the one that currently exists,
with 3,000 sq. feet of indoor space and 2,000 square feet outside. This will allow for equipment repairs to
be done inside the building. Employees spend minimal time at the maintenance facility, mostly just to
retrieve supplies needed to work on the golf course. On any given day there are between 2 and 4
employees who park at and work from the maintenance facility.
The golf course maintenance building will house turf equipment, i.e. lawn mowers, golf carts, aerator,
tractor, blowers, rakes and hand tools. Gasoline, oil and fertilizers are also stored but are kept in Fire
Department approved containers. The outdoor portion of the golf course maintenance yard will store sand
and compost.
The hours of operation at the Blackberry Farm golf course maintenance facility are generally between
6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Mondays thru Fridays and 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.
While the maintenance facility will be located closer to nearby homes, any noise associated with golf
course maintenance is subject to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 10.48.051 Landscape Maintenance
Activities (provided below, including referenced Section 10.48.040 Daytime and Nighttime Maximum
Noise Levels.
l ~ -2~
Response to Comments
City ojCupertino
June /3, 2006
Page 18
10.48.051 Landscape Maintenance Activities.
The use of motorized equipment for landscape maintenance activities shall be limited to the hours
of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays, with the
exception of landscape maintenance activities for public schools, public and private golf courses, and
public facilities, which are allowed to begin at 7:00 a.m. The use of motorized equipment for landscape
maintenance activities during these hours is exempted from the limits of Section 10.48.040; provided, that
reasonable efforts are made by the user to minimize the disturbances to nearby residents by, for example,
installation of appropriate mufflers or noise baffles, running equipment only the minimal period
necessary, and locating equipment so as to generate minimum noise levels on adjoining properties. (Ord.
1921, (part), 2003; Ord. 1871, (part), 200 I)
10.48.040 Daytime and Nighttime Maximum Noise Levels.
Individual noise sources, or the combination of a group of noise sources located on the same
property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding those specified on property zoned as follows, unless
specifically provided in another section of this chapter:
Land Use at Maximum Noise
Point of Level at Complaint
Origin Site of Receiving
Property
Nighttime Daytime
Residential 50 dBA 60 dBA
Nonresidential 55 dBA 65 dBA
8B) Overall increase in noiset construction noise
Some of the commenters were concerned about an overall increase in noise once the park opens year
round. There was also concern regarding what days of the week that construction will take place.
General Response 88:
Residences along streets that access parking lots for the park may experience slightly elevated noise
levels as a result of opening the park year round as a neighborhood park. The year round use of Stevens
Creek Park would include passive recreational uses including walking, jogging, bicycling, along the trail.
These uses are not considered to significantly alter the existing ambient noise level currently at the park
on non-picnic use days nor is it anticipated to result in noise levels in excess of those stated in applicable
Cupertino Municipal Code Sections (see Response 8A above).
Regarding construction timing, construction will be limited to Monday through Friday to the maximum
extent feasible. However, certain operations may require work on weekends to avoid high traffic
weekday period (such as schooVcommute times) or meet external regulatory agency deadlines, such as
those for biological resources in the stream zone. Permission to work on weekends will be given by the
City on a case by case basis depending on the construction operation. Community outreach will notify
residents of modified hours, when feasible. In addition to the City's noise codes as listed above, the
project would also need to comply with Cupertino Municipal Code Section 10.48.053 Grading,
Construction and Demolition (as stated on page 3-92 of the Initial Study).
{~- 27
Response to Comments
City a/Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 19
GENERAL COMMENT 9: Public Safety
9A) Removal of trees along the San Fernando entrance which protect the nearby houses from golf
balls.
Some commenters were concerned that removal of trees along the San Fernando entrance to Blackberry
Fann will be a safety impact because these trees protect the nearby houses from golf balls.
General Response 9A:
The homes along San Fernando Ave are protected from golfballs by a fence. The trees that are proposed
for removal as a result of a 4-foot wide boardwalk along San Fernando Ave. are close to the parking lot
for the conference center. They do not provide protection from golf balls. In addition, trees on the
southern side of San Fernando Ave will remain. Figures 4 and 12 of the Initial Study show which trees
will need to be removed as a result of the proposed boardwalk near the conference center.
GENERAL COMMENT 10: Biology
lOA.l) Minor Initial Study Clarifications
One ofthe commenters pointed out some minor discrepancies in the Initial Study.
General Response lOA.l:
The Initial Study will be modified to correct these discrepancies as follows. Note that ~
shows text to be removed, and that underlined text shows new text.
Page 3-5, paragraph 3 shall be modified as follows:
As a result of the creek realignment, some mature trees may be removed and some trees may perish from
relocation of their water source. The majority oftrees impacted by the creek realignment are in the
vicinity of the Horseshoe Bend picnic area and the group picnic and large parking area of Blackberry
Farm and on the Stocklmeir property. As part of the construction documentation process, ~
ereek--design refiRements wettld-be reviewed-by a soils seientist and an arborist aertified by the
International Soeiety of ArbarieHlture or the ,A.mariaan Soeiety of CORsHlting .A.rborists investig.ations by
a soils scientist and an arborist will influence trail and creek design refinements to minimize tree loss.
Page 3-15 - Checklist box 3.4.b "Less Than Significant with Mitigation" will be checked. "Less Than
Significant" will be unchecked.
Page 3-15 - Checklist box 3.4.c "Less Than Significant" will be checked. "Less Than Significant with
Mitigation" will be unchecked.
10A.2) Species Occurrence Data/Biological Surveys
Comments were made regarding the data collected and plants to be used during the restoration work.
These comments will be incorporated into the text of the document.
General Response 10A.2:
The following underlined text will be added to Page 3-17, paragraph 3:
A search ofthe California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (Version 3.0.5. updated
~ptember 2005) and the California Native Plant Society On-line Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants resulted in a total of eight special-status plants documented within a 5-mile
radius of the project site. All of these plants are listed by the California Native Plant Society as
1 B which means they are rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. Table 3-1
lists the eight plants species and their potential to be found within the project site.
1~-2i
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 20
The following underlined text will be added to Page 3-42, number 3:
3. The Plant Selection Criteria, Planting Techniques, Maintenance, and MonitoringlReporting
protocols prescribed by the "Protocol for Revegetation Associated with Bank Protection"
(Appendix E ofthe SMP) shall be implemented, as applicable to tree replacement. Local natives
(i.e. native plants grown from propagules and collected from wild parent plants growing as close
to the proiect as possible and within the Stevens Creek Watershed) grown from onsite sources are
preferable to larger container grown stock which is typically not local.
lOA.3) Dudley's Lousewort
Several comments were made regarding rare plant survey and occurrences within the project area.
Changes will be made to the document to reflect these comments.
General Response lOA.3:
The following text changes will revise the 4th paragraph on Page 3-17:
Surveys were not conducted for plants documented as having no potential to be found on the
project site due to the absence of suitable habitat. Therefore. surveys were only conducted for the
two rare plants. western leatherwood (Dirca occidenta/is) and Dudley's lousewort (Pedicularis
dudlevi). that were determined to have low potential to be found on site. These rare plants were
not found during the three field surveys conducted on the site. One of the field surveys was
completed in February 2005 to determine presence during the blooming period of western
leatherwood. No field surveys were done during the blooming period of the Dudley's lousewort.
However. surveys were completed during the time plant foliage would be visible. beeause it is
extremely rare it Dudley's lousewort is known from fewer than 15 occurrences and its closet
occurrence is at Portola State Park which is over 5 miles west ofthe project site. This species is
most likely to occur in more coastal areas under stands of redwood trees (Core iii, pers. comm.).
Although there are some redwood trees at Blackberry Farm, they are not native to the site and
there is no understory associated with these trees. Therefore, habitat types present on site were
detennined unlikely to support Dudley's lousewort. Further, Jeffrey Caldwell, a local botanist
who has hiked and documented plant species within the Corridor for over twenty years, has never
encountered Dudley's lousewort on site (Caldwell, pers. comm.).
The following ~ text will be deleted from Page 3-27, Item 3:
As documented in Table 3-1 and discussed above, there are only two special-status plant species
that could potentially be present within the project site. These are western leatherwood and
Dudley's lousewort, which are listed as IB by the California Native Plant Society. As stated
above, neither plant was found. Since no special status plant species .
Pualey's IOl:lsewort were found within the Stevens Creek Corridor, no significant impacts to these
special status plant species are expected.
The following underlined text will be added to Page 3-18, Table 3-1:
Dudley's CNPS List April- Chaparral (maritime), cismontane Very low
lousewort IB June woodland, North Coast coniferous potential.
(Pedicularis forest, valley and foothill grassland, Habitat unlikely
dudleyi) State: elevation 60-900 meters. to support this
Rare specIes.
Surveyed
during growing
period and not
detected.
1~-2tt
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 2 J
Some misinformation is presented in the summary for the Rare Plant and Botanical Surveys within
Appendix B: Biotic Reports. Page 1.5, item 5 states that "the potential habitat on site for Dudley's
lousewort was surveyed during its flowering period in the winter/spring 2005 but was not detected."
Surveys conducted for rare plants within the study area were not completed during the bloom period for
Dudley's lousewort but were conducted during the time of year when the plant is visible and therefore,
this plant would have likely been detected if present.
No specific Best Management Plan was prepared for the potential presence of Dudley's lousewort within
the project area because it was not found. However, BMP 3.1 Minimize Impacts to Special Status Plants
and Animals Via Site Assessments and Avoidance Measures as stated in Appendix A provides another
opportunity for biological staff working on the construction phase of the project to reevaluate potential
presence for Dudley's lousewort. In the unlikely event that it is still determined to have potential to be
present within the study area and it is found in subsequent pre-construction surveys, BMP 3.1 will
provide a means to prevent impacts to this species.
108.1) Dogst General Impacts
Several commenters voiced concern about allowing dogs in the corridor and questioned how the presence
of dogs would impact wildlife. Some commenters felt that introducing dogs to an area where they were
formerly not allowed would result in dogs running off-leash and roaming around in wildlife areas.
General Response 10B.l:
According to the project description, leashed dogs would be allowed only on the proposed multi-use trail,
but not elsewhere in McClellan Ranch Park or Blackberry Farm. Dogs would not be allowed in the picnic
areas in Blackberry Farm or on the nature trail in McClellan Ranch Park. Dog owners that have dogs off-
leash would be subject to fines and/or expulsion from the Park.
If dogs are kept on leash and are restricted to the multi-use trail only, conflicts with wildlife should be
minimal. The wildlife in the area have been habituated to an urban setting and are not expected to be
additionally stressed or harmed due to the presence of leashed dogs on the trail (see below regarding
unauthorized use of the park by dogs). The trail will be separated from native areas by low fences and
shrubs; and barriers will be placed between it and the adjacent nature trail in McClellan Ranch Park to
discourage encroachment into the nature area.
Since use of the trail is restricted to daylight hours nocturnal wildlife species should not be affected by
dogs.
10B.2) Dogs, Adaptive Management
Commenters also questioned the ability of the City to enforce the leash law and felt that additional
measures would be warranted to maintain a high level of compliance. There was some skepticism as to
how the City would use adaptive management to manage dogs in the Park.
General Response 10B.2:
Blackberry Farm has been closed in the winter with little or no patrol, and apparently the public
informally and routinely walk/run their dogs off-leash in the area. Currently, off-leash dogs are
frequently seen in the creek and even at McClellan Ranch. The formalization of dog use at the Park is
considered to be an improvement to the current situation and the year round access to the Park will assure
that City of Cupertino enforcement personnel would be more present and would be able to educate dog
owners to the fact that dogs are allowed only on the new trail and then only with a leash. See also
Response to Master Comment 6B above for a discussion about increased patrol through the corridor.
In designing the Master Plan, the City has attempted to balance the needs of different public interests.
The restoration plan and availability of wildlife habitat is an important component of the project.
( ~ - 3D
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 22
However there is also a very strong constituency that wants to use the trail for walking their dogs. At this
point, the City believes it can manage the park to allow both leashed dogs and maintain use of the habitat
by wildlife. The public can and should inform the City if and when they notice illegal use of the park by
dog owners. This would assist the City in determining which adaptive management strategies to employ
to assist in obtaining better compliance. Also this can assist the City in finding habitual violators of the
dog laws, and can work towards solutions that bring these violators into compliance.
toC) Impacts to McClellan Ranch Meadow
There was concern raised that eliminating garden plots in McClellan Ranch to accommodate the multi-use
trail will result in the loss of an existing open meadow/ savannah habitat that is important for certain
wildlife.
General Response tOC: Impacts to McClellan Ranch Meadow
In designing the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, the City worked to consider the needs of all the
various user groups and all members of the public. In attempting to provide benefits to all the groups and
public, the City had to make hard decisions about what existing resource elements had to be compromised
to prepare a plan that balanced the various interests. In doing so, it seemed that the best solution
concerning the meadow at McClellan Ranch would be to reduce a small area of meadow habitat. This
loss of habitat is 11,092 square feet, or roughly 4% of the overall meadow size. Although the loss of the
meadow is perceived as negative to certain members of the public, the loss of this existing habitat type is
not considered a significant impact under CEQA as the impact is very small. In addition, the benefits of
the overall restoration program on native habitat (including increasing meadow habitat functions and
values by reducing nonnative plants and replacing them with natives) within the Stevens Creek Corridor
far outweigh the small loss of this habitat in the area adjacent to the existing community garden beds.
10D) Tree Loss/Mitigation
Removal of trees in the orchard is unacceptable and the replacement of native trees would not be effective
for several years. Mitigation for the loss of native oaks and other heritage trees is unacceptable as the
trees replaced are so small.
General Response 10D: Tree Loss/Mitigation
Unfortunately, there will be some trees that will be lost due to project implementation. In particular, a
portion of the Stocklmeir orchard will be removed for creek restoration. However, the project was
carefully designed to reduce tree loss, and overall, the loss of trees is small and will be mitigated to
acceptable CEQA standards by planting additional trees pursuant to both City of Cupertino and California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) standards.
In addition to the loss of95 orchard trees, 37 native trees including 13 specimen size trees would be
removed to accommodate project construction. It is true that the new trees will take time to mature and so
the mitigation value is a future value. Overall, under CEQA the impact with mitigation is not considered
significant as the project area supports more than 1,000 trees of varying species and size.
10E) Bat Impacts/Insect Problems
The commenter was concerned that loss of bats would result in a proliferation of insects, particularly
mosquitoes that may carry West Nile virus.
General Response 10E: Bat Impacts/Insect Problems
The mitigation measures identified on page 3-25 in the Initial Study (pre-construction surveys, protecting
roost trees with buffers, timing construction during non maternity season, etc.) would reduce impacts on
bats to insignificant levels. Therefore, it is not expected that the project would result in a significant loss
in the bat population utilizing the area. [n fact, the improvements made to the creek and associated
f&-31
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 23
habitat enhancement would likely encourage more bats to roost in the area by providing improved
foraging habitat for the bats.
10F) Wildlife Impacts Onee Park Opened Year-round
Some commenters felt that it was inappropriate to remove the winter closure at Blackberry Farm as this
would affect wildlife. In addition, there was a concern raised about the need to allow restored habitat to
mature before allowing public use of the portions of the park that were formerly closed during the winter.
General Response 10F: Wildlife Impads Onee Park Opened Year-round
As stated under the General Response lO.B.2 above, even though Blackberry Farm is officially closed in
the winter with little or no patrol, the public informally and routinely uses the area, and existing activities
include walking/running dogs off-leash. Thus, the wildlife that inhabit the area are already subject to
human presence even during "closed" periods. Once the park is formally opened during the winter,
enforcement of park regulations would be stepped up to reduce and eliminate off-leash dog use as well as
other inappropriate uses within the Corridor. See also Response to Master Comment 6B above for a
discussion about increased patrol through the corridor.
When restoration projects are initiated, they are typically fenced off from public use until the vegetation
has matured to a level that can handle some foot traffic. Signs are also posted stating that the area is
fragile and entry is prohibited. Both of these typical methods will be used in the replanted areas within
the Stevens Creek Corridor, and will be incorporated into park regulations.
lOG) Impacts to Raptor Nest Trees
A commenter was concerned about the impacts on raptors from the removal of existing nest trees during
the non-nesting season.
General Response lOG: Impacts to Raptor Nest Trees
The Initial Study focused on assessing impacts on special status species in accordance with CEQA and
CDFG guidelines. Nesting raptors, bats, and state and federally listed species were of particular concern
as impacts to them are considered significant under CEQA. In accordance with CDFG guidelines, the site
was assessed for use by nesting raptors. The survey noted many trees that are and could be used by
raptors for nesting. The standard CDFG protocols were used to determine appropriate mitigation for
impacts to raptors during the nesting season such as limiting construction activities to the non-nesting
season and applying buffer zones around nest trees during nesting season if construction is to occur
during nesting season.
CDFG does not consider the loss of an existing or potential nest tree significant if it is removed during the
non-nesting season, although depending on the species it does require the replacement of native trees,
particularly oaks, when they are removed. In addition, the City requires mitigation for the replacement of
heritage trees.
The study biologists believe that the limited number of large trees removed compared with the large
number of trees remaining would allow raptors to find alternate suitable nest sites if a formerly used nest
tree was removed. It is true that raptors have high nest fidelity; however, they will and do move to new
nest trees if an existing nest tree is no longer available or suitable.
10H) Off-Trail Impacts
Some commenters believe that the presence of the multi-use trail will result in people/dogs leaving the
trail and causing impacts to closed or sensitive areas of the park. They also believe that the City will be
unwilling and/or unable to control trespass.
General Response 10H: Off-trail Impacts
J(P-3L
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 24
In any given park, there are always a small number of users that disobey posted regulations such as
entering closed areas, leaving garbage behind, vandalizing facilities, and harassing wildlife. Even if the
park were closed, such scofflaws could enter the property and do damage to vegetation, facilities and
wildlife.
The Initial Study includes a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that sets forth specific
measures the City or other specified entity needs to carry out to assure compliance with the CEQA
document's findings. It is beyond the scope of the document to guess as to how well the mitigation
monitoring program will be implemented. However, the public can obtain copies of the MMRP and can
assess how well the City is meeting the MMRPs requirements during both project construction and
implementation. They can and should bring non-compliance issues to the City's attention. They can also
contact other regulatory agencies, such as CDFG, that are relying on the City to meet the project
conditions if they feel there is non-compliance.
The fact that a formal trail system will be developed invites regular, law-abiding users to the area. These
users can assist park personnel with locating and removing/fining violators. See also Response to Master
Comment 6B above for a discussion about increased patrol through the corridor. They can identify
specific trouble areas so that enforcement personnel can determine ways to prevent violations (more
signs, stepped up patrols during certain times of day).
101) Long-term Mitigation Needed for Long-term Biological Impacts
The commenter believes that the Initial Study did not adequately address impacts related to the length of
time needed for the restoration areas to mature and did not include mitigation for such long-term impacts.
General Response 101: Long-term Mitigation Needed for Long-term Biological Impacts
It is true that due to the nature of the project as a restoration project, it will take time for the native
vegetation to mature and become suitable for native wildlife. During the restoration period sensitive areas
would be closed off to public access by signs and fencing. As the vegetation matures, wildlife species
will move into the area. Although some wildlife would be temporarily displaced by project
implementation, project biologists believe that the restored habitat will be of higher quality than that
which is removed. In addition, project biologists believe the project area and surrounding vicinity
contains enough suitable habitat that the displaced animals would likely find shelter elsewhere.
Since the restoration plan itself addresses the need for ongoing remediation of problems that arise during
the planting period such as die offs, weed infestations, vandalism, etc., the Initial Study focused on
construction related impacts. The restoration program remediation measures are not considered
mitigation, but they are a necessary component ofthe overall program and are long-term in nature.
10J) List of Species Missed in Revegetation Plan and Species Missed During Surveys
A commenter suggested additional species to be included in the Revegetation Plan. Other commenters
noted that species occur in the area but were not noted in survey results.
General Response 10J: List of Species Missed in Revegetation Plan and Species Missed During
Surveys
The plant list provided is useful and the species listed are appropriate to be considered as part ofthe
Revegetation Plan. The list of species will be provided to the landscape architect for consideration and
will be reviewed by the revegetation specialists at the Santa Clara Valley Water District as additions
and/or replacements to the planting plan.
Iw-3~
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 25
It is true that many species known to occur at the site were not included in the survey results. This is due
to the fact that the surveys were conducted to: 1) specifically assess the site for habitats for and presence
of special status species, and 2) to generally characterize the site in terms of biological resources. The
surveys were not meant to provide an exhaustive inventory of species found in the area. Species lists
provided by commenters are appreciated and will be incorporated in the record of biological resources
present.
10K) Palm Trees
A commentor was concerned about the construction impacts to the existing palm trees in the
environmental classroom area, which provide nesting habitat for hooded orioles.
General Response 10K: Palm Trees
The majority of palm trees found within the study area are known to support a number of wildlife species
including hooded oriole and barn owl. As a result of the habitat value provided by these palm trees, none
would be removed due to project construction or operation. Any birds nesting within the palm trees,
including hooded orioles, will be protected during construction activities as stated in Mitigation Measure
BIO~1 on page 3~23. Although hooded orioles most commonly use palm trees for nesting, they are also
known to use sycamores, eucalyptus, cottonwoods, and oak trees, which are all present within the study
area.
10L) Golf Course Ponds
One commentor expressed concern about the effect the use of pesticides at the Golf Course ponds would
have on the restored creek.
General Response to.L: Golf Course Ponds
The Blackberry Farm Golf Course is subject to water quality regulations as well as regulations that
govern the use of pesticides and fertilizers (California Department of Pesticide Regulations). There are
strict regulations on the use of pesticides, particularly when use is adjacent to or near a water body. Such
regulations affect the timing and type of application, buffer zones, weather conditions, materials allowed
to be used, etc. These requirements will not change as a result of the project. Any violations of water
quality or pesticide regulations would be subject to enforcement by the regulatory agencies, including
both the Department of Pesticide Regulations and San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board.
In addition, the location or operation of the golf course ponds would not change as a result of the project;
this condition would remain, with or without the project.
10M) Bluebird Habitat at old orchard area of McClellan Ranch
A commentor was concerned about the effects that trail project construction and use would have on
Western bluebirds, which regularly breed and forage in the old orchard area of McClellan Ranch. The
commentor stated that this area should remain a savannah.
General Response 10M: Bluebird Habitat at old orchard area of McClellan Ranch
No trees are to be removed in the old orchard area of McCleltan Ranch due to trail construction or creek
realignment. Plant species that wilt be established in the area include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia),
blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), purple needlegrass (Nasella pulchra), California melic (Melica
californica), and California brome (Bromus carinatus). All of these species will improve the oak
woodland-savannah habitat, which provides for good quality foraging for bluebirds.
GENERAL COMMENT 11: Appropriateness of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for this project
(~-)l[
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 26
ItA) An EIR should be prepared for this project due conflicts with the McClellan Ranch Master
Plan, Ordinance 710 and biological impacts ofthe project.
One of the commenters stated that: "We believe the conflicts are serious enough that the negative
declaration of "No Impact" on the Biological Resources of McClellan Ranch is not valid (Table 3.4). The
potential impact of a multi-use trail and off-leash dogs is such that we request a full EIR."
General Response llA:
The City of Cupertino prepared an Initial Study to determine the environmental impacts of the proposed
project. An Initial Study can determine whether an EIR should be prepared or a Negative Declaration. In
this cases it was determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration could be prepared for this project
because all of the potentially significant impacts of the project can be reduced by mitigation measures
contained in the Initial Study. According to CEQA Section] 5070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or
Mitigated Negative Declaration:
"A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
(a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light ofthe whole record before the
agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or
(b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed
mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or
mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as
revised may have a significant effect on the environment."
Regarding potential conflicts with the McClellan Ranch Master Plan, the Initial Study states on page 3-
87: "There are some elements of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan that may be considered
inconsistent with the McClellan Ranch Master Plan. The proposed multi-use trail may be considered
inconsistent with the Master Plan's ecological goals, however; the effect of the trail is minimized by its 8-
foot width. It is unlikely to be a big thoroughfare for bicyclists like other creek trails (eg. Los Gatos creek
trail) because of its relatively short distance (1.1 mile). The existing nature trail would be fenced off to
ensure that bicyclists would not be allowed on the narrow footpath. The project would bring more users
to the park, but if the impacts of new users can be minimized, the rich historical and ecological features of
the park would be shared with more people, and the City of Cupertino is committed to ensuring that this
project would be done in an environmentally sensitive way."
Regarding consistency with Ordinance 710, the Initial Study states on page 3-88:
"City Ordinance 710 designated McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve as a nature and rural preserve in 1976.
It prescribed specific uses that are allowed at the park and states that:
Uses shall be limited to those which will maintain and protect the ecology of the area, conserve
the natural features and scenic values, expand community awareness and understanding of natural
history and the environment, and provide enjoyment ofthe resources present consistent with their
preservation.
Consistency: There is nothing in the Ordinance that specifically precludes the proposed trail and
environmental education classroom as long at they are designed with the above factors in mind. In
addition, the Ordinance contains Regulations and Guidelines for McClellan Ranch Park. One Guideline
states that: "No additional buildings shall be placed within the park without approval of Parks &
Recreation Commission unless unique to the concept of the park." The project would require approval by
(~ - J5
Response to Comments
City a/Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 27
the Parks and Recreation Commission who would also review the design of the environmental education
classroom to ensure that it is consistent with this Ordinance."
It should be noted that the environmental education classroom would be constructed on the footprint of a
former double-wide trailer, not in a new area of the McClellan Ranch.
Ultimately the City Council will need to make the interpretation of whether the project is consistent with
the intent ofthe McClellan Ranch Master Plan and Ordinance 7]0. If necessary, the City Council could
modify Ordinance 710 to clarify that the uses proposed would be allowed.
Regarding potential biological impacts of the project, the Initial Study states on page 3-1 ]8: "Potential
impacts to sensitive species, as well as sensitive habitats, can be categorized in two types: potential
impacts associated with the trail and creek location, design, and construction and potential impacts
associated with increased human uses and influence in the trail areas. All potential impacts can either be
avoided or reduced to insignificant levels through the mitigation measures listed in the Biological
Resources section and the BMPs in Appendix A. Overall the project would positively benefit biological
resources in the project area."
lIB) An EIR should be prepared because of potentially significant environmental impacts.
One commenter stated that: "I respectfully request that EIR be prepared due to the obvious and potentially
significant environmental impacts, among others: introduction of bicycles to the corridor, dogs on
leashes, an 8' wide "trail" in a ] OO-year flood plain/narrow creek/riparian corridor; pesticides and nitrates
(from Blackberry Farm and elsewhere); chlorine and other swimming pool toxins; traffic and parking;
diesel fuel used by the buses (according to the California Air Resources Board diesel fuel contains
multiple identified toxic air contaminants, and according to a report in New Science Magazine, diesel fuel
contains the most carcinogenic chemical compound known to science - 3-nitrobenzathrone - causing
more cellular mutations that the previously identified most carcinogenic compound); degradation of the
aesthetics; - visuals, smells, bird songs, aesthetic sense of the wildness ofthe area; and vagueness of
descriptions such that the public cannot understand what it is and its implications (such as "an all-weather
surface for bikes, strollers, and walkers")"
General Response 11B:
As stated above in Response I ] A, the City of Cupertino prepared an Initial Study to determine the
environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study considered the changes from the
existing operations and facilities to what is proposed in the Master Plan. An Initial Study can determine
whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration should be prepared. In this case, the City determined that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration could be prepared for this project because all of the potentially significant
impacts of the project can be reduced by mitigation measures contained in the Initial Study. In addition,
while the project may contribute to environmental effects, the overall effect of the project is improving
and restoring the environment, thus lessening current impacts.
(to - 3(P
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June /3, 2006
Page 28
II. Summary of Revisions to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Minor revisions have been made to the Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration as a result of
comments received on the document or as a result of minor clarifications. None of these revisions affect
the conclusions of the Initial Study that all significant impacts of the project can be mitigated to less than
significant and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA document for the project.
Revisions to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are indicated with stflkee.Hts through text
that has been deleted, and underline of text that has been added.
Page 3-5, paragraph 3 shall be modified as follows:
As a result of the creek realignment, some mature trees may be removed and some trees may perish from
relocation oftheir water source. The majority of trees impacted by the creek realignment are in the
vicinity of the Horseshoe Bend picnic area and the group picnic and large parking area of Blackberry
Farm and on the Stocklmeir property. As part of the construction documentation process, fiRaI-..tmi.t..
et:eek-design refinements weuM-be reviewed by a soils seientist llfld an arborist eertifie~
International Soeiety of Arborieulture af the }\meriean Society ef Consulting f.fberists investigations by
a soils scientist and an arborist will influence trail and creek design refinements to minimize tree loss.
Page 3-15 - Checklist box 3.4.b "Less Than Significant with Mitigation" will be checked. "Less Than
Significant" will be unchecked.
Page 3-15 - Checklist box 3.4.c "Less Than Significant" will be checked. "Less Than Significant with
Mitigation" will be unchecked.
The following underlined text will be added to Page 3-17~ paragraph 3:
A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (Version 3.0.5. updated
September 2005) and the California Native Plant Society On-line Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Plants resulted in a total of eight special-status plants documented within as-mile
radius of the project site. All of these plants are listed by the California Native Plant Society as
] B which means they are rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. Table 3-]
lists the eight plants species and their potential to be found within the project site.
The following underlined text will be added to Page 3-42, number 3:
3. The Plant Selection Criteria, Planting Techniques, Maintenance, and Monitoring/Reporting
protocols prescribed by the "Protocol for Revegetation Associated with Bank Protection"
(Appendix E of the SMP) shall be implemented, as applicable to tree replacement. Local natives
(I.e. native plants grown from propagules and collected from wild parent plants growing as close
to the proiect as possible and within the Stevens Creek Watershed) grown from onsite sources are
preferable to larger container grown stock which is typically not local.
The following text changes will revise the 4th paragraph on Page 3-17:
Surveys were not conducted for plants documented as having no potential to be found on the
project site due to the absence of suitable habitat. Therefore. surveys were only conducted for the
two rare plants. western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) and Dudley's lousewort (Pedicularis
dudlevi). that were determined to have low potential to be found on site. These rare plants were
not found during the three field surveys conducted on the site. One of the field surveys was
completed in February 2005 to determine presence during the blooming period of western
leatherwood. No field surveys were done during the blooming period of the Dudley's lousewort.
However. surveys were completed during the time plant foliage would be visible. because it is
extremely rare it Dudlev's lousewort is known from fewer than 15 occurrences and its closet
((p-')7
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 29
occurrence is at Portola State Park which is over 5 miles west of the project site. This species is
most likely to occur in more coastal areas under stands of redwood trees (Corelli, pers. comm.).
Although there are some redwood trees at Blackberry Farm, they are not native to the site and
there is no understory associated with these trees. Therefore, habitat types present on site were
determined unlikely to support Dudley's lousewort. Further, Jeffrey Caldwell, a local botanist
who has hiked and documented plant species within the Corridor for over twenty years, has never
encountered Dudley's lousewort on site (Caldwell, pers. comm.).
The following strilrethl"8ugh text will be deleted from Page 3-27, Item 3:
As documented in Table 3-1 and discussed above, there are only two special-status plant species
that could potentially be present within the project site. These are western leatherwood and
Dudley's lousewort, which are listed as 1 B by the California Native Plant Society. As stated
above, neither plant was found. Since no special status plant species 6f-the habitat for the
~ey's IOl:lsevlort were found within the Stevens Creek Corridor, no significant impacts to these
special status plant species are expected.
The following underlined text will be added to Page 3-18, Table 3-1:
Dudley's CNPS List April - Chaparral (maritime), cismontane Very low
lousewort IB June woodland, North Coast coniferous potential.
(Pedicularis forest, valley and foothill grassland, Habitat unlikely
dudleyi) State: elevation 60-900 meters. to support this
Rare speCies.
Surveyed
during growing
period and not
detected.
The following checklist boxes were not consistent with the text in the body of the document. The text in
the body of the document is the correct level of significance. These modifications will ensure consistency
between the checklist boxes and the text.
Page 3-65 - Checklist box 3.8.d "Less Than Significant with Mitigation" will be checked. "Less Than
Significant Impact" will be unchecked.
Page 3-65 - Checklist box 3.8.g "No Impact" will be checked. "Less Than Significant Impact" will be
unchecked.
Page 3-66 - Checklist box 3.8.i "Less Than Significant Impact" wilt be checked. "No Impact" will be
unchecked.
Page 3-96 - Checklist box 3.13.ii "Less Than Significant Impact" will be checked. "No Impact" will be
unchecked.
Page 3-96 - Checklist box 3.13.iv "Less Than Significant Impact" will be checked. "No Impact" will
be unchecked.
Page 3-96 - Checklist box 3.13.v "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation" will be checked.
"No Impact" will be unchecked.
(~~ Jr
Response to Comments
City of Cupertino
June 13, 2006
Page 30
Page 3-103 - Checklist box 3.15.f "Less Than Significant Impact" will be checked. "Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation" will be unchecked.
Tbe 3rd paragrapb on page 3-110 oftbe Initial Study will be modified to read:
"These summaries show that of the three parking areas, both the Central Parking Area and the Southern
Parking Area has adequate demand for both proposed and cumulative parking capacity, and the number of
additional spaces needed at the Northern Parking Area is 12. After consultation with the City of
Cupertino's Fire Marshal, it was determined that the Northern Parking Area could not accommodate the
additional 12 spaces and that the maximum new spaces aI-Iewe4 that can fit in this area is nine. These
nine spaces would be added to the Northern Parking Area as part ofthis project. However, this addition
of nine spaces is still three short of the projected 12 spaces needed. :f.heref-ore, as part of the proposed
projeet, a sign would-be ereeted-at-the-Bh:le Pheasant parking let--that wOl:lkl-direet trail Hsers to
Bla&Id:lerry farm '",here Ii new 17 ear stagiNg area would be eonstrueted to aeeommodate trail users. Tfail
",sers would also be-aI-Iowed to use the proposed 350 '/ehiete parking area at BlaeI(berry Fal m. These
. .. . .
Area, and-w#h--l::ltilizatioH ofthe ne'.v lets--listeEI--here, no new impacts from inadeq",ate parking eapacity
~There are approximately 12 curbside spaces along Stevens Creek Boulevard that could be
utilized for this project during heavy weekend times in the summer, when both the golf course and trail
users would be using this parking lot the most. These 12 spaces would provide the additional spaces
needed during these peak periods. Since the trail proiect would only contribute parking demand during
the day. the existing parking problems at night would not be affected by this project."
'~.-31
RESOLUTION NO. 04-259
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO EXPRESSING
INTENT TO ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM, NO-COST LEASE WITH THE CUPERTINO
HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO OCCUpy AND MANAGE HISTORIC STRUCTURES WITHIN
THE STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR UPON ACHIEVEMENT OF FUNDRAISING GOALS
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino conducted a communitywide visioning exercise to
plan for the future use of its properties in the Stevens Creek Corridor; and
WHEREAS, there was community consensus that the area was important for historic
interpretation, with special note given the Stocklmeir site and the historic buildings at McClellan
Ranch Park; and
WHEREAS, the Stocklmeir house was formerly the home of Louis Stocklmeir, the
founding father of the Cupertino Historical Society, and the Cupertino Historical Society desires
to renovate the house for historical purposes; and
WHEREAS, consistent within the McClellan Ranch Park Master Plan, the Cupertino
Historical Society desires to renovate the barn and blacksmith shop; and
WHEREAS, the Cupertino Historical Society's Board of Directors is ready to move
forward on a capital campaign to raise funds to renovate these structures; and
WHEREAS, commitment from the City Council that the Cupertino Historical Society
will be allowed to renovate, occupy, and manage these facilities for community purposes is
essential to the success of the capital campaign; and
WHEREAS, the Cupertino Historical Society intends to raise the necessary funds over a
three to five-year period from commencement of the capital campaign.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby states its intent to lease the Stocklmeir property and the large barn and blacksmith shop at
McClellan Ranch to the Cupertino Historical Society for a period of twenty (20) years with a 10-
year extension at no cost contingent upon completion of a capital campaign to raise funds to
renovate the facilities, and upon presentation and approval by the City Council of a management
plan that makes these facilities available to the public. Should the campaign be successful in
raising funds for a single structure, the Cupertino Historical Society would then request the
authority to move forward with a first-phase renovation in order to build momentum for the
Center for Living History.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the City Council expresses its support for the Cupertino
Historical Society's efforts to create the Center for Living History in Stevens Creek Corridor
Park.
(f.1-LfD
Resolution No. 04-259
2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this
2nd day of February 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, Wang
None
None
None
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Is/ Kimberly Smith
/sl Sandra James
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
( & _L(/
C'(CI.J5 \)reoV'
May 31, 2006
Therese Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan-Project and Negative Declaration (Neg Dec) Comments
Dear Ms. Smith,
The following are both project comments and CEQA comments for the Stevens Creek Corridor
Master Plan. I write these as an individual-not on behalf of my former employer, the Santa
Clara Valley Audubon Society. As you know, I was thoroughly involved in this plan as it moved
forward, and I served on the City's Stevens Creek Trail Task Force.
In general, I want to praise the City and the Santa Clara Valley Water District for putting
together a plan that achieves both recreation and restoration purposes while overcoming some
significant hurdles along the way. I hope this planning process and funding mechanisms will be
seen as a model for other communities in the region. I will focus the comments below on two
main concerns: dogs and mitigation monitoring and enforcement.
Dogs
I was quite displeased that the final project proposal included allowing dogs along the Stevens
Creek Corridor. To the best of my recollection, the Trail Task Force was explicit in stating that
this area----especially McClellan Ranch Park-was inappropriate for dogs. The early planning
stages for the corridor also seemed to assume that dogs would not be allowed. It seems this
element of the proposal was inserted late in the process and was not well considered by the
broader community.
I am concerned that the City is setting itself up for a naturalists verses dog lovers clash that could
detract significantly from the many positive aspects of this plan where there is general
agreement. The following are more specific CEQA questions and comments.
. The Neg Dec, at page 3-35, states that both Parks Officers and volunteers would patrol the
parks and trails to monitor and enforce dog policies. Please specify how much-rime a Parks
Officer would be dedicated to these tasks? It is impossible to determine whether such patrols
would be sufficient without some quantification of the time commitment. As for volunteers,
would they have enforcement authority or simply be limited to educational remarks? When the
volunteer patrols are described as "frequent" and "as much as once per day," this leaves open the
possibility that such patrols could be once per week or month, by setting a maximum rather than
a minimum. If the City cannot state a minimum amount of time that volunteer patrols would be
working in the area, then it should not use this as a mitigation measure, because it really is not at
all quantified.
. On page 3-36, the concept of adaptive management is put forward, leaving closing the corridor
to dog use the subjective responsibility of a city employee. This employee would no doubt be
under significant pressure not to close the area to dogs, once dog use is established. The Neg
Dec should instead have an objecti ve criterion for closing the park to dogs, to eliminate the
chance of a decision skewed by public pressure. I would suggest a standard such as, "If dogs are
found unleashed or harassing wildlife or educational animals more than three times in any
calendar month, dogs would be banned from the corridor."
~'(rheNeg pee should note which species would l!>e mbsf likely impaetedb
or 'off leash. I am particularly concerned about deer, bobcats, and otller .
MtC1eUan Ranch Park. White these may not beraTe species locaUy, they none.
in rt of tne.nature expe,rieIl.ce at.McCle.llan, . the deeF'. l'lle
co' . should give an intbl;flled opinion 3:fi: to t d of deer, bo'
mlimmarsremai!1.ing along the corridor, given thecuInulative impacts of tlie
fitm1bers Qf visltors, and' dogs.
[\:.~-
lS",o
'age 3-40, subsection d looks at impacts to "established native resident
s" and "native wildlife nursery sites." This would.
pact$. .. QIi nati \}g)1 nOt fare, w
If if rem . after pl'Qject
rlld a significan ilmltigiltioil ineasiU;,e .
. "deer or other n sites woditi trigger initig
tr3;l elesures.
Cf:C~.A -
lSia
Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement
The following questions and comments relate to the City's ability to adequately ensure that
mitigation measures proposed for the project will be adequately monitored and enforced. As
background, in my work with the Audubon Society, I twice encountered failures by the City to
adequately monitor and enforce mitigation measures. Both these incidences occurred on the
Diocese development near Rancho San Antonio. First, water quality measures were not
adequately enforced during the construction phase of the project, leading to potentially negative
impacts on local creeks. The City only corrected this after reporting on the problem by the
Audubon Society. Second, the construction on that site intruded into an area intended to remain
untouched as habitat for the Red-legged Frog. While the US Fish and Wildlife Service
acknowledged to me that a violation had occurred, they did not have adequate resources to
enforce against that violation.
. Does the City have an implementing ordinance or other mechanism to ensure that all adopted
mitigation measures and BMPs are enforceable?
. Please provide an estimate of how much City staff time will be needed to assure that all
mitigation measures and BMPs and monitored and enforced. Does the City currently have
adequate resources and staff time to commit to that effort?
. How often will the City employee(s) responsible for mitigation monitoring and enforcement be
on the site, during and after construction?
. If a mitigation measure or BMP is not done or done poorly, and environmental damage results,
what is the mechanism for estimating and perhaps compensating for that damage?
. Please provide a recent example of when the City discovered a problem with a mitigation
measure, how that was discovered, and the process used to redress the problem: I am more
concerned with biological mitigation measures, not the measures typically monitored by a
building inspector.
Other
The following are other comments and questions regarding various topics.
. On page 2-16, the Neg Dec states that restoration of the Simms site will begin after the "useful
life" of the structure. Is there an estimate of when this will b.e? What are the criteria used in
determining the structure's useful life?
. What mechanisms would be used to separate the picnic areas from the restoration sites? I am
particularly concerned that children and some adults will be trampling the plants within the
restoration sites. I believe fencing is generally insufficient to achieve this purpose. I would
recommend that you work with the Water District to provide natural barriers of wild blackberry
or other near impenetrable plants to separate high use areas from the restoration sites where
feasible.
. Figure 8 in the Neg Dec seems to indicate that the trail terminates in the McClellan Ranch
parking lot, but the narrative description of the trail states that the trail will continue along the
white fence bordering the open field. Please clarify which of these is the case.
Thank you for responding to these questions and concerns. I look forward to some positive
changes in the proposed project, followed by a very successful park and nature corridor.
Sincerely,
Craig K. Breon
From, Joyce Eden EYnjn@hatnetcnm]
Senl: Tu.sday, May 30, 2006 8:09 PM
To: City of Cupertino Parks l\lld Recre.tion
C<: yojo@bablCi.oom
Subj~t: St. Crk Corridot M. Plan &: Il.. Plan. lSIMND
JOYce M Eden
10213 Lo<:kwood Dr
Cupertioo, CA 95014
May 30. 2006
Members ofC.~rtino City Council
City of Cupertino
CityHaJl
CupertillD, CA 95014
Re: Comments on Stevens Creek Corridor .~arJ< MIISt.r I'lll/J and Restoration I'lan
Initial SludylMitigated Negative Declaration (SCCP IS/MNO)
I.troduction:
1 r~qllC$t i:::&at those momben ofC,tJ, CouDcil who may b. vo*11lg on .IlY upHt, ortbil: Pl:'oJ-c!t.t tb.JIID. :10, 2006
mettlog or any other fatore meeliog, r","d the poblies comments a, submitted, Dot merely. staltsommary,
Please DOle tbat I drew up and .ul>mlttetlmy 1<1"'" durlol: tile early planalDI: lJ1lI\:e ofthlll proJet! 00 tbe Ill'll. map..r
the area. A. I wa. o.t or state, I submittedlbe map via Feci X.
1 applaud former and current official, ofth. City of Cu~rtino for ita deslSMo"" of McClen... Ranch Park as a Nalure
Preserve, its purchase of Blackberry Farm for the purpose oftuming thai commercial enterprise inlo a neighborhood park, for
plans to re5tore Stevens Creek including the riparian zone (portions). md fur A plllD to linJc: M~leJlItft Ranch P,rk aton,J iti
eastern portion (including the portion leased to the SCCWO) to the Slocklm.it and Blackberty Farm and i01f COurse portions
with a path. .
Howeve,. b....d on my knowl.dge of the project ar.a and the documenll, there is .uh6tantial evideoce of potential significant
.nvironm.ntai Impacts, I respectfully object to the Slevens Creek Corridor Park MOSler Plan and Restoration Plan project as
proposed and ils .nvironmental documentation represented by the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
I respectfully reqult tbala. EIR be prepared d.e to th. obvious and pnu,ntially elgnlft...tenvlmIlN..tol iN,,","'-
among others: Introduction of bicycl.s along the corridor: dogs on I.ashee; an 8' wide 'trail" in a 100 year tlQod plaln/narrow
creek/riparian cOlTldo': pesticides and nitrateS (from BI~kberry farm aDd elsewh<:re); chlorine and other swimminll pool
to,,"ins~ tratflG and fW'klr'l~; die.!.cJ fuel used by the bU5lIl,S (act;ordin,; to tb~ C..lifOmi~ Air R050W'C1:5 Boa.ni diosel fu.,! cuu!.l:lius
multiple identified toxic air contaminants, and accord~ to a repolt in New Scie~ Mag8l:lne, diesel fu.1 contai"" the most
.."lnogenle chemical compound known to science -- 3-niuobClll8throne - C8U5ing more cellular mutations thllt the
previously IdentJned most carcinogenic chemical compound); d.gradation o(the aC5thettcs, - v.lsual, StllClls, bird SOll8S,
aesthetic s.nse oflh. wildness of the area; and vagueness of descriptio"s such that th~ public.cannol1ltlderslllld whal il is
and its Inlpllcatioll5 (such lIS "an all-weather surfac. for bikes, strollers and walke... h).
Cf&A
Some Item. oreoacern:
· No construction should be done during nestin~ nr other critIcal s","sons f(lr bird$, hAtS aold other spel:ies. ConstrllCtlon )
during Iltstlng Season is a significanl impact. Moving nesting animal. is not m;!igation, it is in ilself a si&oificaol and .'.
unacceplable Impact.
CE'&./i-
T ......"5o?/ l/,i
8;0
. This Stevens Creek corridor area is Dot merely another city park, rather is ils a precious 118llItaJ Bnl3 alon~ a creek and
riparian zooe that needs to he prolccted where it exists in that form (McCleUan) ...d ...tored (B1aclcberry Farm picnic areas)
to that character. The intenti<ln of the City of Cupertino to tu.rn Blackberry Farm Into a neighborhood parle CIIMOl be done by
its ,ontinuing \Ue :u; a .commercial enkrprise.
6~ 39\1d
ONIl~3cf() .:10 AlIO
9'3E:ELLL8Bt>
~1:Ll ge9~/tE/ge
. I enjoy walking McClellan Ranoh Park (including the SCCWD portion). For years I have lokinll quiel C<lntemplative walks
alon~ the naru.re trail,to eh. waler district portion, making a loop "'tUrning through liIe wonderful community garaeos.
I hove ,eon mMY bird. ""d olh... ,"imAI. along the trail. including recently warching a great blue heron $tlloding and walking
in the WaLet Oi!l.uict ponlon. I c:r1Joy walking alons: the quiet Creek. watching the seasonal changes !ouch as the leBves
returning in the Spring on the syoamore trees, hearing the water and birds singing, enjoying the nBlural anributes and
~ildllCSS Qftbe area., onjoyinG lhtJ non intrution of human Jtrl.lc:ture~ along th~ t'nY:1c In McClellan. and the chW'8.Cter ofrhe
older structures that exist now.
However, there remain many problems with this plan which will rell~e' il ,,,,t protective of my""" of the park llJ\C will not
protect the ecosystem oflhe corridor, It will degrade and 9ignlfleantly impact my experienoe and will significantly imp,cl
many .pecies such as bats and bluobirds. I highly doubt that I will h,,'e the opportunity ag4in [0 watch. great blue heron on
the Water District area if bicycles are allowed on tbe tra.il Md/or If dogs on leashes are allowed on the tr~iI. This [s .II
significant impact.
I saw a weseern pond turtle in lhe Simms properly portion of Stevens Creek which had just left lbe McCleUan Ranch portion
Of Stevens Creek.
I helped pick oranges for the Second Harves! Food Bank in me Stocklmeir Orange Gtove and called the Food Bank a couple
of times when the oranges were not being picked. Removal of 1/2 ofllle orchard will significantly impacl the contribution
that the people of Cupertino are able to make to helping those jn our community In need of heallily, local produce. 'l'h~
benign neglect ofthe orchard (which I support as it has su.ttined Itself toxin free) has produced delicious, nutritious.
pe'tiej& free O",QgPA.
. An 8' wide muli-use trail including bicycles is not appropriate for the projeot area.
· How do you expect to enforce bioyoles Slaying On trails? Have you looked at the mess behhld West Valley Elementary
.chool of kid! making a bmx bike ride out of the blllll<s (I have not been there rnr a while, hut assuming it is slill1here - or
the... are undoubtedly otho< examples.) The tIrlSwer is NOT rangers or pollee to enforce. bul W lIo1 en,,,,,, ..''''!factiv.
nuisance in lhe first place.
I have seen many bicyeles off trail where they are not allowed in ]IIaIlonal Parks degnding .,eas significantly.
. I a.m 11 biQ}'cl. rider, Ho~ver, within thil ct'~k corridor is NOT tln ~rr'lro['lriati! flbce for a bike path.
I was at Cupertino City Co~ncil m~elings when the development ofi'Christo Roy Drive was being discussed and debated. It
was promised then (probably a decade or mo..., ago) that as a part ofthBt development, the developer would put in a
bicyclolpedestrian pam fiom Steven. Crecl Blv~ (wo.t uf Fo,,~,iII) OGro", the Ilammond orca (owned now by Cupcrti....) 10
Ranoho S.... Antonio. I am still wailing for that appropriate blcyele path.
· When my ~hildren wert small, wo used to all bicycle to Rancho San Antonio. Because of no bicycle path alone ChrtSto lley
Drive, we road North on FoolhilJ Expreaaway so we could bicycle into Rancho. When the development tIlok place by Rancho
Which inelod.d exten.<ive road work.. r "pooted . bicycle path to be incorpora1ed inlo the rood work - but, in""plicably, it
was nol.
.Aneth... .pprupdlltc (,i<l<l. link. path would .160 ~ eutting across thro~ the land o",asing S. Foothill Blvd (formerly
Slevens C....yon Road) to Stevena Creek County Pork.
. Bicycles desrroy trails - weight per pound concentrated in the narrow tires. How will a j)ermeable path hold up with
bjcyeles on it? . .
· Hnw Inng mull il non..permeable oath is constructed?
. What is mellllt by "an all-weather path?" This i. ambiguous and vague.
. If a penneable path is planned. and it is 'hen later turned into a non-permeable pa1h, here are some significanl impacts of
asphalt: 5 ~% of its mas& is oil. This creates a toxic run off.
· lfa permeable p;Ull is planned, then a specific eommitment to such should be incorporamJ into !lie plan. Iflhe permeable
porh Me, not work out over time due to bicycles, lben the bicycles should no longer be allowed 00 the lrlIill!lld the trail
5hould become a 4' wiae'rail. (Of course no bicyeles are appropriate in the fllst place,)
eE ~d
ONIl~3dnO ~o ^lIO
99EELLLset>
S,:Ll gaa~/,E/Sa
. Alrhough I think lhe lurvey. did not find red-legged frogs, it is possible they ore in the project are.. They wore found Hr
Rancho San Antonio ard there is suitable habiTat. If there ore red legged frogs the,.." or if we hope 10 have them In the future,
then no pe$.ticld.e!!; n('lr ntmre.<1 Arf' A.cc~pt~hle.
Cl:c~t\."
1""v<iefv.,
B'~o
. Allbaugh lbe appendix statesrhar tiger salamanders probably have been extirpated from lids general area, on the conll'llry I
found many An my yardjw;t last week, ~ we Wi'flill dU&.ring out vil\Qa vines an.d other undersrowth. I aho (QlJnd them a r~w
years ago On the orher side of my yard when repo,itioning a ceme"t walk way. So there is a great probabillry tltal they exist
in the project area.
· How many lotal dollars are owed on the Blackberry farm (B8F) purchase?
. Is is mandated by lhe purchase .greomenr Or any other agreement or contract that this money must co,,", from revenues
g""eratl'.d by commercial entelJ'rises at BBF?
· How much gross revenuo doe. the City bring in from Blackberry Farm y....ly? Separate thc golf courst monies from the
picnic/pool monics. .
" Please Elcc:ount for ALL the expenses, direct and indirect fOJ running, maintaining, and in any way paying for the
oomm.rcial and revenue enterprises at BBF. Separate the golf course monies from the picnic/pool moni..:
'How much net revenue does the Clly bring in from Blackberry Form yearly lI(Counting for all the direct and indirect
~...pen!:.t:!\? ~para~ the e;olf course monies from the picllic!po()1 motliu.
, How can the City justifY putting tens or more ofthousands of dollars into upgrading facililies at BBF? SeplIlate the ~If
~O""\'6l;llllQnie3 from the picnio/pool m.onic9.
. All conunercisl &ld reVCf]tle generating picnic/pool facililies should be fazed OUl al BaF eitl1er as ,oon as the ""i.ling debt
is paid off, or nOt linked '0 the exlsrlng debt. This should be under consideration tbrthe golf course also.
· The Master Plan should include a phase out and a yw when B8F will not lon~r have any commercial or revenue
geMreting facilities. Separate the golf courne phase out from the piC1llclpool phase out.
· Ther. should be. bOA on..teonot.. BBF picniclpool ar.. (and tho eAtir. park) ifnotth18 year, tlwn foc ..x'''''''n and
forward. This sllould be Incorporatod in the Ma$ter P Ian. The use of alcohol in die park Is not compatible wlth a
neighborhood park and brings in problems that would not othorwise be there for tho City and neighbors to deal with,
. There should nO! be a history center at Stocklmeir. It is obvious from the lalest propoaal by the HJ9Iorical Society, thar the
History Center should be expanded and located at Quinlan. not at Stocklmeir. Th. parking alon~, does not justilY location at
Stocklmeir lUld i. more IIpproprialc lit Quinlan. If this me.n. lII1llddition.J building at Quinlm, it can be accommodatl'.d there.
*Tbe propt:1sol tI:\ build tsn rtl:W [lil"!lti(l: ~itl':~ R:lO A ~'Jl!I:ntll": eMII':1'.1tll"ll' for 9 P((lp(t9ed Hittory Center at Stodwneir highlights
just some of the unacceptable problems of buildine it at Stocklmeir.
... Make it easy to take publIc transportAl:ion and bk;~le '1'0 this corridor, lIot IN this oonid.or.
There are more comments speciflc to the documents that [ would like to submit, but due to the .hort time frame for r.viowing
these documents, [ Callnot submit aJllhat I would like to. Therefore, I request an extension ofUme, or request that !bote who
submitted oomments b. able ro add to theil comments. ..
These conti2bou5 pOrtlollS of Stevens Creek and the riparian and upllll1d %ones are a precioul treasure thankt\1I1y now part of
the publio CommMS. [look forward to working with the staff and the City Council, the Park$ and Recreation Commission,
and lbe Planlling ~mmissjon to ensuring lhat they are lnJly protected for the public good for present and tiitute generations.
Thank you,
Joyce M Eden
tE 39\1d
DNIl~3d1l:J j() il1l8
99EELLL8BP
9t:Lt 9BB~/tE/9B
\<, ~(jJQ F<y
k-t{t' {
Comments on Stevens Creek Conidor Park Master Plan
Submitted by
Rhoda Fry
10351 San Fernando Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 996-8173
GENERAL COMMENTS...
Most of my comments are about 'Blackberry Farm as it is what [ am most familiar with.
Overall, it is unclear as to the manner in which comments are expected and what "creel, if any, they
might have. T haven't had the time to make this a well-written concise document. my apologies.
[ frod it particularly troubling that enviromnental stakeholders in the project have ~n given
different messages by the City thl\n this document descnbes. From the Santa Clara Wlrter District
MilDltes 9/21104, Smith, Cupertino Director ofParb and Reereation said, "The community's goal
is not to be in the corporate picnic business, but to restore the creek to its original Slate." A
document intended for environmental stakeholders, Nch as the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and the California Department ofFish and GIl.I1le, states that the "plan will convert a
commercial picnic facility into a neighborhood parle."
The mu"L "PIJlOp'.iate use fur this project in the long term is to convert it to a les...int..rn:ive
neighborhood park.
The traffic document misleads the reader that there are only 44 roundtrip buses oniy once whereas .
this happens multiple times during the season. These trips really account for nearly 200 bus trips
and this is very misleading - particularly when other parts of the document cowrt everything ciao in
trips. Council directed staff for buses to drop off at Stevens Creek BLVD but this is not reflected in
the plan.
Cf~^-
tv-a.f'F,
Huw \:lIIllhe padl. elose fOI a y<::ar when the voters elected to nm fur 25 years?
Th.. do<:ument fail& to reveal importlml stati~tie~ abo\lt p:orl.:: u""ge, such AS over Q()lI!o of Cll~tomer.
are not from CUpertino and that unrestricted drinking is permitted. If citizens of Cupertino knllW
this, they might very well have a different opillion about the project
Why is the San Fernando entrance referred to as the Byrne Avenue entrance when the entrance is
not on Byrne"
GeucI1lI Up<:1aUOll- as compared with when the businc;ss was privately ron, the ""MC;C has not
been good. Groups leave the park after they are supposed to - no one asks people to leave and this
impacts the neighbOR. Customer& are allowed to malc~ a lot of nois,e On the driveway waiting to
enter and staff, although requested to, does nothing. AB it turns out, this is DOt lawful. The City
Wluld not create a situation that is unlawful. There are new laws about diesel vehicles idli~ for
more than 5 minutes, this happens regularly on the driveway. Supplies and vendors come to'the
Fry
1
€9 3:)l;Id
a-lIl~3dl8 ~ AL18
99EELLL89l>
l>E:Ll 99Q~/1E/g9
park quite early because other businesses in town don't what them coming 10 their places and
disturb the neighbors. So the neighbors at Bhwkberry Farm hear all the early deliveries in town.
The park staff has been unresponsive 10 complaints ot' excessive amplifie4 noise. We sboukht't b\l
able to hear alllhe words to "I ain't got no satisfaction" when ourduaJ-pane windows are shut and
we'r~ rUllning tbe air-conditioning. Dill Fry wcllt down tbere to ask them to lower thCI sound, which
is required by the park roles but park staff said that they were UMble to handle the crowd and they
didn't can in any sheriff sUflport and iiliould have.
1.0 Ifyour comment is relmed to the "Introduction" section of the document,
please corwnent in the following field:
Page 2 -
Tlti. doCLlment does not contllin full-disoloslIIo.
1 - Omits goals of planninl! process, such as relocation of entrance to Stevens CJ1lck blvd.
2 _ Omit9 City's inability to safely I1)n food-service operation in spite of numerous reports from the
Santa Clara. County Department of En vi room ental Health.
3 _ Omits projected damage to corridor after the restoration OCCUl'S. Blackberry Farm, ifit had beeD
less disturbed, ought to look like McClellan Ranch. Tax dollars will be spent to reslOte it, but tben
it will be WTC(:ked again. Why bother with the project.
4 - Omits my house, I OJ, 1 San Fernando Avenue, at the entrance to BJackbeny FllT1II 00 ILc IlllOpli
5 - Mi~I~~ reader in a number of other places, see comments.
2.0 If your comment is related to the 'Project Description" section of The
document, choose the subtopio that you want to conunent on:
2. llntroduction
2.2 Project Location & Property Boundaries
2.3 Project Background
Page 2~2
~City failed to give notice to neighbo,", ofBllICkberry Farm during vi,ioning pro""",,.
Goal not met:
-Minimize effea of park. operatiOllB - not done - use more than doubles from 80,000 to 169,000.
Overflow parking from Stevens Creek diverted to neighborhoods. Park only gets 8 - 12%
reservations from Cupertino residents - this is likely to continue. It is too crowded and W1pleasant
for residents to use.
~.I'Jan attempts to restore tile babitat but does not preserve it.
.No acknowledgement ofhistClI)'.
-This was a goal: .
"Analyze relocating the Blackberry Farm entrance to Stevens Creek Boulevard" but it: is Dot listed
in this plan. It appears that there was no analysis at all. 1bi9 violatell public crus!. Analysis DUlsl be
made.
. This was a goal;
Fry
2
~8 3!l\1d
ONI1~3dn~ ~O AlI8
99EELLL88~
pt:Lt 98B~/tE/98
"Provide an economic analysis of what is proposed to be added or deleted from the current program
so that Council can understand the impacts of the proposed changes" the l,:ost and ongoing
maintenance oftbe proposed new inli"astructure hll$ not been analyzed.
2.3.1 Pagez-3
Please explain bow the changes to the creek will help fish when the quality of the water is so bad.
Unhealthy levels "C: Mercury, PCBs, Chlordane,Dieldrin. toxicity. Many of these pollutants wind
up being in sediment, how can project guarantee that it will not be dislodged and harm the creek.
How will it be disposed of? What risks are present to humans when till:: polluted 50il crcatC$ duet
and neighbors breathe it?
Irttp://www.waterboards.ca. gov/tmdl/docs/303 d_updatelr2 _ v2.pdf
Fun her, the State Water Resources Control Board listed the Steven.s Creek ~arriers liS ineligible for
a grant. Why do Ihey twnk il iublld id",,? llVVV 5{r.,;!..V " 't J.D .J.hi$ Y""S...,./r 7
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/fundinwdocslconso~!~ants0506/ful1proposa1srmeli~ible list.pdf \
Who are the environmental stakeholders who think that this is a good idea who have absolutely
nothing to 2ain from it?
2.4 Master Plan Overview
. page 2-5
Why were neighbors not consulted about the plans? The designers might have gotten some good
advice. Is tlx;r(; a professional de.igner on thi~ project? Moving the kiosk doell nothing to hel(1
Jines. If the complex is all gated off, then why is there a need for a vehicular kiosk? People should
be able to park gg quickly ll$ pouible and then can walk to a Idosk and pay,
Wbat are the long term plans fur the infrastructure added for the commercial picnic area given that
environmental stakeholders are told this is to be II neighborhood park?
Compare cost of vehicular bridge va. pedestrian bridge. Ifpicnics were smaller then only a
pedestrian bridge would be needed. How long will it take to pay off the difference in cost? What
programs are we giving up not funding ill favor of proposing to l;JuiId a vehicular bri~1
350 parking spaces. A neighborhood entrance sbould be accessed from a neighborhood. A parlcing
luL Ihis size cn;<It<::ll an un..<;<;eptable level oftrllffio ~ about 200+ bl.lS trips per day for several
weeks; the new and emerging dangerous patchwork of sidewalks (becoming a NEW CONDITION)
in neighborhood maIces it un$llI. for residents to wall<; adding tno.A-k to area during school year
when this area already experiences gridlock. People get drunk at the parle making things unsafe for
residents. To make matters worse, people who want to park at Blue Pheasant and can't, will be
diverted into neighborboods.
100 picnic table. is too many. Note, only 8-12% come from Cllpertino re$idents. Park needs to
serve ClIJ'ertino residents. Council originally looked at smaller groups bul upped thw1 due to
monetary concerns - not to what was desired by the community. Since those dillcussions, the
ec;Qllomic future ofCupcrtino is brighl including 3500 new Apple employees ll!Id the movie
~tres at Valleo and higher population to shop CIIpertino. This contiooous level of compacting
the earth and iritrusicn has shown to damage lbe environment. There i9 no \In<ler .rruy nf grnwth.
There are fewer birds as compared with McClellan Ranch Audubon count. Yes, this is a reduction
. to previous summer use - yet the use bas been demonstrated to be detrimental to the environment.
And there will be a doubling of people at other seasons which makes for a year round more lban
Fry
90 39\1d
ONI1~3dnO ~ A1IO
99EELLL80~
~E:Lt 900l/tE/90
(fGi..A -
foir<<-t;iC."'-
\,vt.{k"
qu.o[i{y
C E 6(A -
-txc-r.(
3
doubling impact on environment and neighbors. Work will be done to restore it. And then it will be.
wrecked again. The document must prove tbat there will be no damage to the restored park. Also,
damage over time will aggregate - which will become a new use. . .
. How are the costll of the new buildings being Justified?
Wluil will happen with the concr~e that is sittins in the creek at McClellan Ranch?
How can parking be planned when the goals of the historical so<:iety are unknown? Where would
they be slated to park?
Why is there separate parking for picnic complex and for non-business users? What will be done to
keep the park from being overrun by people who don't use the picnic facility and just bring their
own tables, beer, and get their snacks at the bar?
Golf maintenance shed is moved closer to residences.
City should not operate snack: service at Blackberry Farm. It is not a core COmptllcncy lWd should
focus energies elsewhere. What is cost of building and ongoing maintenance compared with protirl
W Ul se, city hu demonstrated that it can not operute it according to City codee.
Here are some links:
http://www.home.earthlink net/-ftyhOlJsl"Jpage!1lbbfl
http;//www.home.earthlink:.netI-fryhousefpageSlbbro
bttn;ltwww.homeearthlink.netl...furhousefnageslbbfltrrashatBBF3/
I have new photos from this season but haven't uploaded them yet
That level of garbage can certainly result in not only Impacts to the environmeJrt thruugh puIIutiuu, ~
particularly to waterways, but cause changes in animal populations and behavior as wdl.lt Ias
caused overpopulation of ground squirrels tbat have dug twmels and harmed the creek bed and
trees, which protect the creek.. It bas caused problems for neighbors such liS infestations of flies and
rodents. Numecous visite from health profeseionals have yieldM minimal rerolls and the park is E ~u t 1::"<;
still not operated to code. For more information, contact Mike Phillips, Santa Clara Department of
Environmental Health. Numerous solutions were proposed to better handle the trash problems such
as requiring plcnickera to make a deposit; to educate summer persoond by the Cily naturalist; to
require regular monitoring by summer staff so that trash cans would not be allowed to oved1ow
NOlle appear to have been adopted. Gerlend clean up and cootrollllCllSUfCS haven't worked well
(and can't, by the City's own admission-due to staff shortages). lfthey ClIo't control the impacts of
th..: Ulll', th"y should modifY it or not initiate it. The double window lIIld II0c00S to non-oonfined
areas will only make matters worse and cause greater environmental impact (and more work for
o;ta.lfta piclc up) through the end,e l"'.orri<lc".
chain link fence around pool takes away use of lawn during the off-season by residents. Makes less
of park available to residents.
Other side of creek not available to residents off-season. Also less access.
Basketball is a ver:y annoying sport to have in one's backyard.
What would be the use ue Olt, ~nblllllleld?
New storage yard is closer to bomes and increases noise and dust impact to neighooJ'$. New "\
BnvironmellW impllCl. Mitigate hy moving further aWllY from houses. )
What happens to the new infrastructure in 10 years?
C ~Q A -
AID ise
Page 2-6
Fry
4
'30 3!l\Id
ONI1~3dno ~O ^lI~
'39EELLL80~
~E:L! 909~/!E/S9
Removing ped bridges reduces use by residents. .
Conference center use should change - it shouldn't have been put to commercial use in the lirst
place. It should be occupied by the "ranger" position or code enforcement person along with his or
her family. This person would have a stake in the proper maintenance of the riparian corridor. This
would servc the double use.... being part of the BMR housing program. Th. ....ighbors have been
burdened with dealing with problems in the park that should be dealt wi1h by the City. Particularly
there have been numerous after-hOll" prohlems there such as people breaking into the pools at
night and having a party.
The "trailhead parking" has no business being in the CENTER of the parle:. It is located closer to
houses than before and it represents a new environmental impact. lJow to mitigate - creale more
parking at the Blue Pheasant. Double the size ofthe parking area and SlDTound it by trees. This will
solve the night-time prOblCIl\S at the Blue Pheasant as well, sin"" unly 11I1 alWiwouaJ 9 sp= arc
planned (the document admits to this being insufficient although not by fu lIll much as it is in
reality). Th.. reliT lot could b.. valet parking, SO as to oause less disruption to Jicighbors. During the
day it would serve Blackberry Farm. The golf course could be extended into 1he old picnic parking
area The golf ('.oUTSe need.~ work anyway because the water system needs to be redone.
Picnic tables do not belong in this area. It enCQul1Iges moTe unmanAgeable mess. See what I have
written elsewhere about trash.
New maintenance bulldings are closer to homes and increases noise and dust impact to nlrighbors.)
New enviroomental impact. Mitigate by moving further lIway from houses. I know I'm getting
30me of those facilitica mixed up, I can't tell one from the other on the tiny II11lp~, .
C [:'c<-A-
lJai)e..
Building a path adjacent to driveway entral1C'.e could harm tr~ that protect local hnme.lTom golf) C &Q TI _
balls. M.itigate - people walk down the driveway as they do now. rb({~
NOT MENTIONED - council talked about wanting a bus turnout on Stevens Creek Boulevard to Sof+>T,!
serve the buses that come to the park. Therese Smith says that buses will continue to go through
neighborhoods. People would only need to walk about one quarter mile on Dew trail to get to plII'lc
from Stevens Creek.
SECTION 2.4.1 page 2-7
c.upertino residenb are paying fOT this parle through a 2.5% utility tax yet are nm served hy this
park. Only 8-12% reliCrvations from Cupertino Residents, not acceptable. Residents being sbut out
because park is over-filled with non-residents. Over 85% of school buses are not resident and there
are so many people tor so many weeks that other residentsl;llJ1 not use the park, The new plan also
keeps residents from going anywhere across the cred<: within Blackberry Farm off-season and
keeps them off the big lawn by the pool.
Pag<> 2-8 2.4.1.1
Document is misleading. Shrinking picnics only gelS rid of excess capacity Turns RWltYOnly 6
11DIIWL1ieable SToups. Current usage - 80,000. New usage would he 80,000 for pi~nic area. NO
CHANGE. Then add 89,000 extra, more usage in delicate riparian corridor.
Page 2-9
Fry
5
L8 ::l'l\!d
ONI1~3dn~ ~o ^lI~
99EELLLB8P
PE:Ll 988~/IE/99
DoGulllent says hours are dawn until dusk but el!l\lwhere allows fOf evening events. What is tbe real
plan? This is extending current hours and causes more neighborhood impact.
Although the plan is to reduce quelles, the queues are dangerous (emergency vehicles oat! not pass)
llud probably unlawful. Often rouse disturbing the pellCe. Park personnel have refused 10 a~\c
attendees to enter the park quietly as this is a residential area.
l'age 2-10
Jana Sokale recommended against the current path adj~t to the creek and instead, put a path
further away and then some paths that would visit the creek. This is better fortbebealth of the
riparian corridor. Note that usage is expected to increase and more damage can be done.
The proposed trail through MR is too steep for strollers or wheelchairs.
Page 2-11
9 spa<:es at Rille Pheasant is insufficient. Sw comments on this earlier in this document. In .
addition, Smith stated at Planning Commission that hisfOrioal society is coll8idenng 1 SO-person \\
picnic area, where will they park. How ClIIl a parking plan be made without knowing what the lonu
term plan is?
Page 2-12
see earlier in document about boardwalk.
"Trailhead parking~ nol acceptable in middle of park. People come to park to be walker-iiiendly.
Trailhead parking must be located at end.9 of parle. City has shown cannot manaiC controlled
picnicking, let alone uncontrolled picnicking. See earlier in my doc.
.MR parking needs 10 be \llCPanded since it is at a major road. There is no parl;ing available on
nearby roads. This is 11l1S4fe.
Usage incl'eases from approx 80,000 per year to more than double at 169,000 doubles the )
environmental impa\:t. Also brings in people cluring other times during year aod CO\Ild impact
environment In unreveaJed ways. One way to mitigate this ia to reduce the iIIIIOUIlt of non-
residential picnic, at 'Rbr.lrlvnry J:ann .
2-15
No parking listed available for people with disabilities at Stoddmeir.
1t is said that the Simms property bas hazmat. This should be cleaned up. The bus pullOUt should ~
implemented right away. The house can still be rented with the bus pullout. Just compare the
impllCt to the privaldy-owncd borne at Dlackberry Farm.
2.5 Restoralion Plan
Palle 2-19
Nothing mentioned about restoring the grounds fi"om ground-squirrel tunnels.
Fry
80 3917d
991':I':LlL8ep
PE:LT geel/II':/sa
ONI1~3dro jO ^lIJ
OQ/1
r'D. ic"'.)
cFQA-
fa. k: v:;u
eJ+....~Q.~1'5
6
2.6 Project Schedule
So what is the wocst-ease scenario for length of ~uu~lJ o.;\iol1 project? When would it end in 2009?
2.7 MItigation Included in the Project
Page 2~21
Not true that :reduction in picnic size reduces impact. Picnic area will still get 80,000 people per
year and in an even more concentrated area than before. CUll'ently, daily attendance rarely exceeds
800 people and they are spread out in a number of picnic areas. The plan will oot allow the area to
recover even slightly from this heavy use. The area will now be reduced for those 80,000 people so
there will be even more environmental wUllilge. It has been shown thct onviromn.ntal damll88 hn
been Cllllsed in the past to these areas by compaction of soil, disturbance to wildlife, aod
introduction of garbago among others. Now this will be concentrated in one place causing even
more harm and thus cannot be mitigated.
L r;:6;JA -
peuK
vser
<?s-\-1"""dO)
Page 2-25
Woo will be responsible for ensuring rules are adhered to. City slaffwas incapable ofrepairing an
audible alarm that went off at night several times a month for 1,) years. So, how ClIIllIu::y be
responsible for air qUlliity? Monitors must be placed near oomes 10 ensure adherence; a. third party
must be designated to ensure compliance; lll(;tc mu'" be penalties for non-compliance (so that there
won't be any).
The City should hold il$elfto a higher standard, All structures in the park. including swimming
pools and paths I1U.ISt comply with the valley water standards. So much new conlltrUClion is being
done, that this nearly qualifies as a new project as SO much oflbe old infrastructure is being
remOved. It must not rely on grandfilther clauses to create or n:tain old or new uses. So much of the
lOcus of tile project is to be environmentlllly sensitive and therefore, if the pooh for lnsWIce could
not be built today, they should be removed. Note that since this project was initiated, 2 new\arge
pools have been built in Cupenino, Sl.ltlulllUlLl DACA. A mitigation for the IOIlll ofthc pools lit
Blackberry Farm would be to include open recreational swim times at the city-owned pool. City
..Iso has a history of improper storage of pool humat - contact Santa Clara Calmly Fire
Department. We've just had a big rain in May, the pools are open and the chlorine water could
easily overflow into the creek. They have been sand-bagged in the past. They were dllJllaged in 95
lIIld 98 - why invest in an asset when it will need this level of mamtflnance. What were the costs of
repairs and expected ongoing costs? I 1hink that long term repair costs were minimized in the so-
called financial analysis, Although the standards have some allowanee for putting chlorine water in
the creek, why would you wallt to take the risk given the desire for this to be a restored area fOf fish
and wildlife?
2.8 Mitigation Monitoring lIlId Reporting Plan
3.0 IfY!lur comment is related to the "Environmental Checldist and ResponliCS"
section of the document, choose the subtopic that you want to comment on:
3.1 Aesthetics
Fry
7
60 39~d
ONI HJ3dn:J .cJ() All:)
99EELLL8e~
~E;L, 900Z/,E/S0
Page 3-2
After the fence around the pool area and all the space taken up by the commercial picnic ground,
there isn"t l1lu<:h room left for a neighborhood park. The new fencing lII'Uuud the pwl will blade
vistas from within the park. The path going down the driveway will be quite ugly when viemd
from :Byrne Avenue.
Page 3-5
One reason that many trees are in decline is due to mismanagement. Staff allows parking on top of
roots. They don't leave any natural mulch out during the off season. Neighbon say that staff
regularly cuts trees to that sap won't bother people at the picnics - this is not appropriate fur the
riparian habitat. It has been shown that the City is incapable ofbems /I good custodian for this land
and there is no e<iideoce for tbis to change. There is no mitigation and use must change.
3.2 Agricultural Resources
3.3 Air Quality
Page 3-]0
Vinlate air quality standard
Even a small request by an infirm neighbor, who has since passed away, was ignored. Scionti's
asked that park call wilen they were going to use blowers but they didn't. Dolly wound up going to
emergency room twice as a result. They could have cbanged the operation just for a few short
weeks so that the end other lite could have been a Ilttltl htlltlll.
e:lcis+{~
pro b Ie...
It.is unlawful for di_l vehicle to idle more than 5 minutes and ~ driveway conditions regularly
create this problem: http://www.havareamonitor.orgfauI!05/idle.htmI
PlEaSe list current air quality violations and how they can be mitigated. City owes it to residents to
mitigate problems it creates.
Monitors must be placed at nearby residences to determine whether there are air quality problems.
We are p<llticullirly OOllceruo:d al1uuL IlJO: l"'IlULllIi ~jlllt:lIlb iuwe \;& eel. as weD illl dust llItd
partiCUlate matter emissions. What are the health impacts of these? How can you guarantee that
th~e will be no pollutants in the dust and particulate emissions? Will it be rllgu]ar]y tested on site
before it is lrucked out?
3.4 Biological Resources
Page 3-24
If any bats are removed, what will happen to the fiying insects that they would othefwise eat - sucIJ
as west Nile virus mosquitoes? Bats are the most effective means of controlling insects and this
cannot be mitigated. What happens if the roost tree winds up moving to the area where the picnics
will be? Additional mitigation must occur before the project commences. I have not been able to
colItll<< II bot spccilllillt yot, but ono idoo would 00 to instllll bathou8es ROPrby to ensure that bat.
would stick around.
ct=Qf;
1~<"~
VIe.....
(51'0
This dOallllellt fails 10 address the potential population explosion of insects that the bllls would
otherwise eat.
Fry
g
Bt 3911d
ONI1~3dn~ JO ^lI~
99EELU8B1>
PE:Lt 9BBz/tE/se
Page 3-29
Who will be in charge of all the mitigation? The City staff has been inllilpable of completing the
simplest tasks that are required by City Codes, such as keeping a lid on the trash. How can they
possibly make sure that animals dOll'! get crushed during this project or people breath", hazmat.
3-34
RegardinS dogs. The City has been in<"llrable of enforcing lea..h laws in the park. ] avoid goilli
when I know that there will be dogs there. Sometimes dog owners are willing to put their dog on
leash when requested but other times they threaten me. My child has been knocked over twice and
had one near miss. [also got jumped on by a wet dog. The City should demonstrate that it can
handle the dog situation before the project begins. At leaJrt to ensure that feces are picked up and
that owners put their dogs back on leash when requested to do so. This is just another example why
I am concerned that the fairly complicated mitigations cannot succeed,
3-38
Document talks about trail placement but fails to tal1r .hollt the swimming pools City should have
a higher standard and should remove pools because tbey are too close to the creek, Many times
during reconstruction of projects, if a certain amount of new construction is done, it is required that
everything else be brougbt up to code.
3.5 Cultural Resources
3.6 G eok>gy &; Soil~
3.7 Hazards and Harzardou$ Materials
What hazardous materials will be removed from the site? The water is known to contain mercury
and other toxies, What hazards are in the sediment? Will they be measured prior to removal? Will
the BMPs be in the construction contracts and will there be consequences iftbey aren't followed?
3.8 Hydroiogy and Water Quality
What happens with pool Water ifthere is an earthquake? Pools might not be allowed to be
constructed lodilY, 'fh~ are s4l1dbagged in Wil1tCL'. We just had a rain ill May and pools well:
already chlorinated. This water could go into the CIcek. Since pools have been known 'to be
damaged in floods 95, 98 having this asset be", P",g..nt more ofa lillbility, The city already has a
city-owned pool. Also, ice is sold on the premises and dumped near or irnothe creek which isn't
good for the water. Other items go into the creek like soda cans.. balloon piece5, plastic. cilll\felles.
etc..... It has been said that the bridges were taken out in the storm due to mismanagement; there
was debris upstream that was not removed during the storm period. Up until 2 years ago, sludge
from the bathrooms was allOwed to drain into the creek,
'--.
ex-;d<t"y
p<vb1eWL
Have lhey IAIl1side.ell SOllie .url uf n,slurllljUIll!~t woulll btlltltiS invlISivll, h,.s co~lly?
3.9 Land Use &; Planning
Page 3-79
This project DIVIDES the surrounding residential communities. The plan is to provlde no access to
the Scenic Circle side to the creek, when this access has blleD available for several decades. This
Fry
9
n 39\1d
ONI1~3dn8 30 ^lI8
99EELl.lS01>
I>E:lI 900~/IE/se
makes it more difficult for members ofthe coll1ll1llllity to visit each other and eliminates a safer
route to ~hool.
Fage 3-82 The Santa Clara Countywide Trails Master Plan has not been adhered to. There bas been
no coordination with private prup<;<rty uwuerll, at leMt not this onc.
Page 3..$4
90"10 non-residents make reservations at the picnic grounds. How will the use become majority
resident use?
3.10 Mineral Resources
3.11 Noise
Page 3-92
Will there be a measuring device for the noise emitted by construction?
3.12 Population and Housing
J.13 Public Services
3.14 Recreation
J .15 TransportationlTraffic
See also comments on appendix D.
The parldng needs of the project must be planned before proceeding. [t is possible that the
hi~luri~ society might also lleed pllflcing, wh~e will the parking be? A City Council goa1 was to
analyze entrance at Stevens Creek Boulevard, a bullet point which has been omitted from this
document. Where is the analysis? Adding I> spaces at Blue Pheuant is inmfficient for even Blue
Pheasant users. The parking lot at Stevens Creek needs to be extended so that all buses can drop off
there and most users can use dtis entrance as a CQmmumty entrance. The fbcu8 of the San F emando
entrance should be a neighborhood entrance. The extension of the lot would mean that the golf
course would need to be somewhat extended inlo the current BBF parlring lot. The golf COW'SC
water system needs to be replaced 8I1yway so Ibis shouldn't be a serious change. Creating signage
at the Blue Pheasant to redirect traffic into the neighborhoods is not a viable mitigation.
3.111 At the planning commission meeting, Smith mentioned the possibility of ISO-person picnics
at the historieal $OoielY yel this document says they'd onI)' need 8 spaces. How does this work?
The need for blue ph~sant parking is by far underestimated. C&1'8 lII'e parked throughout the
neighborhood to patronize this succeBsful business. II needs an enlarged parking lot to reduce
neighborhood complaints and it would also serve lIS the main gateway to lhe corridor.
3-112 What are the n_ planned activities for Blackberry Farm? The document talks about ree
swim, swimming lellsons, and community events. When did these get added in? TM City caused 8.
lot of problems for Sutton Swim School when it was located in the yard ofa residenl and their pool
was much small.. dw> Blackberry Fa.rms' pools. It is nO'! appropriate to sead tillffie through
neighborhoods to this type of facilily. The staff wllS not responsive to the neighbors when DACA
r.llme for """......1 mnnth. The City flrnmi.erl tn mitigAt.e hut :'ltJlffnnly f\ointerl finger. at other
people and provided no resolution.
Fry
10
~1 39\1d
ONI1~3cn~ ~o ^lI~
99EELLLB13l>
l>E'Lt 91313~/IE/99
3-110 what is the purpose of the 17 parking spots at BBF. Why isn't it included in the rest of the
parking area within the park?
page 3-107 docwn~nl ~SSUll1eS that workers will not (clive the job fut bteakB or IUJll:h. The amoulrt
of traffic cBllsed by workers is underestimated. PllOple will go out and get coffee. There will be
building inspectors, lunch wagons, special trips fur additional ,".upplies. deliveries. This document is
not honest.
3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
3.17 Mandatory Findings of Signil1cance .
page 3-119 Does the project have environmental effects which cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings?
YES. There is quite a bit of Impact. It can be trying at times to livtl on the drivfflay dwingthe 100-
day season. When th~.s traffic we need to mB around the house and shut the windows. But then
we get peace for 265 days and it helps to balance things out Natgetting a break is really bad for us.
We witnessed it when DACA was at BBF after my baby was born. It makes tbings even worse
when staff is not responsive to reasonable requests such as making sure tlwt the park is closed when
it is supposed to closed. Or allowing burglar alarms to remain broken for 18 months that woke us
up. Also, it appears ~t tlte hours of operation and uses will also be extended, causing IDUJl:> impact
on neighboring homes. Note also that my home at 10351 San Fernando Avenue is not drawn in 00
the mllp~, lUld maybe that's why whoever wrote this decided that tlwrc is no impact. Thi& pr~
more than doubles the number of people using the property and it most definitely impacts us. I have
been trudging through this document for quite ,orne time and I am quite tired but T have to ~ that
the statements in the document are not only false but insulting. Council had mentioned the
possibility cf closing the San Fernando entrance 265 days a year and not permitting on-street
parking for BBF users - that would help. There are other homes on the driveway too. And then
there is a home within the park. that would also be greatly impacted by the project along with those
in the periphery, doubly so as well. Show us bow we will not be substantially impacted by this
project. l'lannot only more than triples days of use but also eldends the hours. This is a huge
increase in imp""!.
Please provide your comment on the S\lbtoplc th~t YOII ~leclM for "Environmental
Checklist and Responses" section of the document:
4.0 !fyour comment is related to the "References' section of the document,
choose the sobtopic that you want to comment on:
4.1 Sour<:es
4.2 Persons Consulted
4.3 Report Preparers
Please provide you! comment on the subtopic that you selected for "References"
section of the document: .
Fry
Jl
ET 38\:1d
ONI1~3dn~ JD ^lI~
99EELLLSel>
l>E:L, 9BBZ/IE/ge
5.0 If your comments are on the "Figures" section of the document, please comment
in the following field; .
Appendix A:
Page 2
Use of bert>icide enid.lines must be extended to the goli ,..om... maintenance schedule
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health cited problems with burrowing rodents
(ground squirrels) due to the garbage problems. They have not been controlled. This 'WaS required
by Vector Control and is also required by the Swill Clara County Water District. Continued
negligence will cause continued harm to the levees on the creek. Also 10S8 and compromise of
sycamore trees - just ask the City of Cupertino what they bave $pent on cutting down treea and
maintaining them. Thi:; I",. 1101 b~n don" at M"CIc;Uan RAnoh beclluao the rodent problem is not all
bad since they don't appear to have a garbage problem.
Page 5 and 17
Park bas a history of improper storage/use ofhazmat. Contact Santa Clara County Fire Dept. It just
rained in May; the pools are already open and ohlorinated. Some water might have overflowed to
the creek. In the winter time, they put out sandbaSS, so the pools are known to overl1ow. The doos
talk about drinking water getting into the creek but nothing about pool water, which I wuuld think
would be a greater concern.
Appendix B
Mitisations for bats. Prcrventative measures must be talcen. Bat houses could be installed in the
corridor so that they have a place to go iftbey need to move. This should happen betbre demolition
and construction. If the b.ats are removed. it doesn'tsav that they'll be brou!':1tt back. The bats are
more effective than any other device in controlling pests. Santa Clara County Vector Control needs
to be engaged early. I'm concerned about west Nile Virus and potential increase in mosquitQllS if
there are tewer bats.
IV-3
This appendix acknowledges the credibility of city naturalist and birders yet they are not in the
main document. Their input doe. carry a lot of weight because they .pend m\lch mote tm>e in the
corridor tban have the specialists who have been brought in for just a very short time.
Appendil< C
Cultural history is not addressed in the master plan. There should be historical markers in various
parts of the trail and park. Stephens was even part of a PBS special. Doc sayS that there will be a 5-
fQat wide path adjacent to driveway where as other parts of the docs say 4 feet. The following
organizations are not listed IIlI having bllen contacted In this stUdy and should bave been, Calitbmla
History Center at De Anza College and the Cupertino Historical Society. There are probably others.
Appendix 0
This report is very misleading. The bottom line is that traffic to the area will more tlw1 double.)' C E Q A -
From about 80,000 per year to about 169,000 per year. Funher, the estimated count ofvisitol'll {v,,-f'f:'r I
Fry
12
1>1 39\1d
ONI1~3dnJ ~ AIIJ
99EELLLS0P
PEll, 9QQlIIE/~Q
probably does not include end-of-year class picnics or camps. The repon mentioned llll end-of-year
picnic, but the survey takers might not be aware that there are 262 ~parate groups of end-of-dass
and camps, over 85% non-resident. Does not appear tbat buses are included In the numbers up to
approx. 200 bus trips per day. Over 8'% non-residents. 85 groups for nearly 3 weeks. Followed by
177 glOups spread throughout tOO day.. Mitigation - ifbu... are to continu.., th..y must drop otTat
Stevens Creek Blvd.. participants can walk less than 1/4 mile. This is what is done at Redwood
Grove in Los Altos and at Rancho San A ntonin, '.os Altos.
APPENDIX E
Main document does not allude to all of the additional activities planned such as rec swim,
community events, swim lessollS, day camps. City should know what ideas are planned and balance
them with environment81lllld neighborhood impact.
APPllNDIX I
The document aclmowledges the harm that dogs can do to environment. Cupertino has leash lam. I
have asked staff 10 enforce leash laws as my child hA.~ heen knocked down twice and I have heen
jumped on by a IllIl<ldy dog and we've had numerous near misses. Most people put their dogs back
on leash when asked but others don't and staff refuses to do anything. There is currently a feces
problem at Blackberry Farm. Mitigation plans soWld good, yet history is a better predictor of the
future. This area is well biddell and is environmentally sensitive, dogs, if present, must be
controlled for the safety of the environment lIIId park users.
Pilge 8
City is unable to stay on top of lICCUmulsted trash. If they tan't figure that out, it is unlikely that
dog feces issue can successii.1lly be mitigated.
Fry
13
!:il 39\1d
DNI1~3dn~ JO ^lI~
99EELLL813~
pE:LI 9Q13o/IE/S13
Deborah Jamison
21346 Rwnford Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
ddjamison@comcast.net
408-725-0424
CornrTltmb regimJillg the Steven$ Creel( Curridor Master Plan and
Restoration Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
documents - submitted by Deborah Jamison.
Introduction
My comments are lengthy, so I have mostly focused on those aspects of
the plan about which! have questions, concerns, objections and requests
for changes. However, I should state that I am in general agreement with
the creek, riparian and upland restoration aspects of the plan, and with
the construction of a new environmentlll edUClItion center. I commend the
city for establishing a partnership with the Water District, who is leg<tlly
mandated to rE'!store flshF!ries in Stevens Creek, and for both partners'
interest in restoring some upland habitat as well.
My comments are repetitive in some instances. ThIs is due In part to the
repetitive nature of the reports themselves, and to the short period of
time provided for the comment period. More time would have allowed me
to consolidate and better reference my comments. I apologize in advance
for spelling or typographical errors.
As reference, I was a member of the 1990-1993 McClellan Ranch Master
Plan Committee. My post-graduate degrees and former professIonal
experience was in ecology and environmental education. I authored
Spedes In Danger In Our Own Backyard, Endangered, Threatened and Rare
Species in the South San Frandseo Bay Area (Peninsula Conservation
Center Foundation, 1992). I am a frequent visitor to McOellan Ranch and
environs, but do not live in the immediate area. I recently assumed
streamkeeper duties for the Deep Cliff Golf Course section of Stevens
Creel< under the direction of the Stevens and permanente CreeK
Watershed Council. I am the leader of the Cupertino Creek Cruisers
birdathon tel!lm (S"nt<l Clara Valley AuuulJulI Society) which conducts a
yearly spring survey of birds within the 60 acre corridor. ! am very
involved with dogs, breed rescue, and lead dog hikes all over the Bay
area. I am an avid bicyclist and runner.
1
~ij :3'iNd
ONI1~3dro 30 A1I8
99€€LLL80~ sr:LI 9006/t€/,0
I dedicate the many hours of reading, preparing, and writing these
comments to the memories of Nancy Hertert and Lonnie Toensfeldt, who
along. with Mary Gonzalez, are responSible tor the city purchase and
dedication of McClellan Ranch Nature and Rural Preserve, and sUbsequent
protection of the preserve from inappropriate uses.
. 2.3 Project Location a. Property Boundaries.
Also available for review are (1) the City Ordinance, numbered 710 at the
time, which establishes McClellan Ranch as a Nature and Rural Preserve.
This ordinance defined "nature and rural preserve" and stated that "uses
shall be limited to those which will maintain and protect the ecology of the
area, conserve the natural features and scenic values, expand community
awarenesS and understanding of natural history and the environment,
and provide enjoyment of the resources present c::onsist.ent with their
preservation [emphaSis added]; and (2) the subsequently adopted City
Counc;i1 Regulations and Guidelines for McClellan Ranr.h Park, which are
the standing regulations for permitted uses in the preserve. Any uses not
listed in this resolution are not permitted. The "old orchard," owned by
the Water District and on long-tenn lease to the citY is included in the
McClellan Ranch Park acreage in both the Regulations and Guidelines, and
the 1993 Master Plan.
2.4.1.1 Picnic Area and Pool Complex Improvements
While I understand the City'S need for funds, I think it is time for
Blackberry Farm to stop being a very large picnic, group reservation,
picnicking facility that generates over $250K per year. This is not
consistent with the goal of creating a local, community park and
minimizing impacts on theneighborhcod. There are significant Impacts to
the natural envIronment and to the 10c;:!1 residents who bear the brunt of
the traffic, nOise, air pollution, lapses" in garbage m"nagement, etc.. The
reduction in capacity on anyone day is not equivalent to a reduction of
most d(lily i;Ittl:!fIddllU! dflllLo impacL:;; ill general. In fact, a through trail
which is intended to become a regional trail linked to other open space
trail systems; will significantly irlcr~as~ hurfli::Irl irnpdcls Lo the corridor.
The oddition of two ha/fbasketbalf courts Is an inappropriate recreational use
in a rural park in which we aim to emphasize it's natural setting. (1)
6a:Jketbell requires a hard, impervious surface which hi:ls i:lcsthctic as
well as ecological negative impacts. (2) Basketball is an urban sport, not a
traditionally or historicOllly rur.:ll one. In this pi:lrk we should be
2.
E0 39\1d
ONI1CGdn~ jO ^lI~
99EELLL801> 9I:L I 900l1IE/90.
emphasizing the rural history of the area. (3) Basketball is a very loud
sport. The bouncing of a basketball echoes throughout this narrow
corridor against the canyon walls, thus unnecessarily disturbing both
wildliFe and human neighbors with an unnatural sound. One of the City
Council's goals Is to minImize Impacts to the neighbors.
I struflgly urge Ult~ City La consider cUI i:lUemi:ltive t.u bi:lsketudll, ::;udT as
badminton.
2.4.1.1 Picnic; Area and Pool Complex Improvements
"Blackberry Farm would reopen as Stevens Creek Corridor Park..."
I suggest that Blackberry Farm picnic grounds retain it's historical name.
All of the parkfands can be called a group name, such as Stevens Creek
Parklands, or Steven!> Creek Corridor Park!>. Th9 Stocklmeir parcel should
become Cupertino's second designated Nature and Rural Preserve, retain it's
historical name, and be called the Louis and Gladys Stock/meir Preserve.
2.4.2 Stevens Creek Trail
(1) The inclusion of a trail in McClellen Rench that allows bicycling and dOQ
eccess to the preserve violates the standing Regulations and Guidelines for.
McClellan R(Jnch Park. Will these Regulations and Guidelines be amended
by the City Council to Indude these two currently prohibited uses?
(2) The Regulations and Guidelines designate the trails in McClellan
Ranch. The construction of a different and new trail also violates the standIng
city resolution. The McClellan Ranch Master Plan calls for extending the
existing trail into Blackberry Farm and expanding existing trails, not
creating any new trails through the preserve. Will the resolution be
amended to reflect this edditional trail?
In both cases above, is it not legally responsible and necessary to bring
the Regulations and Guidelines into compliance with a later deCision that
is contrary to their restrictions?
(3) Where exactly would the 200 foot split rail fence, that "would separate
the two trails to prevent non-peue:;trii:lll i:lccess to the nature trail,' be
loceted? How would it accomplish the barrier to bicyclists? How would it
exclude dog llccess to the nature trail? How would It exclude dog access
but allow pedestrians without dogs to ~ccess the nature trail from the
Stevens Creek trail? .
,
liB ~\1d
ll'lIl~3c1l:) .:lO AU:)
99EELLL8911 91:LI 9BB~/I€/99
(4) How will bicycle and dog access be prohibited from the meadow area of
McClellan Ranch? Bicycles and people with dogs (always off leash that r
have observed) use the nature trail and the meadow currently on a
limited OaSiS during early mornIng and weektmd tlours. Opening the
. nature preserve to usage by bicyclists and dogs will undoubtedly result in
more non-permittet.! use of the nature trail and meadow by these users
unless a very effective barrier is installed and enforced.
2.4.:2.1 Trail Aa:ess and Staging Areas
(1) The entire length of this park corridor is only one mile long. I do not
think that accommodating a car access trailhead with a .1.7 car parking lot,
apart and in addition to the major parking lot, is needed or
environmentally sensitive. Trail users should be encouraged to access the
park on foot or by bicycle, and if a car is used, there are three nearby
main parking lots that .can accommodatE' thf!m. That is sufficient. When
the reserved picnic area will result in entry of more than say 330 cars,
those groups could be required to use a shuttle service and entry from
another access area. This would ensure that parking spaces are available
to unscheduled visitors to the community park and trail.
(2) The 17 car parkinq lot close to the northern border with McClellan
Ranch is too close to the creek and to nelg/'lboring homes, narrows this
already narrow corridor, pushes the trail closer to the creek, restricts the
amount of new planting t/'lat can revegetate the corridor, and allows the
noise and. air pollution that cars bring to what should become the quieter
end of Blackberry Farm.
(3) The Impact of vehicurar traffic through the Monte Vista neighborhood
to the new Blackberry Farm park and picnic area will be increased, not
decreased, wltl1 thIS prOject. Alfowmg an additional 17 cars access to this
end of Blackberry Farm further increases the traffic on these small,
neighborhood streets.
2.4.2.2 Tralll:!stlmates
ll)e~e e$timate$, which should be emphasized lire lit most educllted
guesses, fail to take Into account a significant change in the status of this
trail planned for the future. This trail is planned to continue parallel to the
Old Haul Road, to Linda Vista Park, through the lands owned by the
Stevens Canyon Academy, and connect to the County Park. From the
4
c.:::.EQA-
T<uft;'z...
CE'QA -
Jar.. a. :
*- (r,,,: l Vi' r
er*- l -;,.. ",ke )
.~ Did
ONI1~3dn8 ~o A1I8
99EELLLsep .r:Ll geeG/IE/se
county park, trail users can go to Fremont Older OSP, or up Stevens
Canyon to Monte Bello OSP, to other open space preserves, and on to
the sea.
MountaIn bicyclists, through hikers, and runners will come to value this
segment of the Stevens Creek Trail as a major regional amenity and will
use it in increClsing numbers in the years ahead. These recreCltional, long-
distance sports are very popular in our region, have many thousands of
partidpants, and if you build it, they will come, It will become an
alternative to the frequently filled parking lots at Rancho San Antonio
County Park and Open Space Preserve. The trailheads in Cupertino will
substitute for the fee b(lsed parking at Stevens Creek County Park. The
trail will no longer be a just a local, community use trail.
Even without the trail connection to Linda Vista Park and beyond, one
user group of Rancho San Antonio OSP will be attracted to this trail as it
dllplici'lt!!!'> in many ways the experience they have walking or riding their
bikes with their children to Deer Hollow Farm and back. People from other
cities will discover this Cupertino amenity and use it when they know that
the parking lots at Rancho are at capacity.
For these reasons, I think that the trail use estimates are
underestimated. [I am a longer distance runner, my husband is an
ultrarunner, and we see where the mountllin bikers park and how far
they ride. Long distance sports are prevalent in our communities.]
2.4.3 BI<lckberry Golf Course
What, if any, negative impacts result in water from the golf course ponds
running back Into the creek? What fertilizers and pesticides are used on
the golF course and to what extent do these toxins and nutrients, artificial
or organiC, make their way bacK to the creek? What Impacts, or likely
impacts, will occur in the restored creek ecosystem due to the
introduction of these golf course related chemicals?
2.4.4 McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve
(1) McClellan Ranch was designated as a Nature and Rural Preserve.
(2) While some of the goals, objectives, and specific activities approved by
the City Coundl in the 1993 McClellan R.anch Park Master Plan have been
5
(0 C(A -
\~"S(i(v:-,.
Bio 'C
9g 39\1d
ONI1~dnO ~o A1IO
99EELLL8g~ 9T:LT 9aa~/TE/9g
worked on, many others have not been acted upon or achieved. ThIS
does not inspire confidence that the many short and long-term plans,
mitigation and monitoring promised in thiS Initial Study will be
accom'plished. How can residents be assured that the plans, objectives iJnd
specific mitigation and monitoring promised /n tl1e n"w Stevens Creek
Corridor Plan will actually be accomplished when faced with the following: .
(a) the years of not accomplishing goals set out and approved for
McClellan Ranch, (b) the years that the Stocklmeir property and the Simms
addition to McClellclll Ranch have not been improved for public use or
wildlife habitat, (c) the last several years that the Simms addition to
McClellclfl Ranch has deteriorated due to its city approved use as a
staging and storage site for the adjacent private house construction, (d)
tile lack of institutional memory, factual knowledge, and understanding
among city officials whenever there is a large turnover of staff and
elected leaders? This is not a rhetorical question: It is a very reality based
concern and question.
(3) Among the improvements Ilsted in the McClellan Ranch Master Plan
which have not been accomplished and whIch are not Included in the
Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan to date Is removal of concrete from the
creek. These rt'!mnants of past eras are unsightly and diminish the user
experience and appreciation of the resource. Some of the concrete blocks
are well embedded in the creek b('Jnk and probably should be best
regarded as urban archeology. But others could be removed without
Significant bank destabilization or ecological disruption and would greatly
Improve the natural environment and aesthetic. Does the restoration plan
include removal of concrete from the McClellan Ranch section of the creek,
and when can we expect that this will be accomplished?
(4) The Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan maps do nor snow any
restoration areas far the main portion of McCleflan Ranch, despite the fact
that the 1993 Master Plan specifically recommends invd:;ive exotic plant
remov~1 and planting of native trees and shrubs. I acknowledge that
some restoration efforts have been wurked on by the city naturalist over
the years. But much more still could be done. This is ~ great
disappointment considering how long the community has been waiting for
more restoration to improve the wildlIfe habitat values at McClellan Ranch.
(see section 2.4.6 SimlllS Property below).
(5) The f/ew Environment~1 Edur;:ol;ion Center should retain that name.
Environmental education encompasses both natural and human history
education. Human relationship to the land, both historical and current, is
6
L0 3!J\ld
ONI1~3dn8 ~o A1I8
99€€LLL80v S,:L, 900Z/1€/S0
an important educational component of the mission of McClellan RGHlch.
The use of the term environmental education is more appropriate to the
mission of MeOel/an Ranch than calling the new facif'tY a nature cef1t~r or
nature classroom.
(6) The Environmental EducatIon Center building should be a green building,
using many of rhe sustafnable deslgrr (l:1iJ('ures and materi"ls that are In use
todi!lY. The city should strIve to have the building recognized as a
sustainable burldillQ through one or more of the several green building
design awards. I think the city largely missed out on this opportunity"in
the uesign cmd bUilding of the library and the community halt. Of cou~e
the building should also be architecturally consistent and complementary
to the rural building design exemplified in the barn, the ranch hOllse, th~
dairy baml and the water tower. That doesn't mean it has to be red or
look like a reproduction of an old building.
(7) The redesign and allocation of space in this pfan will result In some loss of
a rare habitat type in Santa Clara Valley, the rIparian meadow or {feld. When
the valley was devoted to agriculture, meadows or fields interfacing with
riparian vegetation was a common habitat. Many species use the ecotone
created hy the contiguity of these two habitat types. The species diversity
of McClellan Ranch Is largely due to the existence of a creek and riparian
woodland next to a large area of herbaceous vegetation.
Because of space taken up by a new trail, community garden space will
be lost. The plan proposes that new community garden plots be located
in a section of the meadow. Also, the trail itself will be constructe<!
through a portion of the meadow. This loss of habitat, even a small
portion, violates the spirit and the letter of the McCleJlCln Ranch Mission. A
nature preserve means that wildlife habitat be preserved, not sacrificed
for other recreational uses. Bicycling and gardening should not trump
wildlife habitat in a nature preserve.
Meadow acreage wilf also be fast to the traIl as It traverses in (Writ ur U/t'!
wood fence i!llong the parking lot (map Figure 3). This is very regrettable for
the reasons stated above. In thIS case, a recreational use uf Llitl fJreserve
that violates its mission takes precedence over preserving habitat. The
Regulations and Guidelines specifically designate what trails shall exist
precisely to avoid the installation of more trails that whittle away some of
tile few remaining acres of this kind of habitat left in the valley.
7111~ community garden plots should not be extended fnta the meaqow.
7
8~ nd
ONll~dn~ ~ ^lI~
99€€LLL80P 9I:LI 9000/I€/90
r~~Jo., IuS
( f'Cuy
\""feF
1310
MeCleflan Ranch should not bear the brunt of the need for this popular
activity for the entire city. Community gardening should be provided in other
areas of the city, particularly on <he east sld~. The city should identlf'y <JreQ$
in existing parkland or future parkland that will be erected in conjunction with
new developmenrs, to proVlrJe ildditional community garden opp~rtunities.
(8) The palm trees in McClellan Ranch provide nesting habitat for Hooded
Orioles. Hooded Orioles only occur where pCllm trees exist for nesting. The
dppe"lI-ance of this species each spring is a major attraction to McClt"!lIan
Ranch for birders and nature observers. The palm trees should be specially
protected during construction. Construction of the tr;ail and the
environmental education center should not occur during the spring nesting
season.
00: QA: _
\5iO
(9) The 4H program at McClellan Ranch is a wonderful educational and
recreational opportunity and a link to our rural past, to which the ranch is
In part dedicated. Their relocated facilities should be of a higher quality
than that which has existed for them and the city should do all within its
power to insure that Rolling Hills 4H contInue in its mission. Their new
facilities should be better oriented towards public visitor enjoyment and
edIJr.atlon within the security and privacy needs of the animals and 4H
property. I am sorry that the long time leader of this 4H club, Lonnie
Toensfeldt. will not be able to see the final result of the 4H renovation at
McClellan Ranch, which she helped save in the early 70s and tried to
improve in the early 90s as a member of the Master Plan committee. In
more recent years she was active in opposing a multiuse trall through the
nature preserve, and advocated for mare habitat restoration, educational
programming, and community enjoyment of her beloved McClt:llan Ranch.
2.4.6 Simms Property
The Simms property was purchased in 1989-19510 For $1.15 million in .
accordance with the General Plan open space element. In 1993 the City
Counal passed Resolution No. 8933 which codified the fJddition of the Simms
property to McClellan Ranch Park. The rent paying lessee ofthe Simms
House (Innovative Housing) was designated as caretaker of the property.
The residents were instructed by the city naturalist regarding the
sem:iitiv~ 11abitat of the creek and crcek~ide land, and their duties to
protect and preserve the habItat, as well as the rules and regulations
which govern city parks. The McClellan Ranch Master Plan refers to the
Simms property as the Simms addition and recommends ~park related
uses appropriate to a nature and rural preserve consistent with the
s
60 39\1d
ONI1~3dn8 ~ ^lI8
99EELH80P S.:L. 900Z/tE/S0
founding City Ordinance and the Mi.'lster Pli'ln goals and objectives. W
The city naturalist initiated a project of invi:l:>ive non-native plant removal
and native plant restoration in this portion of McClellan Ranch. Much of
this native plant restoration fI/:Js been destroyed with the use of the area
behind tile Simms house to Scenic Circle as a roadbed, parking lot,
constructIon material storage site, ana construction refuse accumulation site
for the McNair house. Even if ij road easement exists from 1917, that should
not entitle Mr. McNair to use the (;ity property as his private construction and
vehicle storage area for three years (to dare).
The use of the Simms house to fulfill the city's low income housing
requirement W<lS supposed to be a temporary use, to be reviewed in
subsequent years, with the goal of eventually bringing the entire
property, land and house, into more appropriate parkland use.
With the change in persnnnel governing the city, Resolution 8933 and the
intent and practice of the City and the Dept. of Parks and Recreation
during the 90s with regard to the Simms additIon, has been ignored
and/or denied.
The new lease to a private party makes no mention that the rental house
sits on city parkland. In fact, the property is included in the lease with the
house. The lease has no provisions to protect the creek or creekside
vegetation as sensitive habitat. The tenants are granted the right to
perform gardening but have no restrictions in their use of pesticides or
planting of Invasive plants.
It has now been sIxteen years since the purchase of this property and its
addition to McClellan Ranch. Yet the Stevens Creek corridor mi:lslt:!r plan
has no plans to change its current use. It vaguely refers to "when the
timing ;s approprlateW anCl when the house reachtls lhe "end of Its useful
life."
How much longer do the residents of Cupertino ha ve to wait to see the our
$1.15 million dollars be put to tile purpose for which they were expended, the
utilization of this property as restored, valuable creekside habitat for passive
recreationall.lses with all or the protections afforded Cl nature and rural
preserve (as per dty resolution)?
I consider this history and the omission of the Simms property in the
S'evens Creek corridor master p/;:m to be an unacceptable betrayal of Pllblir:
9
a, 39\1d
ONrl~3dn~ ~D ^lr~
99EELLLsev S!'L! 9seo/'E/se
trust.
2.5 Restoration Plan
The orchard area of McClellan Ranch, leased from till:! SCVWD, is /In important
wildlife habitat area. Because it is isolated and very quiet, many species of
mammals and birds have been observed there. Also contributing to it's
species diversity is savannah habitat adjacent to the riparian and creek
habitat. The old fruit trees pmvide feeding and nesting habitat for
Insectivorous birds. Despite numerous bluebird boxes in the main
meadow portlC)11 of McClellan Rllnch, It is in the old orchard parcel where
Western Bluebirds regularly breed. [ urge that this area remain savannah.
Old and decaying trees flre important ecosystem components. Perhaps
over time the fruit trees gradually could be replaced by Valley Oaks. But
the character end habitat values of this area should be preserved. The
trail construction activity should not occur during bird nesting season.
2.5.2 Creek Realignment
What is the total linear length of the current creek bed, and how does that
compare to thl'! length of the proposed creek realianment? It seems that in
Reach A and C, sinuosity and length Is being reduced (although I
understand the purpose of these creek realignments).
I am happy to see the creation ora WIllDW swale, and the use of willows in
other areas as this is much needed habitat to bring back some of the bird
speCies that have been lost or nearly lost to the Stevens Creek riparian
zone.
The native plant restoration plant palette seems less diverse than it could
be. Missing are Acer macrophy/lum (big leaf maple), Rlbes sanguinium
(pinkflower currant), Rubus ursinus (California blacKberry), and varIous
fern species, for example. These addItIonal native plants will not only
provide a restored plant community, habitat requirements for anlmit'
species, and a enjoyable experience for park users, but they are also an
educational tool for native plant Instruction. Leaving oul some of the
usual native plant species that occur In riparian and upland zones will limit
those teaching opportunities.
There are extensive areas of invClsfve exotic plants growing just upstream
in Deep Cliff Golf Course which will reseed and repropagate themselves
downstreClrn in lhe city project are". DoeS the city have D long term plan to
10
H 3!'l\1d
ONIl~cfl:J cD ^1I:J
99EELLLS0P .I'LI 90Bl/IE/.B
CE '<It _
T e-r^<'J e
60
continually remove Invasives as they inevitably reappear and reesr:ablish in
the years and decades to come? Deep Cliff prides itself on being an
environmentally sensitive operation, and I think that the golf course
management would be open to adopting a restoration plan of their own,
which will help the city parklands to malntClin it's natural state, This is a
communication and collaboration that the city should pursue, perhaps in
partnership with an envlrorunental organizatlon(s).
2.8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
The succe5S of this project in reducing impacts to lower levals <lnd
creating a more natural, rural, wildlife rich environment depends on the
rigor of the mitigation monitoring, the qual1ty of the management of thE'!
project, and the continued commitment of future city leaders to steward
this valuable asset to the community. I <'1m sorry to say that past and
current practices do not inspire hopefulness in this long-time resident. The
dty should supply on site notk:F!R for residents that list contact phone
numbers should they observe activity that is damaging, endangering, or
otherwise seems inappropriate during construction, and post construction.
.emergency phone numbers, code enforcement, and project management
should all be included on signage within the corridor parklands.
.3.0 Environmental Checklist and Responses
3.1 Aesthetics
Trail Constl"\lctlon
The character of the trail, as perceived as well as reality, is very important in
predicting how wide the trail will actually become after usage. If the trail Is
hard, or perceived as hard by eye or by feel, many runners will not use it
but instead will establish a dirt trail alongSide the actual trail. Any
vegetation along the side of the trail will be destroyed. If the trail is
perceived as a road rather than a natural dirt trail, people whu ride dilt
bikes and some mountain bikers will not stay on the designated trail, but
will blaze their own off trail networks. Thili is the case in every urban cnd
SUburban multi-use trail In the county that I have used, which are most if
not all. So although the trail will be cuF1::;lructed <'lS an 8 foot wide trail, it's
actual impact will very likely be wider and will give birth to other
paralleling tri:lils, cut-offs, and networks. Along the Stevens Creck Trail in
Mtn. View, bicyclists have created a dirt bike mogul area that has reduced
tile riparian zone next to the creek to bare dirt. The city has tried on
several occasions to remove the built-up hills, but thi!? dirt bike
U~laygr.ound" keeps reappearing.
1 1
~1 39\1d
ONI1~3dn~ ~o ^lI~
99EELLL80v 91:Ll 9BBZ/IE/SB
These impacts will slowly develop and will accelerate after the trail Is
connected to parks to the south of the project area.
I don't think that 1n the long run tt!~e negative impacts to vegetation,
restoration efforts, and aesthetics are avoideble unless the policing,
monitoring, barriers Lv environmental damage, and ongoing restoration of
impacted areas are far greater than the city has ever employed in the
pcsl.
The only plfJces where off triiil use is eliminated is where fencing is used right
next to the trail to keep users on it.
3.3 Air Quality
The change in use of Blackbprry Farm picnic grounds will result in an Increase
in vehicular traffic to the San Fernando entrance. The reduction in picnic
capacity only reduces the visitor numbers on about 6 days of the year.
For the rest of the 100 days the picnic grounds and pools will presumably
be accommodating as many visitors as currently. Add to that the opening
of the remainder of the park to the public on the remaining 265 days, and
the net effect wi/f be more car emissions In the residential streets and down
the San Fernando entrance into the park.
Buses, unless very low emission vehicles, should not be allowect access to
Blackberry Farm at the San Fernando entrance. Bus passengers could be
dropped off at the Stevens Creek Blvd. entrancef or at Monte Vista HIgh
School when available, and can walk into Blackberry Farm.
3.4 Biological Resource5
Special Status Species
Cooper's Hawk, Acceptor cooperii, was detected in the annual spring bird
surveyor the Cupertino Creek Cruisers team participeting In the S"nta
Clara valley Audubon Society Spring Birdathon.
Nesting Birds
Bluebirds nest in the old orchard section of McClellan Ranch, and could
potentially be disturbed by construction of the trail during nesting season.
12
Ei ~d
ONIl~3dno ~ AlIO
99EELLLB0P ST:LT 900l/IE/S0
':::&~4-
~
P\l'l
Qv,u l,t y
Hooded Orioles and sometimes Barn Owls nest In the palm trees in the
building area of McClellan Ranch. Construction of the trail and the
environmental education center should be timed 50 i:J~ /lot to disturb these
two species.
Post construction activities in Blackberry Farm will result in more park
usage (!:!xcept for the h"lf dozen days of the year when the picnic users
exceed 800) throughout the year and therefore may have have an impact
011 the year-round use of the park by species, including early sea50n
nesters, that are sensitive to human presence and activities. The low
volume of vb,itors during the current off season allows wildlife d relativp.ly
humanizer use of the habitat provided by the park. Native plant
restoration planting will provide more habitat in the future, and may
offset the greater human presence in the park throughout the year. But It
will take a number of years for the new habitat to reach full value. The
best mitIgation would be to give the plant restoration time to become
established and more mature before inviting the human users entrance to
the newfy restored parkfands.
Bats, Western pond turtle, steelhead and other wildlife species
The success or failure of the mitigation measures listed in this initial study
is dependent on the quality of the project manClgement, and the long-
term monitoring and ongoing restoration of habitat due to human use
impacts.
In a previous comment, I stated my strong opinion, based on years of
observing trails of <III kinds In Santa Clara County and all over the country,
that multi-use trails are misused by a sub population of users and will have
sIgnificant impacts on wildlite and habfrat. This will be particularly obviou~
when the trail transitions from a new "nd local use" trail to a the regional
Stevens Creek I rail that will connect to Linda Vista Park Stevens Creek
County Park, and beyond.
Many dIrt bikers, BMX bikers, and mountain bikers, enjoy going off official
trails and cre(ltirlY lheir own network of trails, even entire playground
areas for bike usage. .
Many runners will not use hard surfaces and will create side trails on dirt.
Dog owners are now accustomed to allowing their dogs off leash at
Blackberry Farm, and some of them enter McClellan Ranch to allow thF.ir
13
~t 39\1d
[tHl~3dfl:) dO 1111:)
99EELLL8B~. 51:L1 9BB~/1E/SB
eJ:' QA-
6io
(fi\:'A-
SiO
dogs to run in the old orchard and meadow, The removal of the rence and
the facilitation of a trail will only increase this disallowed use. The Impact
statement mentions that dogs intruding into the habitat areas fIIay result
in animals leaving their nests or otherwise fleeing from the dogs. Dogs
also injure and kill other animals. Many dogs have a netural predator-prey
response to the sight, smell, or quick movements of animals.
The only places where I have observed this off trail usage stopped are where
a fence has been pli;i<;r:d close to the offIcial trail that keeps trail users on the
trail,
I urge the dty to use more fencing along the trail, particularly In those areas
where rcstorf.1tion plantings need to be protected, and where the trail enters
McClellan Ranch preserve, which is at northern end of the old orchardjW<Jter
District section.
As stated earlier, the old orchard are" is a particularly biodiverse area for
such a narrow parcel. This is probably due to its current isolation and
quiet, and to the savannah habitat contiguous with the riparian zone and
creek, which forms a relatively rare ecotone, The old orchard has been
incorporated into McClellan Ranch preserve in city approved resolutions
including the Regulations and Guidelines and the Master Plan. There
seems to be some misunderstanding with some city officials that this area
is not park of the nature preserve. It is, and constructing a multi-use trail
through it will forever change its character for the human user experience
and It's wildlife values. This is a narrow area, close to the creek, and
needs to be protected from misuse of the connecting multi-use trail,
Tree remoV'8 Is
Removal of some of the trees cIted in the Initial Study are necessary to
achieve a richer, more biod/verse, aesther:Jcally pleasfng Bnd more natural
environment than what has existed for many decades. While removing trees
ordinarily is a practice to De avoided, partkularly in urb~ni:i:ed areas
where nature has been mostly obliterated and where most plantings are
nonnative and of less habitat vi:llue, in 1I hllbitet restorotion project, the
environment will seem worse before it gets a great deal better, and it will
be painful to experience. ReplClcing genetically related native oaks in a
3:1 ratio, and planting thousands of other native trees, shrubs and herbs
will in time compensate for the removal of the trees clted. If human
Impacts are kept to a minimum, if restoration succesS is monitored and
ongoillg as needed, ond if invasive plants can bQ kept in control. most
14
S1 39\1d
ONI1~3dn8 jO AlI8
ggEEULBBP
91:L1 9BBl/1E/SB
(FClA -
t~J{
ri'J)
8;0
restored riparian areas reach a state of maturity of value to wildlife and
human aesthetic appreciation in less than ten years.
On the other hand, removal of seven nut and fruit trees to make room for
the Stevens Creek Trail through McClellan Ranch is vbjectionable. These
trees are part of the ;;lgricultural heritage of the area that should be
preserved to be in compliance with the preserve's mission. Trees in
decline or even dead provide important wildlIfe habitat. This is another
reason Why I ana ~u Illany others are opposed to anything but a nilrrow
footpath (usable by strollers and Wheelchairs) for the corridor trail.
Removal of the trees at the Blackberry farm entrance road will remove
screening of golf balls from the rOild and beyond. How will this safety issue hi!
mitigated?
Removal of half of the trees for a widened and realigned Stevens Creel< is
.understandably distressing for many of 115 who wish to retain some
connection with our rural and agricultural past. These trees will be used
for history education and interpretation. I advocated for keeping a
remnant orchard when the Quinlan Community Center property was
purchased and plllnned. Our neighboring cities have kept substantial
orchards for just this purpose. The Cupertino Historical Society is
interested in adopting this land for such programming. But the current
creek alignment and unstable concretized banks preclude the ecosystem
restoration that the Water District requires, many residents desire, and
that our non human residents, who have been pushed out of our city,
reQuire to live. We are trying to retrofit too many purposes into too little
space. My vote is for a reduced. orchard and an expanded creek .and
riparian ecosystem.
Page 3-45: "Project manager to supervise tree removal contractor. Project
manager shall keep permits on file tor five years, the restoration
monitoring period." Restoration monitoring should be an ongoing obligation
of the city, which will require fewer resources in time. However, periodiC
surveys, replantings, invasive removals, and consideration of increased
protection measures Will be neceSStlry to ensure SlJccess of the hublti)t
restoration In the years and decades to come. If our General Plan reaches
out 20 years, commitmefll to an ecological restoration project should extend
at least that far, preferably beyond. The city can partner with nonprofit
groups to accomplis I) some of the monitoring responsibilities.
Unfortunately, nature doesn't "just happen" when it is surrounded by
urban developrnelll and non-netlve plants. PI<:lnning for sustainabiiity Is
15
9t 3!J\1d
ONI1~3dno ~o ^lI~
99EELLL8G~ 9t:Lt 988l/tE/S8
(~&A -
pv bli{
S Je tl
good, but some nurturing will be needed forever.
Trail Placement
Riparian Setback
The lack of Ii 100 foot buffer is yet another reason why I have always
opposed the imposition of 8 wider, multi-use trail In this corridor instead of"
narrower foot path (useable by strollers and wheelchairs). By deciding on
this type of trail, the city has decided to value recreational wants before
ecological needs. There are stretches along Stevens Creek in Mountain
View where a trail should never have been placed because it i!': ton close
to the creek and allows for little or no riparian vegetation. Has wildlife
usage declined? We do not know the answer. If we had many acres of
this habitat left, we could risk this loss. But we have destroyed so much
of this habitat, that every fraction nf an acre is noW crucial to preserve.
Does planting of native trees compensate fully. We don't know that
~ither. In our project, we have the opportunity to revegetate large areas
and the city must ensure that these restorations are completed, are
protected, and are renovated when necessary in perpetuity.
What percentage of the 1.1 mile oftrai/ is within the 100 foot set-back
guideline?
Community Gardensf4-H facility
I have commented on my objectIons to extending the community garden
into the meadow habitat in a previous comment.
~The proposed garden expansion would result in the loss of 4% of the
grassland habitat" What IS thIS percentage when the loss of grassland
habitat due to the trail construction along the fence near the parking lot Is
taken Into account?
Trail Con5trud:ion
r have <;:ornmented elsewhere on the need for the trail to be natural
looking and feeling in order to minimize off trail misuse, and to be fenced
with rural style, <lttri:lctive fencing where it is close to restoration areas
and throughout McClellan Ranch - which includes the Water District parcel.
16
Cf GtA ~
~O
H 39\1d
ONI1~3dn~ JO AII~
99EELLL80p gr:L! 900G/!E/99
{ '-{y
Figure 8 and Figure 13 both show alignment of the new trail through
McClellan Ranch. But they do not agree. Which map is C(Jrrect? ThiS is a
rather significant difference. One !;huws tile trail stelying on already
developed land, and the other shows the trail traversing part of the
meadow. Thl:: Former is far preferable.
3.6 Land U~ and Planning
M<;Clellzm Ranch Master Plan
The Master Plan stems from City Ordinance 710 I'nd the Regulations and
Guidelines. These are the founding and most important prescrIptions for
the management of McClellan Ranch. The Master Plan does not chanqe
them, but furthers the mission.
From my reading of the section on consistency with the Master Plan (page
3-87), r take it that this master plan does include plans for controlling
invasive exotic species and restoring native plant communities in
McClellan Ranch. I do not see any identified restOfCltfon areas on any of the
v.arious maps for the main portion of McClellan Ranch, or the west side (aka
Simms addItion). I only see restoration indicated through the old
orchard/Water District parcel section of McClellan Ranch.
~It is unlikely to be a big thoroughfare for bicyclists like other creek trails
because of its relatively short distance." This will no longer be the case
when the trail is linked to other recreational areas to the south.
I have already asked questions regarding the barrier to the nature trail
and the barrIer to meadow (lccess for bicycles and d09, while allowing
other pedestrian users access to the nature trail, Tn prevIous (;ornment~.
1 have commented on my oppo:;iUol1 to expc:lnding the community garden
plots into the meadow in a previous section.
As a member of the McClellan Ranch Master Plan Committee, allowing
/)(cycl!ng,sr;;oul!flg, skitting, and dog w~/king through the nature and rural
preserve is not just an inconsistency. It is if violation and a betrayal of the
pre5erve's mission to first and tTJremost, prss;srve. Preserve the wildlife
habitat, preserve the rural atmosphere, preserve the quiet, tranquil, serene
user experience. Bicycling is a recreational pursuit that Col'Jn be practiced in
many other places in the city, and beyond, as I do frequently, Dog walking is
a necessary and enjoyable exercise and activity that can be dom~ in many
17
81 39\1d
CNI1~3df1:) ~o ^lI~
99EELLL8~P S 1:n 99~l/1E/S9
ftJ. g, .
\\\,,-~~-t~,,{
t-1lJ, ()
l"'1 C CJvv.ct t
other locals in the city, as 1 do at least once per day. A small nature preserve
should not be used for these human wants when the wfldlife needs of OUr
other res/dents are so reduced, so compromised, so unbalanced from years of
urban and suburban development. That the City Council has approved such a
violation, the first in over 30 years, is an historic mistake.
City ordinance 710, ReguJationl' and 6uidellnes
There ilre several more inconsislencies betweem this new corridor master
plan and the Regulations and Guidelines for McClellan Ranch:
The Regulations and Guidelines describes the trails in the preserve: ~On!y
areas dcslgn/ltecl as " trail are to be used, basically, along the creeki
along a r1relane around the field with one loop extending through
vegetation in the meadow areai thrQugh the g<lrdcn ;:lrC<li i::lnd, finally,
the buildings area." Creating a new trail in a different alignment than
above is inconsistent.
The Regulations and GuIdelines also stahl:. "(The Meadow] is to be
retained as an open natural area including native plantings for wildlife
food and cover plants." UsIng the meadow to construct a trail (near the
fence) or to replace and expand displaced garden plots due to the trail
construction is inconsistent.
The Regulations and GUidelines also state: "[The Orchard] shall be used
as a demonstration orchard area." Replacing the orchard with native
plantings is inconsistent.
3.11 Noise
Subjecting a neighborhood, which is now very quiet durIng the 265 days that
Blackberry Farm is dosed, to seven days a week of construction activity, is a
significant impact to those residents. This is a recessed flood plain area
with side walls. Any noise will be echOed and amplified. Mitigation should
at least restrict any heavy construction to weekdays. Please give this
neighborhood this one break.
~Activities allow~d i'JL the pClrk would not change, In fact the reduction of
the BF capacity from 4,000 persons/day to 800 personS/day would reduce
the etmount of noise during pe<lk weekends." Tile days that the 800
number is exceeded is only about a half dozen. It is incorrect to make the
general statement th<lt "the pmject would d.,,(;r~dSe the maximum
111
C t: u.A-
1SL
/VO,Sf
&! 39\1d
CMlii3d1l:J .:IJ All:J
99EELLL8BP S! 'LT 90BZI!E/S0
number of people by 50% in the west bank picnic area." This would only
be true for about a small number of days during the picnic season. On the
other hand, visitors will use the parK 365 days per year. They will be
driving Into the park, starting up cars, barking, yelling, screaming, etc. I
uun'l knuw if this is a "significant, ""substantial," or "drarnaLic" illcr~lIse,
but it will definitely be a permanent increase in noise level.
3.1.3 Public Services
The project wi/llncrease the need for police protection because it will result
in many more people on all of the properties, including McClellan R;;lnch,
where there are 4H animals, community gardens, and property in the
ranch building>>. In the past, the city has regarded permanent residence
of a caretaker to be important to protect these areas. That caretaker is
no longer living on the property. Yet, this project will bring more people
than ever before in close proximity to these assets. This is fJ significant
impact.
C f:&JA -
~bll(
s.evvi1i!5
More police patrols and siqnaqe listing phone numbers to call for
suspicious activities and code violations should be provided to mitigate
this)mpact. Police patrols should include off hours when iHegal activities
are .most likely to occur.
3.1.5 Transportation /Traffic
Whew! All I can say Is that if I lived on or near San Fernando Ave. I'd be
planning on temporarily moving out of the area for a few years once
. construction starts. ~20 new truck trips per day..... during the
construction period...." Anyone who works from their homes, /s /lJ, or is
retired, will be signIficantly impacted by this traffic. Construction shouid be
limited to quiet activities not requIring truck deliveries during weekend days.
71Ie city should ban bu.s access through the San Fernando entnmce. Buses
clIn unload and pickup passengers at Lht:: other access points, or trom the
high school lot when available.
The bus pull out on McClellan Road will fulfill a specific recommendation of
the 1')')3 McClellan Ranch Master Plan (Building and Site Use Plan!PlIrking
Lot(s)).
Please do NOT place a sign at the Blue Pheasant parking lot that would direct
traill.lsers through the Monte Vista neighborhood to the San i"'ernBndo
19
00 3~d
ONI1~3dno JO AlI~
99EELLL80~ sr:L, 9000/,E/50
entrance. Do not facilitate non-residents trail users to discover the San
Fernando entrance, The San Fernando entrance should be restricted as
much as possible to bicycle, pedestrian, and local community use during
the 265 days per year when the picnic grounds are closed.
Please see previous comments on my objections to the 17 space parking
lot in the southern end of Blackberry Farm.
The projected p<lrkin!J demands /lre guesses. For most of the ye<lr, the
parking capacity at this central parking area will be far in excess of what
is neeueu. During the large group picnic season, groups thcrt would exceed a
pre-determined capacity set-;:1side (350 minus that needed for community
use), could be required to use (J shuttle sefillce.
This corridor con5i!:;t~ of life-giving waters, rich, flood plain soil, and rare
wildlife habitat for post urban development Santa Clara Valley. The scales
are heavily weighted in f<lvor of private motor vehicle usage. We have
balanced away enough space for car storage. This project should be
heavily weighted in f<lvor of othp.r societal and wildlife needs.
3.1.7 Mandatory FindingS of SIgnificance
The cumulative impact of;:1 probable future project will have a significant
impact on all aspects affected by a signlncant Increase in trail usage. This
future project Is the linking of the Stevens Creek Irail to other parklands
to the south, including linkage to trails that connect to the Bay Area Ridge
Trail and to the coast. Participants of long distance sports such as
mountain biking, running, and hiking will use this trail as a regional
recreational amenity. The Bay Area Is an epicenter for these sports, with
many thousands of users. One popular nearby county park and open
space preserve, Rancho San Antonio, is now at or near capacity during
most fair weather weekends. Parking at Stevens Creek county Park costs
money, and a few extra miles for these folks is no deterrent; in fact, it's a
piuS for the many that 1 know personally. It will take years for thIs Impact
to be realized, even after the linkage is made. But wrth population
increases, participation In long distance sports Increasing, and tl1e
continued crowding at Rancho and parking fee at the county park, this will
become cHI il>sue,
Te<;hoiCilI Appendices
Appendix A: SCVWD Best Mcmagement Practices
;lO
,~ :l)\ld
ONI1~3dno jO A1I8
99EELLL80p 91:LI 900~/IE/90
B1~11 and Bl-12
These practices refer to preventIng nesting by birds prior to project
activity, during the project activity, and providing deterrence measures.
SInce one of the main purposes of this projec:t is to promote wildlife
usage, these practices should not be employed. [nstead, any project
ar:;Uvity t/7at is like{y to prevent or disturb nesting should be postponed until
after breeding and nesting season. I am especially concerned about the
bluebird nesting ttJ~t regularly occurs in the old orchard area of McClellan
Ranch, and no where else, and the Hooded Oriole nesting in palm trees
ne<1r the building Clnd community g~rdcns.
(EGl..A-
~.e
13;0
Appendix B: Biotic; R.eports
III, F4/FS. Invasive Species Reduction
[ strongly urge the cIty to employ practices that will eradicate the bullfrogs
from entering the creek from the golf course pond<;.
IV: Nesting Raptor Surveys, E. Results
Additional Data: On May 8, 2004 a Barn Owl was observed in a palm tree
in front of the Stocklmeir house. That same day a Barn Owl was observed
huntin!l over the McClellan Ranch meadow. On April 22, 2006 raptor
observations In the corridor were: Cooper's Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk,
White~tailed Kite, Red-shouldered Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk. None of these
species were observed on a nest. On May 5, 2006 a pair of Red-
shouldered Hawks were observed on and near a nest on the Deep Cliff
golf course adjacent to the south of the study area.
List of bird species obsetved
I hese additional bird speCies, other than those already listed, were
observed on May 5, 2006 by the Cupertino Creek Cruisers team or at
other limes by repulable uiruers (l1er:;ulIl:Il cUllurIUJlicdtiuIIS);
Killdeer
Green Heron
Caspian Tern
Hooded Merganser
Northern Flicker
Hermit Thrush
Golden-crowned Kinglet
21
9G 3!'J\1d
ONI1~3dn3 30 AII3
99EELLL80P St:Lt 900G/tE/S0
RUby-crowned Kinglet
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Orange-crowned Warbler
Yellow-rumped Warbler
I Qwnsend's Warbler
White-crowned Sparrow
Conclusion
In addition to the nature restoration plans in the project under
consideration, my vision of the parklands includes:
1. A community park in a very natural setting at Blackbeny Fi'lrm. No more
large group picnics. Small scale rural recreational activities. Only a
pedestrian nature trail on the west side to keep human lmpllcts to a
minimum on at least one side of the restored creek.
2. Removal of the Simms house and native plant community restoration
on this west side of McCleJlan Ranch nature and rural preserve. Use of
this parcel for educational programming and passive recreational uses
consistent with the McClellan Ranch mission.
3. Restoration of the Stocklmeir home and other buildings as an historical
resource for the community. Designation of the Stocklmeir property as a
city nature and rural preserve, with a mission and regulations and
guidelines that restrict it's use to those activities consistent with the.
designation as defined in Ordinance 710.
4. Concrete removal and more native plant community restoration at
McClellan Ranch.
S. A 4 foot wide footpath type of trail, useable by fjedestrians, strollers
and wheelchairs, connecting the properties. The trilll should be off limits
to all fast-moving wheeled recreatlollClI vehicles.
6. More livIng history dlld Iluman ecology programming. More hum.m
culture historical interpretation.
Political decision makers always speak of the need for ~balance" and
~compromise." Speaking for the native plants and animals of our valley,
we humans have balanced and compromised away the vast majority of
the ecosystems th<:lt wildlife need to &urvive. Some ~pecies haVo'~ befln
22.
So 39\1d
ONll~3dl~ JO ^lI~
~~EELLL8~P
9t:Lt ge~o/tE/ge
extirpated, probably never to retum. TOday, correct~ng the imbalance
dictates that Cupertino weight the balance completely In favor of natural
systems and peaceful human enjoyment of them, and /lW/lY from
conflicting activities we humans selfishly desire.
Thanks to all who have spent many hours over the last several years
working through the many challenges presented by these proposed
change of uses for humans and non human residents of a section of the
Stevens Creek corridor in Cupertino.
7M
I
;I J-dj it;
~
23
LZ 39\1<1
DNI1~3dnO 00 A1I8
99EELLLBQ\>
ST:LT 9BB~/TE/SB
Q. "".\ '^ -r lO~k s c.\-" ~e.r \.e.- -\. -\-€ {
1 84 Lockh.art Laue
La. A.ltos, CA 94022
May 21, 2006
Therese Smilll
Director of Parks and Recreation
City Hall
1 0300 Turr~ A.cuue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Reference: Stevellll Creek Corridor CEQA Document, April 2006
The mcp' and illustrations in your CEQA Da<:umonlgive ample .vidanc. ofth. uniquB "",oure. th.""
parks provide to the City of Cupertino. Stevens Creet downstream .isnow surrounded by higl\ways and
residential development, but this rentn&1t riparian habitat allows for nature in the city. r commet1d you
for this pia... to improve the existing porks 8l.ld protect the stre:nn. HlJWever, impllc:t of your projeet
caonothe described by a negative declaration uDltsS more creative reno:ratioDll an: llpplil!d
wbicb would enllllo<:e the habitat for wildlife e8pecially in tile apland areas away tram tile ItrI!2m
itself. Indeed, although the entire project is called StaV8flS Cr/JBk Cotridor Park Master Plan 8fl(j R~Io(l.
liOn Pla",I had trouble finding an adequate "R.sro",tinn Plan" except for the retlCbes where stream rea- .
ligmnent is planned.
As au active volunteer for Santa Clara ValleJ Audubon S<<.iety, I 11m weU ~quaintcd w.itb McClclllUl
Ranch, and, as one of the participants in the Cupertino Creek CruiSers bird surveys which took place iQ
spring during the past two years I am familiar with the entire site. Tbe emphasis of my mlliWlli degree
was in OroithoJogy and I worked for many years as an Entomologist. I will COI)ll11/l/lt 00 the document
primarily from these prospeclives.
I note one glaring omission in the document Most mitigations would be required only during the periods
of conrnuction, (e.g. Mitigation Measure B10-]: Vegetation, tree, bridge, and bUilding removal activities
within the projeCt area snail DEl sc:nedUled to take place outslC:1e or tne nesting season to aVOId Impacts
to nesting bircls.) Creek realignment accompanied by ~erem<JYa1, though desirable In this sltua-
non. will impacl >'UI/abilily uf (h. sit. fur many ywr~. lu come, and m/tfgtIDCJn shcu/d conrtnue
over a long period.
For economic CQ~~deratiollS, the creek re.'lligtlJl1elll with accompanying vegetation removal and revegela-\
lion must take place dUling phased construction periods, however, sporadic large non-native tree and
shrub removal au/side the realignment corrttinr could and should occur /lVerseveral years, tifler
repl~emen/ vegeta~on has grown large ellDugh to replace the missing habitat s'1'plied by large . \
exIsting trees, 1hat 1$, the replacement plO11tJng should occur before the removal In mD/J)! sima-'
rions. Such i. not the plan, for Mitigation Measure BIO-j of the documeut staleS "a pleconstructlon sur-
vey 01 all trees that could support laptor nests shall be completed. EvelY attempt shall be made to pro-
tect trees and nests that contain raptor nests. However, if construction is unavoidable during the mIsting
season, a qualified .bIologist .:hall conduct a survey for nesting raptors and other birds w~hin live days /
prior to the start of coo stl\.lction activities, II active nests 81'& not pt9S&nt, COIlStruclDn activities can take /
place as soheduled.. For example, there is UWe mention of the fact that raptors reuse nest sites from /
year to year, ano, if n~ trecsare removed there will be few 01 no substitutes for raptor nesting. Unless
this is mitigated. raptors may abandon the par.k altoS"lher. An analysis should he made of "am. trees /
C EOA
-te.c"'.,/ I
V((
5:0
cE-&A
1+''''J1V:,
\3;0
1
p~ 35\1d
ONI1~3dno jO ^lIO
99EELLL801>
51:L, 90a~/,E/S0
which are utili::ed by mptors elsl&Where. and these should b. planted and aI/owed to 1'JlI1/Urg b.fbl'e """"
lWn-natiws used by r()pIOrS tUe remQ..d.
'lb.e description oftrm construction tree removal (p 3-4) states, gOt the tot81187 trees to be removed as
part ot the {trail] project, 22 trees would be rIlITloved to accommodate trail construction throughout the
801ir8 pfOject area, 12 are In the McClellan Ranch Area and 10 are In the f:MCl<lmelr Me ...... Trag con-
s1ruction Ilself would Involve impacting a nMOW Con8truction 20ne to accommodate Ihl! Ila/l width and
construction eQuiomenl access. The constr\1C1ion zone would be replanted followino Installation <rf thA
trail.
The doolUtlOnt i. Y\l&Ue .. to the locatio<>. of many targctc:d tree&. Scmc oftbese, e.g. Ibe ~devliuiuH. ur-
chard trees" at McClellan Ranch may seem to an axborist to be not be wOlih saVing, but to an ornitholo-
gist would be seea to have essential habitat value to bHds. The only Western Bluebirds in lbe padc are
usiDg !he open savaniJah SlIITounding these old orchard treos. These trees shOllld be protected, not ",.
move<!,' being perhaps supplanu,d ovl9' time as they die by a few wildly-separated Valley Oaks (Quer-
cus lobaca) whICh should be planted immediately and allowed to 870w. Aftw (Jther Valley Oak
plan/odal the edge of the McClellan /V:m<;h meadow would increase this type' ofhalJJflI1. (Valley Oaks are
decliniIq: across the s1ll!e.) Savannah .honld he mowed (If' ertlzerl in "Prins to provide the oondil:iOll'_
. quired by these birds. Acom Woodpeckers, another pari< resideut, are dep""'denl OIl deoaying old ll1'owth
trees fur nesting and acom storage sites. "Declliting" oaks. pines, syCllIl1Ol'08, and other soft-wood trees
ohauld be ,CiaWCd OIl w.wUll we Awm Woodpcckcrs. The palms, which are fuund 1brQugIlout MCCIe.l!all
Ranch Nature Preserve. provide nesting habitat fur Hooded Orioles,
The Restoration Plan includes the following (p 3-35). -SCAl&l111'al1. In order to provide wildlife refuge
and cover, apprOXlmatl!ly 1 acre Of up!llI1d and ripaTlan understocy planttlg WO\Jld be provided. TIlls
would oompenl:lGte for Indirect Mfectll ~odated with Incr-.ed hur "WI iIIld d09 use wnhln lI1e corri-
dor." As noted above, lllIInY birds (1lllUIlmllIs, and inseds-see 1-=) tbrivo in open SUIlIIY 1lI'eas. l(
through meadow areas shrubs or trees are planted along the trail as "screen. 0JlC'l nesting species J:lUlY be
imp3dEd or eliminated. Betler to forbid tiJJgs entirely from tke ~ fIi1Iure preserve jj J'I{J
prace for Mg>, and pt'tPJit:k for a quiet aperi""c" for trail users Ihrough a vm1e!)l ofhabitDl3.
Insedli are ignored by the plaD. AccordiDg to DC Davis Professor Arthur Shapiro. a number of b~
Ierflies ~re declining around the stale
(l1\fO:llsIO.to l'nI11.t-ni.hJnlarticIA cal?flle=lchlI200BI05I09IMNGSVI07NM1 DTI ). Of these, the babitlll: in tIW; cor-
ridor should help support m~ cloak (NYmphalis anliopa) . Lorquin's admiral (Baailf1YCNalnnpml),
the buckeye (JulIonia cornia), and the llligrato'Y painu:d lady (Vanessa carrJui) buttetilies. lfDal'!'OW-
lea&d tnilkweed were present, lbe mooarch butterfly (DanaU$ pl~ippuS) would be sustained u well.
Other buttedlies expected in the oorridor inolude western tiger swsllowtei.l (['''Pili" rutulU3), peIo !Mal-
10W1lIiI (Pap/lio ewymedOn), spring asure blue (C,laslrinaladtm ,cho), Califomia sister {Aderpha ore-
dewll califemica}, .and Sara orange tip (Anthochartr sara). Utilize thQ information below to Iocato food
plallts oHlleSe butterflies as well as plants that are utilized. by severn! of the native birds.
0= 6:(f\
"f<?<^";jj/, I'.
V'I
616
A few years hgo Jean Slrulhen (of the Californi:o Nadve l'lanl Society) otid I .urveycd the nati"" plants d
theAdobe Creek wall>~ed.ln 2004 we determined their ecological contribution to thewatersbed. I pre-
lient thelie dala here as several of the plants llre present, or should be planUod in the Sleveos Creek corrt-
dor. A nllJllber of these importanl native plant species are not included in Y<lW' revegetation p1&ru1.
Tl'\EES
Aeer macmjohytJum Big Leaf Maple
Maples am attacked by sewrallnsecl5. InseallllOrous bitds such"" RIJhy-r.rn_M Kln~!.ts, Cheslnut-blooked
Chickadees, and llewlcl<s Wr'OtlIllTlOlY glean In the foliage. The soft trunk i. a good plae. for the Red-breasted Sep-
2
Sl 39\1d
a-lUM3dlO .:0 AJ.IO
99E:ELLLS01>
Sl:Ll ~00l/tE/50
sucKsrto oD1ain sap. Any or the WOOdpaCkWi Illirf lJ3e lhe larger ~ree6 Bti tI t:jlttl1v U1Y IIWl flUMi wMJ Nul....ll'lOi,
Hal"" and Downey Woodpecl<~ 916"" on the trunl<l! for i_cts.
",€Sou/us califomica Buckeye
NtI~r l:SUUru3 fOof :)8'/6ral buttert1i~- ~upnydru. Ch'IIc.kel.::1pot, T1Q'Qr 3wdl~l. Oo~"""'and bencI'IGlolltl:!lccts,
EPld \he IliMlva& art! a food plaJ"lt for ~(I) of the Sprlng A2tJre bUtterfly.
JugIOll$ hin<l$ii Slack walnul-
ThA f(nwar.c; nf walnln,;, r'lntJrfF:h 1ru::~A. And thA t\t~ AfA l"'~ hy $~ltjh'$ filM et.rt~n Woodpeck9r9. The trunks.
of the IlI1gllr t_ may contain woodpecker noles. Nuttall's, Hairy, and Downey Wo<x:lpecklll'$ glllOll1 on 1h.1nI1Ik8
for lnooolo.
Platanus ",cemasa Callforn,. sycamore
6ycamo", leaves EII'8 attacked by several inserns, and is a food plant for Tiger SwaJlowtaJI butter1ll.... lnoactlvomus
birm such as Ruby-cJQWlled Kinglets, Cnaslnut-baCked Cniokadoos, Oak T11mouse and Bowick's WIllIIS rIB)'
glean on !he foiill!l'" The soft trunk is a good place for !he Red-breasted SlIps~r to olmln SIlO. 'Il1e wooctleok-
el~ ll18y dig nest hcIes the ""ger I~. Hels nllOling _..no.. birds-chickad...., n~, tttmce, sl/ilWJows-
use Ih"". same hOlM after the woodpeckers lea......
Que~us agri/olia U"" O~k"
Overr;o$ 00u!l1~$ii Blue Oek
Que/ellS Jobata VeBey Oak
All oj the eal<& P""'~ food fer ill$~. and 1M loaf-'ing In~s in t.." n oontrolled by jro:;ox:tivofOll$ birdo and
illwd.>>. AL"Um~ pruvlcJe fOUll fur Calirombi Scrub Jays, Acorn WoodpllCk:er.s, Whlt&-t:H'8aStGCI NutrllltOhe8. Wih1 Turw
k&\'''alld ~q\Ilrrei$, The AClJ(fI Woodpeckers often use mlltU19 oaks with GO"", dead b~~ for gr1lflllli.. wh<<e
acorns am 6tomd.
r.;wiJ( le.siQJer>iG ArroyQ wmQW'
Solix St;wktriana ScOUter'6 wilow
W1llows are fOOd p1antl1 for the lervae ot seveta! spealas 01 butterlly- i.1)l"qIJin's Admral, Tiger SwalIo'Mall, Moomlng
CIOGk, Silvon Haitot",,,II. The aduit buttorfl... ""'Y be eaton by larger b~ ouoh M GCn.Jb Joy. J""oo\$ 011 wilcw
leaves am oon6Urrllld by warblers- Yellow, Orange CI'OWMd, Wllson'a-whlch fa_their sh'ellm-&ide location. The
thicket$ also shallor streamside birds such as SonQ and Fox SJ'lImlWi.
lJmhpJIIJlrlfm:1\ (:;v;kl(()/~fI l:A!iinmi:ol !;lAY'
The f1vIls are .f.'IOO1e oj fruit-eating blrds-Amer1aan Robin, Codar waxwings, BwlcHaUBd Pigeon.
SHRUBS
Comus sericea Creel< Dogwood'
Cornus glabrara Srown Oo<:Iwood
Tho leaves lllll a food plant of Spring Asulll bIlJQ I:luller1lie$. Berries support fruit-eating blt1is.
Flt>... calilurnica California Flo:;e'
~ hips a/O consumed by frtJIt-ootlng bin:ls IU1d the thir;ke\olth<im58lves provide shelter for all woodlalld blrd$,
Hucus ursin!JS Calitornia blaokberry.
The f'n1ilo are consumed by frU~-eetJng birds W1d -*neJs, and the thickets provide sheIt....
Sambucus Mexicana SIll<! elderberry"
TJ... nU"'"'ti .llr4<;1 'RlUI.I"f-nng In:iQCUl, and 1I1.1IU1IB IlI'8 fsvored llY In amazing versry Of Illl'C1llnCluCling NuI-
tall'~ WOo<lpeck8llJ, Wasll!ItIllJuablrm, S(:lQtled ThWhee6, BIack-ne$Cle(ll3t'o8beaks, Amerlcan Robins, Pacific
Sklpe FJycatc:hers, Chestnut-baoked Chlcl<adee3. Dark-.yllll JUnCOll, Md Western Scrub Jays.
MflIo.comd11li'/w fa~u/ttJlt.J:I,' MWlull'U'
This is the tood plant of lIle Large While Skipp"" botlet1ly. Th$ aeeds Sre eaton by Houae I'Inchoo..,d othot eeed
e!ting t>ird& on the plant, and ~d-teeders such as California and Spotted Towhees.
~it;tri~ ~~~jtormj$ Q.b)b&ny .
EsrIy!lpring b100mng snrub provldeStood for Hummingbirds and bees. Berries te.d truit eat...., and thlclull$ pro-
vide .'*Ier.
HiiteromaJes attJutifolia Toy"".
Berries.... faVOrItes of Ameri08ll Aot>n, Varied Thn.l$l1, III1d Cedar Waxwing. ~ browse tile lollaoe.
~ohariS pilulans ~onsanQuini. Coyote brush'
Seeds er. food for ground feed"", such "" Gaidm-omwnort Sf'Om'Ws and CaUfomla Tow~. shrub<: pr<Mdo ~~~
1er and nest .~.... tor chaparral-dwells", euoh <Ill Wrenlillllld Callfomla Thtasher. .
Symphoricarpus albus Snow berry
aem.. allracllnlglVorous bifd$.
Pl1Jnus NlicifoJla Holly l~aI cherry'
O<le of the food plll118 o( 1I1e Pal.. SWlIllowtall buttertly. Prwidas nest sites and .helter for many species, end trudS
for '",y;vo,_ D_ brow.. the foNage.
tianya el/lp!i~. Coas1 silk 1assel
Provides trud for birds and neotar for il1S<lC\:o and hulTITlingblrd..
HoJodisCilS discolor Ocean Spray
Flowar cllJSIllf8 anraOllnsectivorous birds.
Rhamnus califomica Caileeberry'
3
U 39\1d
ONI1~3dn8 ~ ^lI8
99EHLL80~
S,:L, 900Z/1E(S0
A food pllI11I of tile Pale SwellowtaJl. tlemes are ...ten Dy $6111lt'81 011'llS 1nolMlrog MOCk1ngollo8. Deer tlrOWB8 011 me
foliage.
Ailamoos crocea Redberry
t"IOV\Qe:I SI1eller ana TOO(] TOr DlrQS ana mam~..
Ril:Jras .LJl1l!'U/11 G.oIc-u.n c:;u(r~nt
.Goiden berries feed Mockingbirds and other fruIt-eatirog birdS.
~jb.~ mQl1zJ.";} Canyon 9ClO$~bQrry
FnJlls ar& popular w~h birds.
UNDERSTORY f'lANTS
fest<Jcs ~Iifornlca grass
Nessellaleplda grass
"""'11;8 toIreyana grasa
Gl_ ....1arvaJ food pll11l$ for several speci... of skipper butterflloo. They provide food end shell!ll' for groun<l-
leedl"ll b1rdS-sr>acmws. junoo&, goIdfinoh.... IOwh....,-and nwnrnlllo-qround 6<lUimll8. rabbits. mice and vol....
HalVeGler MIS OOllecl the seeds and carry thom \0 their nesta.
JUf1CI.JS paPtns rush'
. Provides shetter lOr watel'-Iovlng sper;lea.
Ar!emesJa dougiaSl/ mugwon'
11
Scrophulafla calitornica Bee plant"
A Iw\J IJI."I uf 1:u~llY<.lr~ CI........~1JOt uutt..ny. Populllf ,""'t.... ~n;e for _. bHS. bunert11es ana nllm'ilng-
birds.
L.<JnicenJ hlopidula Honeysuckle'
FtJWeRl !Ju.lviUi n~. r"'l '"IUIl"llniJJijlJirU5 ~IIlJ u.",.ril'Jt; "Llri:lvl rruW;vuruuti tJirtJti.
Mimu/us .urantiac. Monkey flower
A 10IVSi food plant of Euphydr.... Checker.lpot butterlly.
. Satu~ doug/xii Yom BUQn~
Ne<;tar $OUrell for eduK Euphydras Checkerllpot butterfly
CIlIoragaJf<um pOO1endianum Soap plant'
Night ~OOmingl attl'iicta noctumlill ,inMr.tR. I'lAw hn'wJ!:M "n ,he leaves.
B~~s Mu~.ms
Food pllutte of the Sara omnge lip
Fragarla chlloensis w~d strawb.rry
BIrd$1Uld smd ITIlII1YIl8Is eat ""its. a- pollimlts blossoms.
Lotus SCtJPMus Deerwecd
Food p10llT\ of CQmmon Sulfur butterlly.
Lomatlum sPl' Lomantlum
. i.aMll food pIanl of Anise Swallowtai butter1ly.
Lupinus su=/entu. ~upine
FollIIge....en rYf GOloerH;;rowneo 5pll1roW$ DeIIlre migration. Sorre ll1Ml1 "DIUe' llUltelTles teed on ~uplnus spp.
Cynoglcr.ssum Hounds longue
11
CllllIrJe rutJlcunaa GOOerla
Sevsrallnsects colleot pollen.
Ferr\3:
PoUsticum munlWm
Dryopwis wguta
p.,"'"gramma !rian~rIs
Polypod/urn caJlfarniClJm
Atherlum ieJix fBmina
swon;jj'Jl1l
wood fern
9"k:1 baCk 19m
Calikonla polypody
Lady fem
'most freq"""Uy found """oi06
In additiOll to the local trees ilIld shrubs that were not included in your surveys, few tmdersrory plao.1&
wm me.ntioned at all. In addition to their beoefit to birds, llIldn.orv Dlants provide Sll9tcDance fur l:Jeo&.
flc;.1 mllects 1lIcl1 as wasp puui1oids. predatory wasp". and be.... ElJDit shoUld be made (111. time to
replace the weedy aDIlual Enropeu grasses in the meadows with native wildtlowers and pses.
Ru1h Troetschler
4
El 39\1d
ONll~3dnJ JO ^lIO
99EELLL811l>
S.:LI 91111l/I€/SIl
May 19,2006
Therese Smith .
Director of Plllrks and Recreation
City Hal!
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Therese:
As 11 follow"up to your letter of April 28th regarding the Stevens Creek Corridor
Park, Fl'lilh anell would like to request that consideration be lliven to providing a
Safe Route to School through the Park from Scenic Circle to Byrne Avenue. This
would require that the existing bridge over Stevens Creek be retained to provide
access from the present trail, and that a controlled entrance gate be provided for
use by students walking and bicycling to school.
We are aware that some of the residents living on or near Scenic Circle are '
opposod to the uee of their streets as an acce~~ point for Park visitors, and we
respect their concerns. However, there is an overriding concern Ihat must be
addressed regarding the safety of students bicycling on McClellan Road durillQ
peak commute hours. Traffic density on McClellan is very high, particularly
during the morning f!.lsh hour, and the road too narrow to permit the installation of
bike lanes. Recently, this led 10 a bicycling student being injured after colliding
with a car, and this unsafe condition over time wiJllead to even more injurious
consequences.
We would encourage thElt coneideratlon be given to providing a Elate that would
only be opened long enough during the school day to provide students with a
!lafe route to school. and otnerwise remained closed and locked. We will
appreciate your help, Therese, in working to restore this important access and to
assure that neighborhood concerns, If any, are promptly addressed,
Sincerely,
JOEl & Faith Walton
21721 Columbus Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
cc: Mayor Richard Lowenthal
S~ 3!;ll;ld
ONI1~3dno ~ ^lID
99€ELLLSBl>
l>E:Ll 9Bel/lE/ge
( f &.A -
t'1clle[{a~
"\ ,r..eff\ [
Interest Groups
and Agencies
county of Santa Clara
ParKs and Recreation Department
4:98 Gr-mien Hm urive
LOS -Galas. calitomla \jG032~ 7669
("00) :~~2200 FAX 3Ss.1100
R.....::;erv('lJlnnS {.4f~J ~~f;-220 I
...^"""_l')....rkl..r.l'("..rll.c
May 25,2006
City ofCupmino
Alln: Therese Smith
1 O.1-00.'f'orre A....cnue
cupertino,CA 95014
SUBJECT: N\ltice of Inion! (NO!) to adopt >l. Mitigated Negative l)eclarl\.tIon (MNP) for the Stevens
Creek Corridor l'ult. Master Plan aDd Restoration Plan Project, City of Cupertino
Dear Ms. Smilh,
Santa Cl:IT'd County Parla: am;! Recreation Department (County Park>>) i. in reoeipl "fthe Notice of Intenl (NOl) 10
adopt a Mitigated Negative Decl.nition (MND) for the Stev<:n5 CreekCorridor!'uk Msster Plan llnd ltestllration
Plan.
County Parks appreciates acknowledgment of the policies and guidelines of Ihe Santa Clara County Courrtywide
1'rai!.r Ma...t<r Plan Vpdute (Countywide Trails Maiter /'Iu,,), wbich ll", County Board "fSupervisors approved ill
November 1995, as part of the Parks and Rem-eation Element of the County ofSanfa Clara General Plan (1995-
2010).
The Parks and ~creation Department's comments are primarily focu&lld 011 potential impacts related to the Santa
Ciw.. CoWlt) CoulItywi<1e T,dil. Ma.La: Platl rdative to ~ountywide trail routes, j>\l!;illC access, regIonal parks, and
resowe<: protection of the riparian corridor and other sensitive habitats.
County Parks has reviewed the Mitigaied Negative Declaration IMND) and pritial Study (IS) for the proposed
proj ee! and submits Ihe following Cotnmllnts.
Relationship to the Santa Clant County COlllltywide Trails Masur Plan
The Trails Element anne .Parh and Rec:reati"n C'h"l'kr oft"" 1 q()~ Gone",l Plan icontilies S,,,,,.,,. C,eek $uu..
/"fIgiollal TraU (Route 82) through the project area. Per the Countywide Trails Ma;;ter Plan, trail route 82 is
designated as a l1:1Iil roUle within other public lands for hilcing, and off-road bicycle use.
ColirttyParks apprecja~s the acknowledgement that the segment of the Stevens Creek trail proposed in the Master
plan would be irnplemonled in accordance with tneCountyWide Trails M..tci PIon (TrliUs M\') mid relevant o".ign
Guidelines.. .. .. ..,.. .,' . ..
Trail Al/glUt/ellt:
The Trails MPshows the trail alignment along Stevens Cn.'Ck. Trail aligriinents alon&, creeksshonldinclude stream
protection me4SW'O' sucli as sUitAble; se;tva~k.> ..11.1 lJulTer Wile:; U.~l wuuld proVide appropriare protection and long.
term slllbility of tho ~Te.:k. County Parks acknowledgos rof=u""lo the Santa Clara County TraHs Design and
Maintenance Guidelines. Section D-1.3.3.1 of the iUidelines states that " where topographic, fe,<:<1\lrce ","dnaV'rnent,
~ H.oor(t oi supervl$ors: Dofinld P. Gitge_ Blat'lC<.1 AlVarado, f>{.:lC MCI-llJgh, .If1mes T: Beidl. Jr" Uz K.JllsS
.. \.-:OUllfy E."('",LUlivc: r-'OIVI Kucl(:l~. JI.
I;i
hl~
13l> ~\ld
ONl~d3dnO 3D Al18
'l'lEELLL8ElP
;,:L, 'l0Ell/IE/50
or other constraints or management objectives make this infeasible.... ripll:rillJl setbacks may"" adjusted...." which
is appJi""blc (or this project.
According to the maps in the MP, the trail alignment for the Stevens Creek Sub-regional Trail, S2, rUnS adjacent to
Stevens Creek with the exceptlon of the alignment in the McClell8t1 Ranch site IIlld Sl<lcklmeir site.
County Parks concurs with movitlsthe proposed trail alignment in the MeCtel1"" Rllnch ElI'ea away from the creek
corridor, as it would canse the least impact to the Preserve and provide better access ftom the staging area.
The proposed tnul alignment through the Stocklmeir property would, however, significantly impact the site,
particularly the orchard trees. While the orcbard may Dot he considered a natUral resource, it can be considmd an
hi<terioal resource Ill'ld th~.fore should be offered a mlKUlW'e of proteotion, pmtioularly M oofinitivo pl""" for thc
site have yet to be determined. In addition, as Slated in the MP. the orchard trees are still viable and producing fruit,
therefore causing minimal impact to the site seems appropriate at this time. .
Tn addition, the MP states that development of this section oftmil would occur in the final phase of the prQject,) . A--
indicating that earlier oon1pleted trail segments would ~ud all!..: I>oWIWY u[ lhe Stucklrneir sire. The MP should C E Q
therefore consider potential impacts to the Stocklmeir site resultiog from undirected, uocOIItrolled access OIld use
that may result. ~ c I roi .J
I fa\ ,'Gll'{
The MP should consider locat~ the tmil througb this sit.; along the creek corridor, or, alternately, along the
weslom. boumlllIY uf the silt> to ",due. potential impaclS_ Further, an alignment along the creek would he more in
keeping with the Trans MP alignment.
A.dditWnul Comments on the Masta P/(JJI.'
In evaluating the trail trail alignments, trail use and stlIgingareas, the MP should taICe into consideration
connections to existing and furore reg;onaltrails, particularly segmeDts of Stevens Creek sub-regional trail as !hey
will ultimately connect to Stevens Creel:; County Park and polmltially to Ranoho San Antonio Park. In llddilion, the
pml"'<M trnil will offer opportunities for o.on-motor~ transportation connecrion~ with tho 91lrrounding
neighborhoods, parks, and open space areas. The MP should, therefore, evsluate potential or cumulative impacts
that may arise from implementation of the project and development of this se~ent oftrtlil, particularly, in regards
to where trail users will be directed at the ends of the trail, and potential traffic and circulation conflicts.
Lt't::zA-
"cd I \/0'"
ef,:.".te;
The MP ,t.u., that the t~i1 woll1d b. 8' wide. However, it ill uncleor whetJ"ll' the width ofthc trait include. soft
shoulders or whether soft sholl.!ders would be in addition to it.
The MP should clarify whether construction oftbe trail is contingent upon realignment of the crwk, and whether .
the trail would be constructed io conjunction with tbe creek realignment. The MP should also clatify if an interim
unil would b<O cOIlsbvo;tcd, and, if '0, where that alignmont would boo
Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Depw1ment looks forward to the development oflhis segment of the
StevellS Creek Sulrregiolli\l Trail (Route 52) and appreciates the opportunity to review and submit comments on
the Mitigated NCl>"tive Pecl..atiou fo. the Slevells Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration PlaJl project.
If you have any qUCbiioDS regardmg these comments, please contact me at (408) 355-2235 or send an email
Antoinette.RomeQ@prk.sccgov.org
Sincerely,
~/~
Antoinette Romeo
Park Planner
~
--
~1'Il.( Supt"'iso...: Donald F. Gatt, BllInca Alvarndo. Peter McHugh, lime. T. Bull Jr..llz lCnis.
Counly E.....ti..: Peto' KllllaS, Jr.
II> 3!J\1d
ONI1~3dnO jO Alr~
99EELLLS9l>
SI;LI 99Sl/1E/SS
No UQA co....~h
MDDOWr;. OF CU~HO
I 0080 Sce:NIC 8LVO.
CUPl:FmI'O. CA 9150 I 4
(460) 44ei. I e I e
May 24. 2006
Therese Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation
City Hall
10300 Tom: Avenue
CupMin.". CA 95014
Dear Ms. Smith:
I response to your request for written comments on the Stevens Creek Corridor
Restoration Plan and Master Plan -llIitial Study, tM Meadows oC Cupertino
Homeowners Association submits the following. These comments pertain to the
information presented in Section S, Figure 10,
1, In numerous meetings of record, the City oC Cupertino has ~d 1hat it will
provide a 100' =hack hetween the MearloWll of 1:1I1'ertinn Jl11d the ~roflOl'M tnlil. .
As shown on FigurlO. the trail location does not meet this commitment. We
request that the trail be realigned to pr~e the privacy that tile 100' setback
provides.
2. The Meadows Homeowners are extremely disappointed by the plllIlllCd
destnlclion of as much of the orchard that this stUdy envisions. This is an hi6tOric
orchard that deserves preservation and good C!U'C to the extent possible. The
elim'Mtion of over 50% of the trees ~ WU>C(;c;ssarily ~~s6i~.
In view ofthe,e two comment<! we woulrllike to "ffer th... fnllowinll suggest...:! oolltlges to
the plan:
]. Realign the trail to provide a 100' setback from Meadows property. Chanron~ the
creek alignment in Section C from that shown in figll1'C 10 SO that the east bllllk of
the realigned creek more closely follows the current east credc. bank would lISSist
in meeting this requirement. We believe this change in tile creek realignment
would, if done with a goal of saving more of the orchard, also save as many as SO
trees of the 95 thc current propo5al plllll/l to eliminate.
2. . Another possible change to meet the requirement of a 100' setback fJom
Ml-adows property would b.. to move the trail bridg~ further downs1r..am
(northward) and keep the trail on the: eats side of tile creek in for as long as
possible.
10 3!J\1d
ONI1~3dn8 ~O AII8
99EELLL80\1
\1E;Ll 900~/IE/S0
,
S..n.. CI.ray,IIOy A~d;;bolisoo.tY. .
.' . . . FtnlndcJ 1,,g26,.
May 30;20,06 '.
Therese Sn:iith .. .. ..
. ,Uirector of Pa.rlCi and .Recreation
. City Hall ...
.10300 Torre Avenue
.. Cupertino, CA 95014
, '. '. ..
.. ieference: Stev~ Qeel( cOiIidor CEQAD<>cutnent. A(m:l 2006 .
.1Jeaf M$, Snu1t1: . .
... . The Santa Clara ViUleyAudubon Societt w~uld Iilce to coqutlend the City of e.perl.ino ..
. ... fQrthe quaJ.ityofthe 2006 CEQAdacUmenl. ap.d the. manyimpioVenionts plani1ed for the .
. Steveiis Creek Cllrridor~t Wtl1,benefit CuPertino residents .ilii.dwildl~ alike, . ..
.: OurCOlDlllents pertain. to the. clementS of theplim that coriflict.with City. Onlinance1l0/
. ..1976, and the.. i"'93. McUlell~ Kandi.",Master Plan. The.: Stevens C~ document.
. acknowledges these conflicts, ..., . .. .
c'
. ,
. City.Ordinanee 7l0proVidesthit'~Uses [of Mc.Cte1Ian ~] shaJ,t \x1:limitedlo tbose
. Which willmaintain~dprotcqt lh., cc,9Iogy.of the area. conaCtVc:tbc. riatural fcat~. 8lld .. .
. scenic values;' expand commuDity aWaiellesS and Understanding of natUral bistoryandtbe
. environment, il.nCl p':Ovide enjoY1l1entof the teSOlJcces pie$flrlt COnsillent ..:Niththeir.
preSerVatiOll.'~. . .
.On l;'agesHi and 3:88 the StevenS Creek Co~dor dOct$e~isiates..''ihere' are some
Clemcn150ftheSievelllJ Ctec]( Corridor MasterPlan thax may beco~de,red ~nco.nsistent .
withtbe McClella,h Ranch, Master. Plan. The piopoSed muJt(-uSil:,tI'all may becoDSidereQ
. inconsistent with the MaSter. plaiJ's eool9gical goals, hQwever, !be. e~ oftbdi'S,i1 is
. . mininiizlldby its 8-footwidthlt isuiilikely.to l)ellbig ihop.>ugb.I\tte'for bioyolistslikc
. Other I;(Cck trail~ (e.g, !,Qs GlItos Creek ttail)~u.se of its relatively short ~ce (1:1
ZiZ21McClenanRood, Cupertino,CA:950i4. P/1~ne:4011.2S2,":1747, .F~: "08-ZS2;2~~O
.. . . : , e.maiI. ~c~l.cvas.O[g e: ~.~v'a.s.:orx:: . . .
.... . ,.,'
to" ,,"".. ...~>4 """""" s" loll
gE 39\1d
ONI1~3dn~ jO AII8
'39EELLL88~
SI:Lt g88~/IE/S8
.. .
~
(,+'-( .
(0""",,,'; I
. .(:';~~h.+.
..6f- .
C""'s'~ +eve
I
.,.
C,. M1's. Therese. Smith' . -
stevens erode' Conidor , '. .
Sllnta"Clara.vauey Audu~n.SoCiety:si;jlintn""Iil': .
.Page2of4 .. . .. . '..: .. ..'
mile).. ~ ~Kisting~;Ure ~l.w~uI<.i~f:e~ced offt,o ens~e .fuibi6ycIistswOuId l19ibe .
allowed (In the nauow footpath, '(he project vyoul<ibring rnoreusers.to. the patk,: biltif.the .
.. impact<{fnew 1.I~.rscanbeIl1inimized,ih~Jicj1histOriCaI iIfld:~logi~1 featlU"ils ofth~ .....
p;id: . wo)!Jdbe shared with more . people, and -the Cin-of CiIpertin..O is corinnitted to.
eDIluring.i:h~ !hisproje~t would be ~~i1~ kan ~nvir(>nmentlllly :~itivc.Way, ...'
. "DO~. on l~slies ~U1d be ~lIQ~ed'Qnthe ~~ rirulti~Use trail iliat .w~~dg~ through':
McCI;lllll,l :Rancl1P.luk,. f~ may' bel;Ol15i4e~ i~C()nsi&teitt with ili.e 'w>irigiCliJ golds of. ...
. the McClelhin RanchMa:st~IPlan. C\IITi:I!t1y.dogs are notaJloWe4ii(M:cCleIIanI~.anch
Pad~. A City F'!liks ServiCe Officer wQuldbe'w~uld he. employe4 by. 'the c(ty toensUI'li
users do not enter ofuer PQrtlons of McClellan Ranch WIth their dogs." .
. '..,
" }.
~ '
- . '.
" '. . .., .
. -Multi~llSeTr~illUldDogs' '.. ..... '. .
. . "AS'~ ~;estatedin~~iOus ro!l1ItlUIliCatiP~. we oppose th~~o~~tr.~onlif.~~UI~... '..
. ..' me trail through Mi:CI~1l8DRi\nch 'beca",se li m!l!ti.use trai! is Dotc'onsbtent with ..
. . the 'qliiet, r!lr!ll setting ofthe"presenre a lid may reSult indilmage to JIlfnl,i" llDilllli~ :.
.'llIIdbirds.. We 'also' stroogly oppo~ allowing'ilog$ intI> thellrese~e,.eyeD:ir:they lire .'.
. OBidlinb., . ..
. .
.. The' pl~n d~rities- ~o m~.al1S for- conttolling themovem~ of people 'and tbt>.ir -dogs
.tlirough McCleUan preserve, .' :." " ~ '. ...;......:
'Tbe.tirstis theCity.l'atks .Service Offic<;rtliat 1i~:taIready~enriuiD.tioJ!.ed(3-87). .....,:....
:'. . :. :- ~. .' ".'" '. . ,". . ";. . -' .', '. .,", . ',.':: ". ' . \ . '.;' .' . "~'. " .
. . The seoo~d.is!l200-f~t,ren"" tbilt ~Il b<:!:>uilt to k~pl;licycles off the D4it4ro'ttail'. '
.:
. ..
" ','
.... . These ~~l1tr61&.ill'eDot.ileq:UatE.. .:... . . .... .. .'. .
. '.' .... ", . . - ".. :',"' .' .. '. '., .. . . " . ." ~'. . . , " -.;'.. "'... -.'. ,: '.~ . .. - '. '. . .: ' :' ..
..AltbOllgh an officen'louldc~nly' be .4elpful~w~'assUme: theperSoll;~Uldbave rmioy....
du~es; alia surely )Vollld. nOll)e rooniloring .the trajl' all day 'Vol1m;t.eei patrols tbat.ai'e to .
be <>r~llIliied.by the city are also rpentioru:d(3-35). . ". .. . .'. .' .
.'. Howrnanyhliws per weel::.wouldthe Parks Servi~..Office(de~ote.tQ.theiSiiue Qfoff"
. leash.d9gs?Would!he service Offi9eIt>atroi dci ~keildsai1d d.U,ringthe early mdrning
'll.inilate. aft.ernoQn houi:s \Vhen working people ~ likely to ~ or'run.with dQgs1': :' .
. ':1 '. ~ -.' ..:....- '.' : '.. . ..' : . . '_ . - ". '", . ;.. . . '. '. '. . ' .,..., - .' ': . '. '. '
':. iUritie'r, we ate 'conce!'ned BbOOI ihe06nsultaiit's~aIysis.Of.l\It~ 'use paffemS. ::;iitce iJie:,.
. ... lIlIJI!ysis is a .~t.guess ~ed .on current paUems, ,t is Specli!ative iUldoiayUnderest:itruite .
". use .by trail' ronn~. bicyd~., anddoll-Wlllk~l'3. .. . ... ....
.'. . . ". .. .-,-. '." ,"
.'.
. ,.
'.
".' :..
. . .
. .' . , "
. MlIny. of o'lll'.mem~ 'own and Jove dogs. Since' we frequently widk our dogs.in:tocal.
. parks; We. knOw tIiat many People oo';not obey leailh laWs lincI.l\JlOw their ~$ to I\I1l
, .. free. Off-leashdog$ Ca.I1.Cl\tch, aDd 'kill small mammals, 'l!1lIphibiw.,:andgroundbinl$
:.such as quail and sp&wws, aJ]cifwhich live mid nest' at MCClellan presenic, .' ......
'I '.:. " .' -', ,. ,. . .. . .',.'
'.
, . . .
'. ',:"
. '.
. " , . ~ ;, .
LE . 38\1d
ONI1~3dnO ~ ^lIO
99EELLL80t- ' . 'St:Ll 9la0t/.1E/S0 "..
..~aapti.ve.~aiiag~n(, '" .' .... .::':
. . . Page 3,36apeeifies: "Ifit.ls~inedat linyti,t;ne t~t niitigation'm~uteS .:.. ai-e ~r .... ...
.. . suffi(:i~ntly ritiilinn:clng .iIIi~ts:to the natlve flora an4':faiIDa8ndre~red:h8bit~.Is; .tb~..
.., .... 9tY WiILdiscOOtiiiije. jiermitiing'dogs.witjlin lhe.ptOj~~Like~e;.jf:J1abi!at
. .dist\u'bance,o'idecreas.ed. s!eelhead survivorship is detertnrricil. to.be a. ~t. impaCt fr!lm
:.: . visltrir'misuse; apprQpri!iti:mi:a$llfcSShat! be in1.p1e!'riented. S).iChll801qsiog of fenCfugo'rl'
.... .'. ,porn9llS.ofthe,tiail, to~~oidAttt~e~im~:~..~. ",>:.~'. ,,:.:. . ..' .
., '.:.'. We llHk'fo'r'strjcl.eoforcemeritofulIll'rulell.Further,.weUk tbjit tbe Citydefiiie"
.... ......wII~lIim~~~re si*nifieaaL\Vbatis theup~eJ'UiDn 'OJ! people ~r ,,!ff-le;l~b do~. .. ..
. ..allowed.wilbili!\!tClellanp~e~ . ........, . .~.'... .' .' .,
, . " ".'
. '. ' . ".' . '.
. .Sinims.AdditiQhto Mec.e'IPn.Ral\ch ....
".' '
. .. ~ \ . . . .
, :,
.. .
., .
.' ... .... :Mrs. ThereSC:S!i;Ufu . . . . .
.'. ..StIlVCns.Croek C9riidor . .'. . . . .
:., .Siu.ill ClUlll y~ ./'I.uduboli.Soc.i~'s. Co.irwie;"lS.; . ,...
Pai103 (}f4. r ....,. '. . .
," ,'. '. . " .' ," ',-".:' . : ..:.-".. '- .' " "'. . '. . .'" " '".:' ,.., . "'- . -.. ,,' '-.. "'-,' . ,.'. .
. . We womd,ll~ additipPju 'detallon'the fenaA;'i~' 8iD.chKli:s alabelforli 200Unear.';
.Jo.ot split~falj {e~; but there is ncrdia'graID ()fthc..felice soo~'how it is 'to be: placed, ....,
'. ,. .', \' ',.,',... ,. -. , . .
....
. ..
,', '
. . .
,".._, .,-'
":'.' ",., :-'.' .
I, 'n
J '_, '
'. .
- '.'
, '.'-.'
;:
, . - :". ',' "'-' -'. .'. ' ,..' " ' '. -.... -" ' '. :".-.,
, Ihe langwigt; .abOi,1f rental' of'$e Shnm$h~ is,~gue.How viili the'.city. dC!(,rmJne: .
""hen it illi'longer~.a. i'~fu] life.aS'a"hO~~' ,(3~84)?-\VilUestrnanoll'.bI;:'derer(ed.'
Ul4ofin:i!C1:)'?, . .. .. ., . . . .... ',' . ....
, , .,"'.',1'..\
, .-"".,...."...' ," '-.- .'-'." --. .-' '. :"",:, -'>' ,:, ','- ,,'
. . OJi...page 3~84, thllSillmi:SproJl!irty is to be rezoned fr6(n R 1,Si!1g1e'c Ffll11i1y ResidentW.: .','. .....,
... 'to'.Public P~ation...BeCauSe the lapd is aD. ad\fiticin to McCJdI~RanCb,:the. . '. ,.:.'
. . zaning sbQwd be Pad::s and OpetI'~p~; the same as thd..fcClcl1an preServe.. ,.... '.' '. ..
,'. , ....,-., .,' :,:',.'.' .' .' "., .
. " McCleli~BlunCJi'Or~ba~ Ar$" .. . . .. , '.
': :," ' , .. '... -" "',' ,... . :: , . . " '. ',"
. TJj~ old orchard ~ea o~ the.north si'd'e QfMcCle11a.ii Rahcnis rich'.in\vi~e and.SiJ.o\dd .: . ... . ..
. 'JJe kepti.njt:scutien~ itate~ ~cIli~Jlsts.;thri;e'fi1!it trees iri~dine:ibat)u:eP'Iw.\ld.: ;..
. for reinO~.~ airiieni4av(;<l,et~ined .that. the. Q1d~esare:an.. in,po~antWestem . ;.. ... .
Bl'uebird nestfug area. TI1isis ~sibly~~. .mQre.in~~ are. !\Vajhible:.apd the.lUll.is ..:
..closetll l,be,i;'reet;!\atheiJhan .rCrJ:!Qving Jhe~l~ ~es; thr~,pew Valley ~(a1SQ ." ".
~von:dbYbluebirds:.shOUldbep~d for~tute ~itat . .' ',.' '. . " . .
:.N~ti.v~Piant~ro;~ol1 .' . ... . .. .. ...... '.. . ...... ..., . . ". ..'..
'," ;:,', ",,":" '.." /. ....' ': .", .' ....,;. ,. ',~ _,' . " ~ '. ......: " ., :,,: :::.'.' :.' ,'. : ,,~, ;".' I :':" '.-':".
.. ..Larg.eareutll berest,*dWitb1i~V('nan"e:,pJantSsho1.!ldi!eprotected.witb: sigusap4. .'
..fenciI1\l' Spl!t~lail ~nCes approi'riateJor .ariiral settirigwill allow tb,eQew pll\lIliilgstl) .'. ..., .. .. "
:.gtow widis1lllbed: . , '.:.' · . .,.. .' .'
, .,'
..,
':, .'
J ~ : '. ,
., '
." ,
. " ...
,. .
,.
., .
',-;. '
" .
. ~ . .
'.' ,",.
" "
.
. .
" .'
'.
. ',.
0'.
, ..'~ .
" ',... "....
.... .'
,...., .
. '.'. \'
8E 391:1d
ONI1~3dl~ ~o ^lI~
'3'3EELLL80P
S1:L1 '300l11E/S0
,. -" 'J'
,. . .
'.. Mrs. ThereSe Sli\ltli .
.. StevenS creek CQmd9i ." .... .. . . .-
5ai1ta 0lIia Valley AudUoou $,jl>Wly', q"'lIllclltS . . .
p :4ci(4". , ", -. ,.', . ..
,agli . . .' . .", .... :. . .' .' -- '.
. We )>,ould HkeJo. Point out that tlu$ Could be particmarly clesl~lile.at'-ih:e.'group'.i>icnic .
. .. .._11 llt'B!ack~etiy.FMm. Th~re;alarge .~~.Will~. plijnted bel}\'em ~ 'pic,tlictilbtes. _ - .
.. and.thecreel(.; andjt eoidd'bll. difficultto.k.eeppeopleanddogs o.tftJi.e n~ plllIttt . -.'
. .' , . . . - . ~ ' " " . . . p. .
.'
,':
. .~ollul~u~itY<rlI~~Ds ~ . '. -
: " " ., 1" . . . ,...
SCVA,Sben-eves thaI all orthe Unique npananineadow on MCClellan ~h:shoiUd.blJ .
.-, . : 'retaine4as it is: '~ste~d6f claWing moremead,Ow lanel for the cpminUriitygiu-denplou .
., .tbat~nbe .displatea~y ,them.i.ilti"ll~e trail, we recouimettd tbatilie. CitYiDv~tigate,
.. '.,addiDg~De or mote.oo:mm~llity.gar4tt1'lIli,plll1'of.new housing .d~elopJDe/lt 011 tbll .
. :east side ~f the city.N::> woU,idbetter supportne.wresidel$ Wilhc6uun.Uniy8ardlms Of
theihiwn. . .. . .. .
...
.' Tral~ead:Par~~~.
r...
" .;
~, ~ "
'.
'-' . ',- - - '. .,., ' .'- '/'." ....'. .
_. The trailhelldpaikllig 'pI8nn~ at ~lad!c-benY Fauns)lould be .elhniilate4iuld the l.7'~~s ..
. coosOli(jated With other parking: The:}7 s~ arep1aeedin a narrow: cqmdQr ~ is. t6q .. .
ciose:tQ the creek:,. :.
". "
." ,
u
. ;McCl~nan RanchE:liviroiJlueIitai EduellitioD Center'. ..
. "We~pl~~~ ;l1"9\l~:thie.~~~~~e~Edti~~ti~~~ter piann&i :tor~9~liari.
: Ranch. T~ deilign should befo\:usedon~gi'eeD~liillt!)!'ials J111cl:tecJinolo~'lnk,Eepinlt : . ..
. . .. ., . with'the p~ose Of(IIl.~Ce,l!ter,". . . .
, " , , ,.. I.;" ." '.". , ..
, Thllllb.so.nri.ch.fo~. thi. opPortJU.ritY ~ ~(miI;ient 'ph t1i~ ~Ument.i.i. re.ferenoe,. .ShoWd'
, . you"/Jil.v~ any'-questions, dO no.t-hesitate to contact the new ,executive\iire.CtOr, Mr.,: B.ob
. Pci~iw me directly. Iiisc9ritact iDfonnati.;m.isbol1(aJ.scvas.org.'. .' ..'
'~ '..:.,..... ~ - :, . , . .' .;' . . . " .
~ . .; ,
{
", "
, ..' ,'.'
.'
Executive. DiJ:ecior.
"
,.." ~.
. :.:. xc.~A~eoPmtitt~Leader,:N~cyTea,t~:
.", .
....
.', '
. ~ . ,
.-
'. .
. "'.
''-'.
',.
,. ~'
,:-.".
. ~ -.'.
\', .
. '~.'
, '.
....
..',
~. '. .
'.. '
..-
., .
" ' .,
'.
-., .
, ..
.",
"'.
......
., ". : ~.' .
...:
,
6E 39"'d
ONI1~3dn8 ~o ^lI8
99EELLL80P
'~ .'
st:LI 9BBl/tE/9B
e~/2SI~~~b l~:~~
At3tl.1LJ.:;lIfC/.
...I'~.'_' I ..." ._..,._~
~- ~i.Y',..;.;~.. Au.Io,ity
No (JjQA CU","W'i'M--tS
May 26, 2006
Ci\y OfCllpelMO
Publi.c Works Department
10,00 Ton''' A venue
CUpertino. CA 95014
Attention: Carmen Lyaaugh
S\lbject: SteVens creek Corridor Park M2Iller Plan
Doer MIl. LYll"ush;
Santa Clara Valley Tr~rtaticm Authority (\ITA) staifhave reviewed the Mitigated Neptive
D1::c1aration for the Master Plan for StevellS Creek PIlTk. We have no comments at this time.
Thank you for the opportwrity to ro!lView this projeot. Ifyo'u have any questions, please call mo at
(408) 321-5784.
ii&~
Roy Molseed
S<:nior En-.1ronmcntal P1annec
R.M::k:h
3331 Nadk Firsl St".t . S.. Jou, CJ. 95.134.1l01. ~...loiIJrafla. IOB.m.S5Sl . (ummer Smite 4BUl1.230B
91 ~~d
ONI1~3dnJ 3D A1IJ
'l'lEELLL8e~
~E:L1 geeG/t€/Se
SC V \JJ D
\~ {-\*?!
/\ \ l C EQA CO""'>ri''''- -h -
'M. 4 ICe.. -l-t-xt c ~~!:)e ~I" S )
Draft
May 30, 2006
Mr. Terry Greene, AlA
City Architect
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Technical Appendices
Dear Mr. Greene:
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) greatly appreciates the partnership and
collaboration with the City of Cupertino in planning and funding the proposed Stevens Creek
Corridor Park Project. As stewards of creek restoration, natural flood protection, and wildlife
habitat, we look forward to seeing this multi-purpose project constructed. Pursuant to Section
15096 (d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines
(Responsible Agency Process), we have reviewed the above referenced documents and forward
the following comments from District staff:
Environmental Checklist and Responses
Section 3.1 Aesthetics
Page 3-5. Under "Creek Realignment at Blackberry Farm and Stocklmelr Property," It IS
stated that "as part of the construction documentation process, final trail and creek design
refinements would be reviewed by a soils scientist and an arborist certified by the International
Society of Arboriculture or the American Society of Consulting Arborists." Specialists from
these organizations are not simply doing a review of soil and trees. They will conduct site
investigations and collaborate with designers. The text should be revised to say "investigations
by a soils scientist and an arborist will influence trail & creek design refinements to minimize
tree loss."
Section 3.4 Biological Resources
Page 3-15. The box checked for item b would indicate that Mitigation Measure Bio-7
should be "Less Than Significant with Mitigation," not "Less Than Significant Impact." Please
change the box check to "Less Than Significant with Mitigation."
Section 3.4 Biological Resources
Page 3-15. The box is checked for item c "Less Than Significant with Mitigation." This does
not match the beginning of the second paragraph on page 3-39, which calls this "Less Than
Significant Impact." Please reconcile.
Mr. Terry Greene
May 30, 2006
Page 2
Environmental Checklist and Responses Continued
Section 3.4 Biological Resources
Page 3-17, paragraph 3. It is stated that "a search of the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) and the California Native Plant On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants
resulted in a total of eight special status plants were documented within a 5-mile radius of the
project site." We are not clear on whether or not there are historic occurrences for certain
sensitive plant species identified through the CNDDB. Please clarify in the document by
providing the CNDDB search date and version.
Section 3.4 Biological Resources
Page 3-17, paragraph 4. It is not clear on whether or not surveys were conducted for eight, one,
or two species. It is stated that "no field surveys were done during the blooming period of the
Dudley's lousewort, because it is extremely rare." The text on page 3-27, item 3 "Special-Status
Plant Species," implies that Dudley's lousewort was surveyed but not found. Were any field
surveys conducted for this plant specie? Please reconcile these paragraphs in the document.
Section 3.4 Biological Resources
Page 3-18. Table 3- I "Special Status Plant Species Reported Within 5 Miles of The Proposed
Site And Their Potential to Occur Onsite" does not mention when or what surveys were
conducted for rare plants. Please provide additional information in the document for
clarification.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6
Page 3-42. Under "Santa Clara Valley Water District, " include the Guidelines & Standards for
Land Use near Streams. The guide requires use oflocal natives, (i.e. native plants grown from
propagules and collected from wild parent plants growing as close to the project as possible and
within the Stevens Creek Watershed). Local natives are not the same as using native species that
simply occur in the project vicinity but are not a local ecotype. Please edit.
Technical Appendices
APPENDIX B: BIOTIC REPORTS
Page 1-5, item 5 "Rare Plant and Botanical Surveys." Under "Results, " it is stated that: I) no
rare plants were found during the field surveys conducted within the project reach, and 2) the
potential habitat on site for Dudley's lousewort was surveyed during its flowering period in the
winter/spring 2005 but was not detected. These statements are not consistent with text regarding
Dudley's lousewort on pages 3-17 and 3-27, paragraph 4 and item 3 "Special-Status Plant
Species," of the IS/MND, respectively. Please clarify and reconcile this text in the document.
Under "Recommendations, "it is stated that "there are no recommendations to avoid or minimize
impacts to rare plant species." We recommend a Best Management Plan (BMP) for Dudley's
lousewort in case it is found within the project reach.
Mr. Terry Greene
May 30, 2006
Page 3
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have questions or require additional
information, please contact me at 408-265-2607, extension 2702.
Sincerely,
Jason Christie,
Engineering Unit Manager
Lower Peninsula/West Valley Watershed
Cc: Therese Smith, Christine Schneider, Jana Sokale
Bcc: JChristie, KO'Kane, DJohnson, NJassal, JHillman
1.0 If your comment is related to the "Introduction" section of the
document, please comment in the following field:
This document, actually a collection of many documents, was first
announced to be released in February. Instead, it has been released at
the beginning of the absolute busiest time of year for anyone involved
in nature, wildlife and garden activities and organizations. Native
plant enthusiasts are taking and leading wildflower tours, volunteering
at and going to plant sales and shows, and working on their own native
plant gardens. Birders have many field trips and breeding bird surveys
to lead and participate in during this prime time of spring migration
and return of the breeding populations. Gardeners are taking advantage
of the still moist ground and warming earth to plant and transplant.
Public agencies have paid staff to review and comment on environmental
documents. Many of us have other jobs in addition to our avocations.
Just downloading and printing all of the documents takes hours. While
the city had the power to delay the release of these documents for two
months, interested residents are now expected to read, analyze,
formulate opinions and submit written comments on a very multifaceted
project, over 5 years in the planning so far, all within 30 days,
undoubtedly the busiest 30 day period in the life of everyone with an
outdoors orientation and conservation committment. Please consider this
a formal complaint. I request that the city delay this process by one
more month by extending the comment period to 60 days and notifying all
of the interested parties as before. Thank you.
Contact Info:
Deborah Jamison
21346 Rumford Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014
408-729424
ddjamison@comcast.net
-----------------------------------
1.0 If your comment is related to the "Introduction" section of the
document, please comment in the following field:
As local residents who live adjacent to Scenic Circle, we suppo~t
access to the trail for bicycles and pedestrians from the Scenic Circle
area. We urge you to stop the removal of the bridge until a broader
review can be completed to see how the new trail could include design
features that would encourage student bicyclists to use the trail
rather than McClellan Road to get to Monta Vista High School and
Kennedy. Our youth should not be denied access to the trail to allow
them to use their bicycles and reduce traffic on McClellan Road, both
for safety and congestion reduction purposes.
3.15 Transportation/Traffic: Please provide your comment on the
subtopic that you selected for "Environmental Checklist and Responses It
section of the document:
As local residents who live adjacent to Scenic Circle, we support
access to the trail for bicycles and pedestrians from the Scenic Circle
area. We urge you to stop the removal of the bridge until a broader
review can be completed to see how the new trail could include design
features that would encourage student bicyclists to use the trail
rather than McClellan Road to get to Monta Vista High School and
Kennedy. Our youth should not be denied access to the trail to allow
them to use their bicycles and reduce traffic on McClellan Road, both
for safety and congestion reduction purposes.
Contact Info:
Dr. Martha Kanter and Mr. Carl Brown
10360 Scenic Boulevard Cupertino, CA 95014
408-255-5814
kantermartha@gmail.com & cbrown@htctu.edu
1.0 If your comment is related to the "Introduction" section of the
document, please comment in the following field:
A broader review should be completed to see how the new trail could
include design features that would encourage student bicyclists to use
the trail rather than McClellan Road to get to Monta Vista and Kennedy.
This broader view of the Trail as a safety enhancement to the community
has been overlooked in this report.
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Description" section of the document:
2.5.1 Removal of Existing Pedestrian Bridges The neighbors who
petitioned to have this access closed used misinformation to obtain
neighborhood signatures to close the gate. Access as solely a
bicycle/pedestrian access was not presented on the petition. It only
addressed unwanted potential vehicle traffic. Many neighbors came
forward to express their dismay that their signatures were being used
to support closure of the Scenic Circle gate when they, in fact,
support a pedestrian and bicycle access. This access could
potentially be used to alleviate the terrible traffic problem on
McClellan, west of Manta Vista. Until this possibility is fully
reviewed, the bridge at Scenic Circle should not be removed. A few
neighbors should not be able to deny access from a public street to a
public park. Many neighbors want this access to be preserved and even
expanded to encourage students to use this as an alterative to using
McClellan Road.
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
IIEnvironmental Checklist and Responsesll section of the document:
3.15 Transportation/Traffic
Table 3~6 cites over 4,000 daily vehicle trips west of Byrne on
McClellan. Scenic Circle has about 30 residences and no thru traffic.
Obviously, redirecting student bicyclists through here would reduce
their exposure to car traffic by a factor of at least 25. That alone
should suggest that this could be a safer alternative and deserves
review for this purpose. This further supports keeping the existing
bridge at Scenic, or creating another bridge for this same purpose
somewhere on Scenic. Page 3-107 A relatively large percentage
increase (in traffic) will occur at McClellan Ranch Road entrance. Bus
Traffic 2. Bus PullOut on McClellan Road Page 3-109 Comment:
While the report addressed the potential issue with buses trying to
accelerate up the grade going West on McClellan, it did not address the
hazard on the grade due to slow moving bicyclists and the lack of room
for a bike lane on this section of the road. There is not adequate
room for buses to pass bicyclists going up this grade. Bus Traffic
3. Existing Crosswalk on McClellan Road Flashing warning lights would
be installed on each hill and the crosswalk would be painted red to
enhance visibility of the crosswalk. Comment: This crosswalk was
the site of the collision between the student bicyclist and a car on
Bike to School day in April." The issue in that collision was not
visibility of the crosswalk. It was the lack of room for the bicyclist
to pass and the inability of the bicyclist to stop behind a car that
stopped at this crosswalk. In the past 2-3 years, numerous
vehicle accidents have occured on this stretch of McClellan. Providing
an alternative path from Scenic Circle would mitigate much of the risk
for bicyclists on McClellan from 2 and 3 above.
Contact Info:
Carol Stanek
10382 Mira vista Rd.
(408) 255-2311
cstanek@echelon.com
Cupertino, CA 95014
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Description'l section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan In general, the removal of the Existing Site
Features listed in Section 2.5.1 will certainly enhance the creek.
However, as mentioned, one of the pedestrian bridges provides the only
east-west route across the corridor for cyclists and pedestrians
between the major arterials McClellan Road and Stevens Creek Blvd.
This access, from San Fernando to Scenic Circle, has very recently been
closed at Scenic Circle, but should be restored, since Scenic Circle is
a public street running next to the park. It did, and would, provide
the only non~arterial park access from the west for cyclists and
pedestrians, and especially a safe route to school for Lincoln/Kennedy
Middle/Monta vista High school students living west of the creek. They
now must traverse steep, narrow, curving McClellan Road at its busiest
times of day on foot and bicycle. The bridge in question should not be
removed unless plans are included for an improved bicycle/pedestrian
bridge. With access restored, this bridge would provide a signficant
environmental benefit by encouraging students and park users to walk or
cycle instead of drive, and provide a much safer route to school for
those students.
Contact Info:
Anne Ng 6031
Bollinger Road Cupertino CA 95014
408-257-6506
anneng@aol.com
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Descriptionl' section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan That it is under consideration that 1 or all 3 of
the foot bridges be removed concerns me greatly. We are becoming a city
that. responds to the self serving good of individuals who donlt want to
be inconvenienced as opposed to the good of the community. How is it
that a few neighbors can cut off access from a public street to a
public park? Also, it is important to keep access open to support our
goal of encouraging kids to walk/bike to school and our committment to
the safety of school kids. That kids are riding on the uphill curve of
McClellan with out a bike lane and blind spots, is an invitation to
accidents. Will it take the death of a cyclist or pedestrian to make us
see this? thank you
Contact Info:
Adrian Kolb
7615 De Foe Drive Cupertino CA 95014
akolb23@comcast.net
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Envirorunental Checklist and Responses" section of the document:
3.15 Transportation/Traffic The capacity of the northern parking area
must be planned carefully. The plan is to add 9 spaces to the existing
parking lot, which may not be enough. Please make sure that the parking
area is big enough for park users and golfers on weekdays and weekend,
so their cars are not parked in the residential area (i.e. Phar Lap
Drive across Stevens Creek Blvd.).
Contact Info:
Simon Lee
21903 Woodbury Drive Cupertino, CA 95014
simonlee 99@yahoo.com
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Descriptionll section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan As a west side neighbor, we know how dangerous
the McClellan hill is for anyone, particularly for children walking or
riding a bike. Removing the pedestrian bridge and access at Scenic
Circle would cause children and adults to use McClellan road. In the
public visioning process, one of the stated goals is to have greater
access to the creek area for more people. Another Cupertino goal is to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle use. Aren't these goals, including
safety considerations, more significant than a few neighbors' fears
that tloutsiders" would use "theirH (that is, public) streets? Since
when can a few dictate to the many?
Contact Info:
K. Knapp
Scenic Blvd Cupertino, CA 95014
5.0 If your comments is on the II Figures II section of the document,
please comment in the following field:
Comments regarding Figure 7: Blackberry Farm Master Plan Dear Ms
Therese Smith, To followup our discussion re: the potential impact
of Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan on my property in the beginning
of the year, I'd like to recap the summary I noted from our meeting as
the comment to the project: 1. Mitigation measures for negative
impact from driveway and trail year-round usage Based on the city's
decision to align the trail to the east side of the creek, and the
planned year round usage of the driveway around my home, Ild like to
request city put in place the required measures to mitigate the
negative traffic/noice/privacy impact to my home due to the new
project. As verified by the actual measurement we did together, the
setback of the new trail is only -70ft at maximum from my home, much
less than the claimed minimal 100ft from all other residence property
line as reported to the public and coucil members in the previous city
coucil meeting - Major Patrick Kwok indicated this issue should be
considered as part of the design phase. The driveway planned to open
for year around usage is even closer, it's right adjacent to my home.
I'd like to urge city to take the same high standard as in addressing
the west bank/scenic circle neighborhood's concern and provide specific
measurements to reduce the impact to my home. As discussed, my family
would like to see some buffer between the driveway and my property. We
are not asking a lot as other neighbours", but please give us some
breathing room (e.g. 10ft green buffer between the driveway and the
property line). In case the trail/driveway has to maintain the layout
as shown in the map, please at least buildup the existing rockwall on
the property line to 6ft to provide vertical spacing/buffer as the
minimal mitigation. 2. Setback and Height of the Restored
Maintenance Building and Public Telephone Booth Based on the city
building code, the planned maintenance building behind my house shall
observe the minimal setback from the property line (10ft for accessory
building?) and maximun height limitation {15ft?}. Right now the
existing building and the telephone booth is infringing my property
line and need to be fixed as I brought up to you last time. I did not
see the lastest map have anything incorporated - just a reminder. 3.
Water meter/pipeline located between my residence and the maintenance
building This is part of the easement agreement in the deed - city
need to provide ingress/egress access to the mainenance of public
utilities for my home. The water meter/pipeline is located on the back
of the existing maintenance building and water company has complained
several times to me the storage area gate is often locked which force
their personnel to go thru the narrowed strip behind the building - it
may cause liability issue. As we discussed, city need to ensure the
access w/ the new project or consider relocating the meter/pipeline if
the area for the new building is to be enclosed. 4. Easement of
Ingress/Egress of the entrance road and Prohibited Hours of public
access The current/futher entrance road from San Fernando Ct to
Blackberry Farm is under the easement agreement as part of the my
property deed and city's purchase contract of BBF, in which it requires
city to prohibit public use between 11pm to 7am year round to reduce
noise/traffic to my private property. I'v brought it up several times
w/ you and city - the sigh we agreed was put up and removed quickly.
Now there are still people drive down to the park late in the night or
early morning when the park is closed especially in summer time.
The current plan on th~ web states the new park hours will be dawn to
dust. PIs correct it to observe the easement agreement and do the
needful to prohibit the problem as part of city's responsiblity. In
addition, please note the deed includes the clause that city shall not
construct fense or building which may adversely block/obscure view from
my house. PIs address any potential issue you see in this regard and
keep me posed, so we can avoid problem in the future. Regards,
Alex Tsai 21975 San Fernando Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014
Contact Info:
Alex Tsai
21975 San Fernando Ave Cupertino, CA 95014
408 525-2481 (work)
alex cj tsai@yahoo.com
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Description" section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan Donlt feel it is appropriate for a few neighbors
to make a decision on whether to keep the bridge or not. This bridge
would provide a safer route for children in the neighborhood to get to
Kennedy and Monta Vista High School. Too many times I see kids riding
their bike on McClellan and also get hit by cars. 3.15
Transportation/Traffic "Table 3-6: (Page 3-105) Existing (2005) Weekday
and Weekend Daily Traffic Volume estimates 5. McClellan Road (West of
Byrne Ave.) 4,153 (daily) Weekday trips.lI. Since there is no thru
traffic in this area, would provide a SAFER alternative for the
children trying to get to school. Regarding bus traffic: does not
address the hazard on the grade due to slow moving bicyclists and the
lack of room for a bike lane on this section of the road. There is not
adequate room for buses to pass bicyclists going up this grade.
Providing an alternative path from Scenic Circle would remove a lot of
the risk for bicyclists on McClellan.
Contact Info:
Karen Zimmers
10370 Mira Vista Road Cupertino, CA 95014
karen.zimmers@lmco.com
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
IIproject Description" section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan Section 2.5.1, p.2-16 calls for the removal of a
pedestrian bridge by the request of some neighbors. What neighbors and
how many? Why remove an established feature that could be continued to
be enjoyed by the whole community? At a later date this bridge could
provide a way to decrease local neighborhood pedestrian congestion that
is forced unto the high-traffic McClellan Road and Stevens Creek
Boulevard arteries. The City Council should be looking at creative ways
to decrease city road congestion, not increase it.
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
I-Environmental Checklist and Responsesll section of the document:
3.15 Transportation/Traffic Table 3-6, p.3-105 clearly shows the
large volume of existing traffic on the McClellan Road artery. Much of
this traffic is due to student flow from residents west of Stevens
Creek going to school. This problem will only increase over time
because of the limited routes for school access. Forcing all car
traffic onto the same path as pedestrian and bike traffic is simply not
safe nor forward-looking for the community as a whole.
Contact Info:
Paul Oleas
22270 Palm Ave Cupertino, CA 95014
408-253-8523
oleas@aol.com
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Description" section of the document:
2.4 Master Plan Overview In Figure 8 (referred to on page 2-10 of
Section 2.4.2), there is a "Water District Easement" that extends
almost all the way to the bike/pedestrian trail. connecting the
bike/pedestrian trail to this path would allow a much safer route for
students that are traveling to the nearby schools (Manta Vista HS,
Kennedy, and Lincoln) than having to travel to the stretch of McClellan
from the McClellan Ranch parking lot to Vallecito Rd. That stretch of
McClellan is busy with vehicle traffic at the start and end of each
school day-the same time as students using the bike/pedestrian path
would be traveling. This trail connection should be limited to bikes
and pedestrians, and access could be limited to daylight hours.
(same comment made on Section 2.4.2, where Figure 8 is referenced) In
Figure 8 (referred to on page 2-10 of Section 2.4.2), there is a "Water
District Easement" that extends almost all the way to the
bike/pedestrian trail. Connecting the bike/pedestrian trail to this
path would allow a much safer route for students that are traveling to
the nearby schools (Manta Vista HS, Kennedy, and Lincoln) than having
to travel to the stretch of McClellan from the McClellan Ranch parking
lot to Vallecito Rd. That stretch of McClellan is busy with vehicle
traffic at the start and end of each school day-the same time as
students using the bike/pedestrian path would be traveling. This trail
connection should be limited to bikes and pedestrians, and access could
be limited to daylight hours.
Contact Info:
Scott Fable
11062 Firethorne Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014
fable@tbp.berkeley.edu
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Description" section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan Please please donlt remove the bridge connecting
Scenic Circle to McClelland Ranch. That would mean that my accident
prone junior high schooler would have to ride his bike on the hill on
McClelland Rd where it is extremely hazaradous. A child on a bike on
his way to school was hit there just last week and taken the to
hospital. Removing the bridge would jeopardize the safety of many
children. What could me more important than the safety of our children?
You can be sure the decision on this issue will affect my voting
behavior. I've become a one issue voter.
Contact Info:
Jean Marie Merkhofer
22706 Medina Court Cupertino, Ca 95014
408-446-9578
jrnmerk@comcast.net
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Environmental Checklist and Responses" section of the document:
3.15 Transportation/Traffic I would like to make the councilmembers
aware that removing any bridge would bring serious traffic
consequences. I have two boys at Monta Vista who use the trail and
bridges often and a girl who will be at Kennedy next year. I would like
to know that there will be a safe route alternative with bridges
created if the current ones will be removed. I also pick them up by
going on McClellan and I think it would be highly dangerous to have
bycicles sharing the road there. The volume of traffic at McClellan is
heavy during pick up times and I have seen cars careening down that
curve at very unsafe speeds. If we add children with bikes to that
equation we would be looking for trouble. I would ask you to
reconsider at least that part of the plan before you make any decisions
on it and come up with a safe alternative for the children. Thanks!
Contact Info:
Nathalie Schuler Ferro
22305 Carta Blanca St Cupertino, Ca 95014
4087305222
chiefexecutivedreamer@yahoo.com
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Description" section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan I strongly disagree with taking any action such
as dismantling of exsisting bridges until a broader review could be
completed to see how the new trail could include design features that
would encourage student bicyclists to use the trail rather than
McClellan Road to get to Monta Vista and Kennedy. At this time, I
believe this broader view of the Trail as a safety enhancement to the
community has been overlooked. I do not understand the purpose of
dismantling an existing bridge that serves a useful purpose. It
provides access to picnic areas on the other side of the creek. While
there may be other ways to access these picnic areas, the bridge is
definitely needed when there are large groups (usually school groups
with young children) using the area. Removing this bridge makes even
less sense taking into account all the time and effort it would take to
replace it ever in the future.
Contact Info:
Lola Kashyap
22468 Palm Avenue Cupertino CA 95014
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
IIproject Descriptionll section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan A public park is designed for the residents to
enjoy with easy accesses-pedestrian bridges. These accesses should be
provided always and not to be denied due to a few neighbors'
complaints. It's the public accesses to the public property, not the
private park.
Contact Info:
Hugh Chen
22361 McClellan Rd Cupertino CA 95014
408-255-97l8
hchen123@yahoo.com
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
IIproject Description" section of the document:
2.5.1 - I want to see an access bridge be available over the creek for
pedestrians. This is especially important for students to have access
so that they can avoid the narrow McClellan Road areas. We need to
encourage students to bike to school but parents will not support it if
it can not be made safer. Give the bicyclists access through Blackberry
farm. There have been enough accidents through that area involving
cars, buses and bicyclists. Don't wait for someone to be killed.
Look at what is best for the larger neighborhood and city and not what
benefits a few in Scenic circle. This is a public street and a public
park. My tax dollars go to both. I like being able to walk to
Blackberry farm and do not like having to climb over/around/under the
fence and wade through the creek.
3.6 Geology & Soils
Contact Info:
Ronda Hoxsie
10545 Mira Vista Road Cupertino, Ca 95014
408.252.5019
rhoxsie@yahoo.com
1.0 If your comment is related to the II Introductionl' section of the
document, please comment in the following field:
We have 5 children attending schools in the Cupertino Union School
District and the Fremont Union School District. My children walk and
ride their bikes to school. I find it unconscionable that during times
of a severe gas shortage, not to mention traffic and all around good
health, that restricting student use of public bridges and trails to
and from school would even be considered. How can we teach our
children to protect and respect the environment and then restrict them
from safely walking or biking to school?
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Description" section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan The children using that trail are using it to
avoid sharing the road with the hundreds of vehicles on McClellan Road.
The Scenic Circle residents who wish to deny access to this public road
and bridge are trying to prohibit students from safely getting to
school. By allowing the Scenic Circle residents to further isolate
their neighborhood, you are denying the basic rights of the children
who use that trail. How can residents who purchase their home near a
trail then complain when people actually use it?
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
lIEnvironmental Checklist and Responses" section of the document:
3.1 Aesthetics Locking the gate and denying access to the public bridge
is ridiculous. How can something public be locked to the students who
actually use it to get to and from school? Isn1t that why the gate was
put there? By locking that gate the Scenic Circle community is putting
their wishes above the safety of the children in the community.
Contact Info:
Linda Orvick
22294 Starling Drive, Los Altos, CA 94024
linda.orvick@comcast.net
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Descriptionll section of the docwnent:
2.5 Restoration Plan Re: 2.5.1 - I think that another look needs to be
taken at removal of the pedestrian bridge near what was once a gate to
Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. I support having residents feel
safe in their neighborhoods and homes. But, this seems to be a safe
way for students who live in the neighborhood of or near Scenic Circle
to walk or bicycle from the adjoining neighborhoods to Lincoln,
Kennedy, and Monta Vista schools. Perhaps an alternative is to retain
the pedestrian bridge in the park, and restore the gate.. . locking it
between say 5pm and 7am. Perhaps weekend access could be restricted,
or not allowed if the residents are worried about who would come into
their neighborhood. For the moment, just keeping the bridge here would
enable the dialogue among neighbors and the city to continue, even if
the gate is not immediately restored.
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
II Environmental Checklist and Responses II section of the docwnent:
3.15 Transportation/Traffic There is inadequate information in the
report about bicycle traffic increase along McClellan Road. I am
especially concerned that there is no mention of the safety impacts
along McClellan with respect to bicyclists interacting with and
busses/cars if a bus pullout is added. This road is one of the primary
ways that students can bicycle {and walk)to Lincoln, Kennedy, and Monta
Vista, and the safety impacts of more vehicular traffic are not dealt
with adequately. McClellan Road is quite narrow in the area of
McClellan Ranch and has no bike lanes. A bicyclist recently ran into
the back of a auto that had stopped at the crosswalk at McClellan
Ranch. Please consider a stop sign in addition to flashing lights
at the crosswalk on McClellan Road at McClellan Ranch. I believe this
crosswalk will have a significant increase in pedestrian traffic, as
well as bicycle use. A stop sign is inconvenient but will increase the
safety for non-motorized travellers.
Contact Info:
May Koski
22030 Regnart Road Cupertino, Ca 95014
408-255-4509
mayck@comcast.net
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Environmental Checklist and Responsesll section of the document:
3.15 Transportation/Traffic Prohibiting pedestrian and bicycle access
from Scenic Circle and removal of a creek bridge crossing is unfair,
unwise. and unsafe. This is not supposed to be a gated community, yet
previously available park access to adjoining neighbors who want to
enter on foot or bicycle is being blocked by a locked gate. They are
forced to use much less safe streets and narrow sidewalks to go around.
The potential for non-automotive park access is greatly reduced for the
area. Also, students are prevented from using a much safer off-road
path to the local schools. As a student was recently hit by a car
while bicycling to school, this is a very real danger. What message do
we want to send to our children, that we support healthy exercise on
safe routes to school, or not? Any parents who do not feel safe in
letting their children take a route through the park unaccompanied
could walk or bicycle with them if they really want to set a positive
example, or find an adult or older student to go with them. As an
organization, we support the widest public access to Stevens Creek
Trail for reasons of health, recreation, and safety, both for children
and adults, and we hope that appropriate access and creek crossing will
be restored to the Stevens Creek Corridor plan.
Contact Info:
Aaron Grossman, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail
22221 McCLellan Rd Cupertino, CA 95014
408-255-5780
exec-dir@stevenscreektrail.org
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
IIproject Description" section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan I am concerned about the orange orchard on the
Stocklmeir property. My understanding is that if a trail goes through
the orchard it will compromise the integrity of the orchard. It would
be nice to preserve this last vestige of our agricultural past. It
doesn1t need spraying and the trees are still producing. I wonder
why we need to change the course of the creek when my understanding is
that it is possible to accommodate the fish without restoring the creek
to it's historic course. Please consider preserving the bridge from
Scenic Circle to the park. It think it is imperative that we maintin
access for pedestrians and bicycles from a public street to a public
park. We should not let a small group of neighbors hold the rest of
the city hostage over access. We are trying to encourage our students
and others in the community to walk and bike. I am also concerned for
the safety of the childrem commuting to school.
Contact Info:
Helene Davis
11259 Palos Verdes Ct. Cupertino, CA 95014
davis.helene@corncast.net
1.0 If your comment is related to the II Introduction" section of the
document, please comment in the following field:
I am the parent of 5 children and a grandchild that have or will attend
Manta Vista High School, Kennedy Middle School and Stevens Creek
Elementary School. On bike/walk to school day last month my 15 year old
son was in an accident at the crosswalk on McClellan Road. It is
critical that we keep the existing Scenic Circle traffic bridge open
and available to children that attend Monta Vista and Kennedy Middle
schools. The danger that our children face each day quickly came into
focus for me as I drove to the site of my child's accident. For years
now we have all been greatly concerned with the hazards of increasing
traffic and children on bikes sharing McClellan Road on their way to
and from school each day. If access to the Scenic Circle bridge is
denied even more children will be at risk each day. As the parent of a
child involved in an accident, ironically on bike to school day. I can
tell you that other lnjuries and possible fatalities are a greater
possibly than most of you can perceive. This is not a hypothetical
example or an exaggeration of what may happen. It happened to my child
and will happen to someone else's.
Please provi~e your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Project Description" section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan RE: (2.5) The children that use that bridge each
day avoid sharing the road with hundreds of vehicles on McClellan Road.
The Scenic Circle residents should not be allowed to deny access to a
public road and a public bridge that has been used for many years by
residents in our community. By denying access to a publicly used bridge
the danger to the children increases dramatically. They will be forced
to take McClellan Road to get to school each day. Children should be
able to ride or walk to school each day in the safest possible
environment. An increasing number of children on bicycles will be
forced take a dangerous path that they are not familiar with each day.
The kids must follow the rules, laws and conditions that licensed
drivers adhere to. It is a catastrophe in the making. Most bicycling
children have never been to driving school. They are not aware of the
rules of the road. These children do not perceive actual danger because
they are children, not reasonable adults.
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Environmental Checklist and Responses" section of the document:
3.1 Aesthetics RE, (3.1); Closing/locking the gate and denying access
to the public bridge that is a problem for a specific group of
community members hoping to isolate their neighborhood from traffic and
nuisance on Scenic Circle. There must be a compromise that allows
school children access to the bridge. Aesthetic needs should not
prevail over real dangers to children in the community. RE: (3-
lOS, 3-106) i The projected traffic increase Byrne Avenue may be a
problem as well. There are no provisions for a bike lane on Byrne
Avenue. There will be an estimated 5% increase in traffic at that
location. People park their vehicles for many car lengths to pick up
and drop off their children at Monta Vista. In addition, people park
vehicles in the area that could be used as a bike lane to allow the
children safe access via a bike lane on Byrne. RE: (3-107) and
(Traffic table 1); If the traffic increase is an average 33.5% on
weekdays and the pedestrian bridge crossing is removed a significant
increase of children on bicycles will be sharing the road with vehicle
traffic. with the projected increase of vehicles each day many more
children will be at risk each day. It is not a matter of whether or not
a fatal accident may occur, but when it will occur. Then an expected
use/increase of slow moving buses sharing the road with bicycle riders
has to increase the safety issue even more significantly. There are no
provisions and frankly no room for a bike lane on McClellan Road in
this plan. RE, 13-108, 3-109 items 2 & 3); The study addresses the
problem with buses and the need for a bus pull-out. This is the spot
where my son had an accident because a vehicle stopped for pedestrian
traffic. This is frightening. Bicycle, vehicles and pedestrian traffic
are congested enough right now. The plan will add bus traffic and
additional children biking and walking because the pedestrian bridge is
closed. The children will be expected to navigate around buses too! The
bus pull-out will increase traffic and navigation problems for
bicycles, vehicles and pedestrians on one side of McClellan. On the
other side of the street children on bicycles will still share the road
on a street that cannot even accommodate a bicycle and vehicle at the
same time right now. Flashing lights will not control this problem!
Contact Info:
Denise Montijo
10631 Merriman Road Cupertino, CA 95014
408-257-0763
dmontijo@sbcqlobal.net
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
IIproject Description" section of the document:
2.5 Restoration Plan Section 2.5.1 states that pedestrian bridges will
be removed, including one that provided access from Scenic Circle.
Closing this and other bike/pedestrian trail access points from the
Scenic Circle neighborhood removes access to the bike/pedestrian trail
for students living in nearby neighborhoods on the west side of the
creek, and requires them to extend their travel to Manta Vista HS,
Kennedy MS, and Lincoln Elementary via busy major streets such as
McClellan. As a result of such obstacles to accessing the trail via
bike/foot, some students will either travel by car--adding to the
existing school-day traffic congestion problem surrounding the schools-
-and/or risk a more dangerous route to school--adding to the likelihood
of accidents happening along the way. Neither this resulting impact
upon traffic congestion nor upon student bike/pedestrian accident rates
appears to have been considered in this report. As a compromise with
neighbor concerns over access, these access points should be limited to
bike/foot traffic and perhaps only during daylight hours.
Contact Info:
Scott Fable
11062 Firethorne Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014
fable@tbp.berkeley.edu
Please provide your comment on the subtopic that you selected for
"Environmental Checklist and Responsesll section of the document:
3.15 Transportation/Traffic [same comment submitted under Section
2.5.1] Section 2.5.1 states that pedestrian bridges will be removed,
including one that provided access from Scenic Circle. Closing this
and other access points from the Scenic Circle neighborhood removes
access to the bike/pedestrian trail for students living in nearby
neighborhoods on the west side of the creek, and requires them to
extend their travel to Monta Vista HS, Kennedy MS, and Lincoln
Elementary via busy major streets such as McClellan. As a result of
such obstacles to accessing the trail via bike/foot, some students will
either travel by car--adding to the existing school-day traffic
congestion problem-and/or risk a more dangerous route to school--adding
to the likelihood of accidents happening along the way. Neither this
resulting impact upon traffic congestion nor upon student
bike/pedestrian accident rates appears to have been considered in this
report. As a compromise with neighbor concerns over access, these
access points should be limited to bike/foot traffic and perhaps only
during daylight hours.
Contact Info:
Scott Fable
11062 Firethorne Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014
fable@tbp.berkeley.edu
1,0 If your comment is related to the "Introduction" section of the
document, please comment in the following field:
There are too many items that have not been thought out in this
document or mitigated. There should be an EIR. Further, testing must be
done for Dioxins and other harmful toxic substances prior to work.
Contact Info:
Rhoda Fry
10351 San Fernando Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
5/23/06 Planning
Commission
Minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO
103.00 Torre A venue
Cupertino, CA 950]4
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
MAY 23, 2006 TUESDA Y
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF ITEM 3
3. CP-2006-01 (EA-2006-01)
City of Cupertino
Steve us Creek Corridor
Conduct a phased construction program to convert a
commercial picnic facility into a neighborhood park;
restore in-stream riparian habitat along sections of
Stevens Creek with the lOa year floor plain; enhance
nearby upland oak woodland habitat; construct a new
5,900 foot long, all weather trail and a new environmental
education center; demolish and rebuild existing park
buildings and facilities on 60 acres of City and Santa
Clara Valley Water District owned lands.
Tentative City Council date: June 20, 2006
Therese Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented the staff report:
. Thank you Chair Miller; I am here with Janna Soquel and Christine Schneider, both are
consultants working on this project; Janna is the environmen.tal planner and Christine is with
Thomas Reed Associates, Environmental Consultants, the preparer of the mitigated negative
dec. before you.
. Thank you for taking the time tonight to give the public an opportunity to comment on this
document. We are probably three-quarters of the way through the public input period; it
started April 28'h; the document has been in the library, on the city website and available for
review. We are taking comments through May 30.
. The public comments received in writing carry the same weight as those given in a meeting;
we will treat them all the same, but people have preferences for how they choose to comment.
For those watching this televised and webcast meeting, you still have an opportunity to get
your input in, and we will respond.
. This project has been in the works for a number of years; in its current form as a park planning
effort, it has been just over three years. In December of 2002 the City Council gave us their
goals for this project, some of which are articulated. The significant ones within the plans in
the background section.
. We started a public visioning process that some of you may have participated in, in early 2003
when we distributed vision kits and we had a response to this effort that exceeded anything the
city ever done, or anything I was ever involved in.
. We thought we might get 50 people who would take the time to submit a park plan; in fact we
distributed 320 vision kits and over 500 people participated in an effort that really
communicated to us that stream restoration was a priority for this property that the city owns,
between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road.
. So with that, we began to prepare a master plan that incorporated a lot of those restoration and
environmental goals while retaining some of the use of the corridor that is historical, like the
golf course which we found out was very important; and the Council also needed to retain
some of the revenue generating capacity of the.property.
o You will hear more in detail about the changes proposed as Janna and Christine walk you
through the project description.
o But in essence, Blackberry Farm now operates 100 days a year for profit; it serves up to 4,000
people a day with onsite parking of 1100; beyond that parking is shuttled from Monta Vista. It
is closed, although people go into the corridor, there really isn't much there that they can
participate in with the exception of McClellan Ranch which is the home to our environmental
programming and we hope to make more available to the community and we will talk about
those changes.
o What we are looking at tonight and with this document is the delta between what is there now
and what they are proposing. We are not changing everything that is there now and we hope
that the changes we are proposing are an enhancement to the environment, but we are really
only evaluating that delta with this analysis.
o What we are here tonight to do primarily is listen, give the public an opportunity to comment,
give the people at home an opportunity to hear the comments of others while there is still time
for them to submit their own. And then at the conclusion of this all those comments will be
summarized, forwarded to the City Council and the Council will take final action. We are
hoping to have this back before the Council on June 20.
o With that, I will turn it over to Janna and then Christine to give the Power Point presentation.
Janna Soquel:
o Good evening commissioners and public. Tonight we are going to give you an overview of
the Stevens Creek corridor park and restoration plan concepts and then we are going to go
through the impacts and mitigations that are associated with that plan.
o Our primary purpose is listen to the public tonight in one final summary of all the comments
that will be received over the 30 days in this long process in developing the plan and the
restoration concepts.
o The final comment day will be May 30th and at the end we will also take all the
commissioners' comments which will become part of the public record that will be forwarded
onto the Council.
o Just in brief summary, and I will go into greater detail, but the park and restoration plan
focuses on the conversion of the commercial picnic facility at Blackberry Farm into a
neighborhood park. It focuses on the restoration of the instream habitat and riparian habitat
along the stream banks, all within the 100 year floodplain; it has another component which
enhances the upland habitat throughout Blackberry Farm area primarily.
o It includes a construction of a trail the full length from McClellan Road to Stevens Creek
Boulevard and the development of a new environmental education center at McClellan. The
project extends from McClellan Road to Stevens Creek; it includes about 60 acres on both
sides of the creek; the vast majority of the focus of the project is indeed within Blackberry
Farm.
o The trail however runs the length; the stream improvements are ... the majority of them are
within Blackberry; there is potential for some improvements within Stocklemeir, although
those are viewed more as future improvements, and then there are the environment ed centers
at McClellan as well as the trail and the trail includes the rerouting or the reconfiguration of
the 4H facilities and a slight expansion of the community gardens to accommodate the trail.
o This is ... we have prepared an initial study and a mitigated neg dec., Cupertino is the lead
agency; we have also been partnering with the Santa Clara Valley Water District who is a
responsible agency and along with many other jurisdictional agencies will be issuing permits
for this project.
. We are here tonight as a courtesy to the public at the direction of the Council and that typically
a public hearing is not required for a mitigated negative dec. but to include all of those
comments, we are having that hearing tonight.
. The findings of the CEQA document indicate that the project would enhance habitat for
steelhead, and that is the primary reason that the Water District is a partner in the project, and
that the negative effects of the project can be avoided or reduced with a minimal number of
mitigation measures.
. As I mentioned before, the 30 day period began on April 2Sth; because it ends on Memorial
Day weekend, it will actually close on the business day May 30th, and people will have time to
send in comments until that date.
. Pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, which is the California Environmental Quality Act, the city
has prepared a mitigated neg. dec. because all impacts could be mitigated to less than
significant; as opposed to proceeding with an EIR.
. We are stating within the document that in the light of the full record, the project is actually an
overall improvement to the habitat and to the environmental values of the corridor.
. This is just an overall schedule to allow everyone in the audience to understand the process.
The public period will close on May 20th and then May 30th, and then it will be forwarded onto
the City Council for their final review on June 20th.
. Now I am going to walk you through the operational changes and the physical changes that
accompany those operational changes.
. Blackberry Farm will be open as a neighborhood park 365 days a year; that is a change. The
picnic - the commercial picnic area will be maintained as a 100-day a year' operation as it has
been; however, it will diminish in size from a 4,000 person picnic facility at its maximum
capacity which occurred a few days each summer, to an SOO person maximum capacity; and
that allows us to change the footprint of the picnic facility and consolidate it all to the west
bank.
. Additional operational changes include the removal of four instream barriers to fish and other
animal passage, up and down the corridor. It includes the development of an environmental
education center at McClellan and the development of a multi-use trail for walking, bicycling
and dog walking the length of the corridor.
. These are the physical changes that will allow the public to enjoy the corridor in new ways.
The instream component ... again, the removal of the four barriers, the realignment of the
creek for about 2,000 feet in 3 different locations; one of those locations is at Horseshoe Bend;
one is a realignment through the existing parking lot at Blackberry Farm, and one is a potential
realignment through the orange orchard at Stocklemeir.
. That entire area as well as some in situ improvements near the diversion dam and other low
flow crossings will total 3,200 feet of new pool and riffle habitat for steelhead spawning and
movement up and down the channel. Riparian planting will be planted along 3,200 feet of
these channels on both banks from the low benches within the channel to 25 feet past the top
of bank. In addition there will be 200 foot back water wetland created off the old channel, in
addition to a 600 foot willow swale off the golf course. This is a map that gives you a brief
overview of the location of the creek realignments, at Horseshoe Bend through the parking lot
and through Stocklemeir. The dark black graphic are the riffle areas; the blue circles are the
pools. Within 20% of the pools there will be heavy woody debris from downed trees that exist
in the corridor this year. That woody debris will provide different, a current in eddies ??
within the channel to create additional fish habitat during the summer months and during high
flows. We will be doing an extensive amount of demolition in order to implement this plan.
Everything you see in red in this plan is hardscape that will be removed from the corridor; that
includes concrete within the creek channel, includes low flow crossings, diversion dams, it
includes the parking areas throughout the entire Blackberry Farm area; it includes the picnic
structures, the fire pits, the sheds, some of the maintenance buildings that are perched on the
edge of the creek. Most of this will be replaced with a permeable surface and reduced in size
greatly. The green that you see in this is the removal of trees throughout the corridor in order
to support the realignment of the channel. There will also be a vast improvement to the picnic
area and the pool complex; the West Bank picnic area which will be the consolidated new
picnic facility, will have some underground utilities for water to the sites; central catering
building, barbecues that will remain throughout the flood and be flood available. Then the rest
of the facilities will be removable, so they can be taken out of the floodplain in the winter
months. The 1,100 style parking area, paved parking area, will go to a 350 vehicle permeable
parking area and all of the restrooms will be upgraded to serve the new picnic facility as well
as the pool. There will be a new pool entry kiosk and there will be a new bridge that spans
between that pool entry kiosk and the west bank picnic area. Folks arriving at the park will be
able to park in that facility and follow the trail to either the pool complex if they are coming
just to swim, or to the picnic area if they are coming for a paid picnic event. There will be new
fencing and paving stones around the pool to make it more usable to families; the heavy chain
link fence will be removed and the pool/lawn area will be fenced in a decorative fence to allow
people to walk and come and go to the pool.
. The bridge I mentioned is a 14 foot wide bridge, and that would allow for some light duty
vehicles to service the picnic area.
. The project also calls for the removal of the existing three pedestrian bridges.
. This is a brief overview of the picnic complex and pool area; there will also be some
improvements to the park entrance. The existing kiosk which is also an office building will be
demolished.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. The last slide you put up with the layout of the park, we couldn't .... That at all, you went
through it so quickly.
Janna Soquel:
. This slide is included in the CEQA document; I don't have the exhibit number, but it shows
the dotted line which you see is prominent is the existing creek channel. The hatched line is
the new creek channel; and you can see that it bows out into the parking area.
. You can see that the parking area has been greatly reduced; the picnic area all along the east
bank and all throughout Horseshoe Bend has been removed; that area is all upland restoration;
and the picnic (can 1 touch the screen; 1 can use the mouse; this might be helpful)
. This is the Horseshoe Bend area, all picnicking is removed from here; all picnicking is
removed upstream all the way up to the fence that separates this from the McClellan area, and
it has been consolidated to the west bank.
. This is the bridge that spans the creek connecting the pool entry kiosk to the picnic facility;
here is the parking area. The trail comes across from Stocklemeir, comes along the golf course
and then actually also serves as the route to the pool. The trail then continues through
Horseshoe Bend and onto McClellan.
. The parking right now comes all the way out to the drip line of these trees, and this is the
dotted line is the existing channel. So we are actually lengthening the creek through this
activity and by lengthening the creek, we are allowed to pick up the big grade changes that
exist at the low flow crossings where the creek has been incised.
. We are pulling the creek back a little bit away from its undercutting at Horseshoe Bend, and
this is actually returning the creek here to its historic channel.
. This part of Horseshoe Bend was filled over the years and we have aerial photographs that
have demonstrated that to us, probably in the days to support the commercial picnic operation.
. All of the large significant sycamore trees that are in the area which are native to the corridor
will remain, but more of the non-native trees that have grown in this filled area would be
removed to pull the channel back.
Com. Wong:
. So real quick, the reason why you are realigning the creek is to put it back to its historical...
Janna Soquel:
. The real reason we are realigning the creek is to enhance the corridor ecologically, and we are
doing that primarily based on the community's number one goal from their visioning process
2-1/2 to 3 years ago.
. But because the community had that as their primary goal for this unique piece of land, the
Water District has also partnered with the city and their primary goal was to implement
elements of the F AAHCE (Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort) which was an
outgrowth of a lawsuit that had been filed against the District over its management of this
particular stream and two others for the endangered species, the steelhead.
. And this stream over the years by (end of Tave 1) (missinl! some text at bel!inninl! of tave 2)
steelhead passage, large diversions, roadway crossings, as well as the releases from the dam
needed to provide a certain amount of cold water to what is considered in Blackberry Farm
and McClellan, the juvenile rearing the habitat of the steelhead. Steelhead is an anadromous
fish which comes in from the ocean when conditions are appropriate, swims upstream and
spawns here. It is a phenomenal fish and they still return; we still see steelhead as big as
laundry baskets in the creek, and this is where the young are raised. There are not many of
them, but nonetheless, they are released. Often times they are caught in Mountain View and
Sunnyvale, where they are removing barriers there, and lifted, assisted up the stream to rear
their young here. And then they return; unlike salmon, they return to the sea again.
Therese Smith:
. Commissioner Wong, the lengthening of the creek helps create the grade that makes it possible
for the fish to get up the corridor naturally. The various low flow crossings over the years
have eroded to where if you go out there now, you see little waterfalls. So in order to pick up
that vertical drop, you have to lengthen the horizontal reach of the creek.
Janna Soquel:
. And actually, you know... a lot of the adult fish can make some of these jumps. But it is the
young that live here all summer who are isolated and locked between these physical structures
and can't access the habitat up and down the creek because of these barriers, in the
summertime when there is only like an inch running over them.
. The park improvements - The entry building that exists as you come into Blackberry and make
the turn down near the pool would be demoed and a much smaller park entry kiosk similar to a
national park would be built to greet visitors coming to the park.
. The conference center and juniper landscaping would be removed and some vehicle parking
placed there along with native landscaping around the center. There would be new buffer
landscaping adjacent to the one private residence within the park. There would be a pedestrian
and bike access created from San Fernando Avenue.
. The trail would extend from McClellan to Stevens Creek Boulevard, it would be eight feet
wide. It would span the creek near the eighth hole of the golf course. This is the second of
two new bridges that would be constructed in replacement for three that are being removed.
There would be a fence to protect trail users from the short distance to the golf course that they
are traveling along. The trail would come out to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The sidewalk
there would be removed and there would be a nice access to a new crossing at Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
. In the McClellan end there would be a relocation of the 4H goat pen, down the hill and in
addition to that some expansion of the community gardens.
. The trail has been sited to minimize grading or removal of vegetation. There will be a total of
187 trees removed as part of the project. Most of those, the vast majority, probably 180 are
removed as part of the creek realignment; 22 of the trees... 22 for trail construction, there are
some orchard trees that we counted towards the trail; 12 trees are within McClellan, and 10 are
within Stocklemeir.
. There is also a small trail head staging area built near the existing restroom to the south end of
the pools. That area now accommodates about 200 cars, and serves the Walnut Court picnic
areas. That trail staging area, all of that would be demoed and just the 17 car staging area and
an upgraded restroom.
. Blue Pheasant area has 91 spaces, it will be restriped to increase the capacity by 9 additional
spaces.
. The environmental education center has been proposed for 2,000 square feet. Under this
document it will depend on what type of funding to see what is built; but at least there will be
environmental clearance for that amount of building and it would be placed at the pad of the
former double wide residence trailer. It is shown in yellow here on this graphic. For those of
you who are familiar with McClellan, it is sort of tucked behind the barn, the large barn and
there are two palm trees in front of the site.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Can you show us where the goat pen will be relocated?
Janna Soquel:
. Yes, you see the area here, that's in black. This outlines the new area of 4H; their footprint
increases a little bit. The goat pen is actually right up in the edge right there. We are moving
them down slope a little bit and then adding, I think it is 9 new gard~n plots in this area.
. There will also be quite a bit of upland habitat restoration throughout the area. And this is
habitat that would be considered sort of oak grassland and other upland native shrubs. This is
not considered part of the riparian habitat, so it is slightly different and it is further away from
the creek and has different watering requirements unlike those vegetation that need the stream
water throughout the summer.
. Maintenance facilities will be upgraded. The golf maintenance facility that is perched on the
banks of the creek, down at the end of the existing parking area will be demoed. A new park,
golf maintenance would be tucked behind the conference center.
. In addiiion, the park maintenance facility that's down near the proposed 17 car staging area to
the south of the pool complex would be updated to be a 1,200 square foot facility. That is
about what it is now.
. The irrigation system which used to tap into groundwater, and we have been off groundwater
for three years due to a rusting of the tank, that stored groundwater will be reconditioned and a
cistern onsite will be used to store that water which will be below ground.
. And that's it; it is a fairly big project for a small piece of land but that's because there are so
many habitat components to it. With that [ will turn the presentation over to Christine
Schneider who will talk to you about the impacts and the mitigations.
Christine Schneider:
. Good evening Chair and commissioners; [ am Christine Schneider from TRA and [ am going
to briefly walk through the environmental factors that were affected by this initial study
mitigated neg dec.
. And again, the reason why we are having this mitigated neg. dec. is because out of all the
environmental factors that were... that exceeded standards of significance, we can apply 11
mitigation measures to mitigate all factors to less than significant levels. That is why we don't
have to do an EIR or any other documents.
. So I am going to walk through... I am going to walk you through these mitigation measures
very briefly.
. First of all the issues: Special set of species within the corridor. There are... there was quite a
few biotic reports were prepared in 2004 and 2005.
. In those we found that steelhead as has been mentioned, are present. white tail kite have been
present; western pond turtle and 7 other species have been low to moderate potential to be
found in the project area.
. So of those, we have a series of impacts and mitigation measures and the first impact would be
that we have identified is the removal of structures and the removal of vegetation could impact
nesting birds. And so then this mitigation measure would ensure that all activities would not
impact nesting birds over levels of significance.
. Same with impact two. Where we have identified that there is a big brown bat maternity roust
at Horseshoe Bend and this mitigation measure would ensure that no impacts would occur,
significant impacts would occur to this maternity roust.
. Impact three, these are special status species; California red legged frogs, western pond turtles,
and dusky footed wood rats. We are saying that the mitigation here would avoid impacting
these special status species.
. Impact four; again biological resources and we have identified steelhead could parish due to
the construction activities that will be going on as part of the proposed project.
. Impact five has to deal... deals with dog use in the corridor; since dog use has its own suite of
activities and again dog use is only on the trail. We have identified minimization and
avoidance measures to keep dog users and their owners on the trails and we are going to have
patrols and citations. There is going to be new city park service employees, volunteer patrols,
education, limiting creek use, limiting areas that people who have dogs can access the creek
and such.
. I should also mention that we are also going to have adapted management and that is really
key, especially when you are dealing with putting a new use in an area that does not have the
use. Adaptive management in this case means that we are going to monitor what happens.
And if anything presents itself as either an impact or some other kind of issue comes up, then
we will take different measures.
. So the city will be continually monitoring the effects. You know... are dogs being kept out of
the creek; how is it working, that is what adaptive management is all about.
. One of the other biological resources impacts that we have identified has been that the trail
alignment may affect root zones of native heritage trees. Again, what we are trying to do in
the trail alignment is avoid removing trees and we are also trying to avoid any kind of removal
of the majority of roots from trees that are not going to be removed. This would ensure that
trees would not be removed. There is a lot of really great heritage trees, oaks, sycamores,
cottonwoods out there that we don't want to disturb.
. Next one has to do with trees as well. That is the tree trimming or removal could violate both
the City of Cupertino policies as well as the Department of Fish and Game policies from the
State of California. So we would implement, or the city would implement the mitigation
which includes replacing Coast Live Oaks at a ratio of 3: I and additional tree removal permits
if needed.
. Impact eight has to do with the cultural resources issues. Any time you are working in a creek
there is always the potential to have archeologic resources, and this creek is no different. In
fact there has been, there is a known possibility, a recorded possibility of a site on the
Stocklemeir orchard, so these mitigation measures that I am going to present to you in the next
couple of slides would serve to avoid or reduce impacts to these archeological issues.
. In order to facilitate our findings in cultural resources, the City hired a archeological
consultant to prepare a dig in Stocklemeir in the orchard, and they did it in February of this
year. They did a series of 8 trenches that they dug down to see if they found anything; if they
found any presence of any material and they did not. So it is not expected that there will be
anything but in the event that something is found, these measures are here to protect the city
and to protect those resources.
. I briefly want to walk through them very quickly. The first one would be that everybody... all
the contractors on the site would be briefed on the issue and they would be educated. And
then the next three measures here are about what happens if we do find something, just in case
we find something. Then part time archeological monitoring is required throughout that area
to allow for spot checking of subsurface construction. Both inside the boundary of this known
archeologic resource area and within the 100 foot buffer zone of that area.
. We also have a mitigation measure to reduce or avoid impacts caused by soils with pesticide
use in the Stocklemeir orchard since this is an orchard and since it is quite possible that other
areas within the corridor have also been used to grow orchard trees before. There could be the
possibility that there is pesticide residue in the soil. We want to do some testing to make sure,
to ensure the city doesn't have that.
. The next issue is hydrology water quality. There is no additional risk of flooding from this
project. This project would not either create more flooding or reduce it. The same amount of
water is going to come down, and because the pool at Blackberry Farm for example, isn't
moving, the same amount of water through that area would come through.
. The real difference is the fact that the park is going to be open 365 days per year; right now it
is open during the summer. In order to ensure that there are not any hazards to park users
during heavy storm events, even though most people don't like to be walking around in heavy
storm events, but in case that they would, the city could close the trail corridor or could post
signs or do both.
. The last one is the land use planning. This has to do with the environmental education center.
Since we don't know the exact design at this time, and again it was talked about previously in
this presentation that what we are trying to do is create a space that has environmental
clearance for a 2,000 square foot environmental ed center. We don't know the exact... how it
is going to look, we don't have floor plans; we don't have renderings; we don't have elevations;
and so we want to ensure that it is consistent, or the city wants to ensure it is consistent with
the McClellan Ranch Master Plan. So this mitigation measure would facilitate that.
. So in summary, the findings for the initial study mitigated neg. dec. prepared for this project
evaluates only changes to existing conditions; and it states the impacts identified are less than
significant with the mitigation measures incorporated that I have just presented.
. Implementation mitigation measures included would ensure that all significant impacts from
the proposed project would be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.
. Now at this point because the space is ... this hearing is to hold the space to allow the public to
comment, I just wanted to mention that all verbal and written comments on this project during
the public review will be forwarded to the City Council. In addition, the City Council will
consider all comments received both tonight as well as written in light ofthe entire project.
Chair Miller;
. Thank you.
. Before we start our questions or the public, could I get an idea of how many people would like
to speak tonight? Please raise your hands. Great, that is a fair amount. So what I would like
to do then is open the public hearing now and then after we hear all the comments from the
public then we will bring it back to the commission and discuss it further.
o What I would like to do is if you plan to speak, please fill out a card and when you get up to
speak, please give your name and we will allow you three minutes to speak.
o The first speaker I have here is Robert Levy.
o Robert, welcome.
Robert Levy:
o Mr. Miller, Mr. Chairperson, members of the Commission, staff members, this is very
interesting project which started really to find a way to get a non-paying Stevens Creek Trail
through a paying money making facility belonging to the city and to reduce some of the
impact of that money making. Other things have seemed to have gotten added along the way.
o The only thing I want to talk about in my brief time here is the entry to this new park. I am
probably out of date because I am working with an April set of maps in the documentation but
my Figure 12, Byrne Avenue access shows a crossing of San Fernando Avenue and then a 4
foot wide boardwalk for pedestrian, bicycle access. That now seems to be from the slides that
we saw here made 5 feet wide.
o The reason for that separate path, separate access is because the road isn't really wide enough
to tolerate bicycles and people, and buses, and cars, except sort of single file in either
direction.
o The real problem with that is that back in the 60s the entrance to Blackberry Farm was from
Stevens Creek Boulevard. When the golf course got put in, the entry was changed to come in
from Byrne A venue. So for a large number of years traffic has been routed up Bubb Road,
across McClellan, down Byrne, down San Fernando, going by all sorts of houses and all sorts
offacilities on route.
o When I first suggested that the entry ought to be from Stevens Creek Boulevard and instead I
was told no we can not do that because we would have to relocate some of the golf course. If
you look at the Figure 10, the Stocklemeir Master Plan or Figure 19, the Reach C creek
alignments, the proponents of this thing have taken a step that I never would have proposed
which is don't relocate the golf course, relocate the creek.
o And if you look at the amount of creek realignment there is more than enough room to run
down from the edge of the parking lot at the Blue Pheasant down along where the creek used
to be by these plans and down to the point where it enters the festival parking lot.
o By doing that you would not have to build a bridge across Stevens Creek to come from the
Stocklemeir property with the Stevens Creek Trail; you could just run that down and along the
same entry road. If you are going to have bicycles riding as if they are the main road you
might as well have them riding on a road. In addition to which that would then change the San
Fernando Avenue exit to a pedestrian and park vehicle only entrance.
o Thank you.
Chair Miller:
o Thank you Robert.
o Next speaker is Rhoda Fry.
Rhoda Fry:
o I need help. This says red; I want to do slides.
Chair Miller:
o Okay, could someone help.
Mr. Piasecki:
o What you need to do is put it there and the video crew will bring it up.
Rhoda Fry:
o How about the... Can you hear me? Cool.
Com. Wong:
o Can you center that so we can see it better, please.
Rhoda Fry:
o It looks like it is centered to me.
Com. Wong:
o There we go, thank you.
Rhoda Fry:
o Alright, never be afraid to walk away from a bad deal and this is a bad deal for neighbors of
the property, Cupertino citizens and the environment.
. Myth: reduction of picnic size reduces impact; only excess capacities removed; turns away
unmarriageable groups and retains 80,000 - 100 day usage; increases impact in a single locale;
800 used to spread out throughout the park and did damage; concentration in one place does
more.
o Currently you got 80,000 people and 100 days; proposed 169,000 people and 365 days; that is
double the people, double the traffic. We got the worst traffic area of Cupertino.
o Our streets are not walkable due to the introduction of the patchwork sidewalks and it is
getting worse. Diversion of traffic from the Blue Pheasant parking lot, that which is planned is
going to make it worse. By the way, one of the plan, one of the objectives for the City of
Cupertino Council was to relocate, analyze, relocating the entrance and it is not even in the
documents.
o Solutions:
. Decrease the usage in the corridor.
. B. Increase the parking at Blue Pheasant. Push the golf course in the Blackberry Farm
parking lot, solves the night time problems too, and also you need to add a bus turnout at
Stevens Creek Boulevard. You got 262 trips, 85 % + non residents. You are talking
somewhat only over 200 bus trips a day. Have them walk in a quarter mile, they do it at
Red Grove in Los Altos, we can do it here.
. Only 8 to 12% of reservations come from Cupertino. Is this a Cupertino amenity or an arm
pit? The plan increases the food service which is not a core accomplishment.
. This claims to be good for fish, yet the steelhead were present when there were even more
barriers including a 6 foot dam. Predicted impacts are incomplete. No new measurement
devices or consequences for excessive dust articulates.
o If bats are removed what happens to the west nile virus mosquitoes?
o Truck trips - assume that workers don't leave for lunch or breaks and of course there is more
but I don't have time for that.
o Proposed mitigations rely on human intervention. Our experience has shown that the city is
incapable of adhering to the simplest of codes, let alone a project of this magnitude.
. Where is the ROI? Economic, environmental, and social. Cupertino has acquired a unique
property, let's get together and create a magical place that it deserves to be.
o Thank you very much and I can't believe I have forty five seconds remaining. I appreciate
your attention.
Chair Miller:
. Maybe I can ask you a question or two. The pictures that you took of the trash in the park.
Are they recent pictures or older pictures?
Rhoda Fry:
. They are fairly recent pictures. The standard of operations has been to leave trash in open cans
all night long. The cans are... trash cans are tipped over by animals during the night and have
created an environmental havoc, and disruption of the animal populations and the environment
within the corridor. Santa Clara County Vector Control has been called in on numerous
occasions, yet there have only been marginal improvements. Cupertino code says that all cans
must be covered. There are still problems. I have more recent pictures as well.
Chair Miller:
. Okay, so the problems have been ongoing.
. Have they been addressed to your knowledge to some extent at this point?
Rhoda Fry:
. They have been addressed to some extent, yet the ground squirrel problem; the Santa Clara....
There is still a ground squirrel problem which has not to my knowledge been addressed.
. It was not only required by the Santa Clara County Vector Control but also the Santa Clara
Valley Water District because it causes disruption of the creek sides.
. You go down there, the ground looks like swiss cheese and it is making the sycamore trees
unstable. We need those to shade the creek for the fish.
Chair Miller:
. And the number of the increase in usage; you got those numbers from where?
Rhoda Fry:
. I got them from the documents. Although the documents do not list the 262+ non-resident
groups that come in on buses. They acknowledge the one such date, but they don't recognize
the weeks and weeks of dates that buses go through the neighborhoods.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Rhoda.
Rhoda Fry:
. Thank you very much; I appreciate your time.
Chair Miller:
. The next speaker is Lee Shodiss. (no response)
. The next speaker is Deborah Jamison. Did everyone turn in a card and then leave? Lee didn't
respond so Deborah you are on.
Deborah Jamison:
. Thank you, I am Deborah Jamison, 21-year resident of Cupertino, involved with issues
concerning McClellan Ranch since 1990.
. I worked with Nancy Hurder, and Lonnie Tonsfelt, leaders of the 70s movement to save
McClellan Ranch and have it become the city's first and still only nature of rural preserve. I
was appointed to the McClellan Ranch Master Plan Committee which worked for 2 1/2 years
on wntmg goals, objectives and recommendations to improve the wildlife habitat and
educational opportunities in McClellan Ranch, which includes the leased water district parcel,
known as the old orchard and the Simms addition on the west side of the creek.
o I am a naturalist by educational training and have a masters degree in ecology and another in
science teaching. My former profession was naturalist and environmental educator.
o I have thoroughly read and digested the entire set of documents and I am about half way
through writing my comments, questions, concerns and complaints. I cannot begin to explain
all these in three minutes and I can only briefly list a couple of them now. I have no time to
praise the plan.
o My main purpose in speaking before you tonight is to say if you have not read and thought
about the project's potential impacts and how the project can be modified to lessen or
eliminate them in addition to the mitigation measures offered, I hope you will take the time to
do so.
o This is a major project. My first comment was submitted a few days after the release of the
Initial Study. I protested the 30 day comment period during what is the busiest month for
anyone involved in nature birding, wildlife, or gardening. In other words, the city residents
who would be most interested in studying the project to date and its anticipated environmental
impacts.
o This Master Plan is now five years in the process giving citizens a longer period, say 60 days
to read this voluminous set of documents and submit their thoughts is not asking too much
considering how long we have waited to get this far.
o I have sacrificed my income-producing work and organizational commitments to read and
respond to this, but I suspect most other interested residents are unwilling to do so. Thirty days
may be the city's usual response period for a negative dec., but this isn't a normal project.
o The way that the so-called Simms property has been treated over the last few years and the
planned continuation of the status quo as described in this study is a betrayal of the public trust
and public coffers.
o This property was purchased for over $1 million in 1990 and added to McClellan Ranch in
City Resolution No. 8933. There was a native plant project on the property; there were
designated caretakers living in the Simms house.
o Today that property is leased to a private party with no acknowledgement that they are
residing on city park land with sensitive habitat that the city purchased to protect. The entire
back of the property is now a road bed, parking lot, and construction yard for the private house
being built on the adjacent property with no end in site. The native plant restoration area was
destroyed.
o This whole situation should be an embarrassment to the city. It is unacceptable after waiting
16 years this plan gives no hope that the goals of McClellan Ranch Master Plan for this
property or any environmental goals will be met any time in the foreseeable future.
o I have many other comments, concerns, questions, and alternative suggestions which will be
presented to the city in written form. I hope the city is not in such a hurry to approve this
negative dec. that you do not take the time to read and understand all of the many facets of this
plan and the implications and impacts.
o I hope that the city will honor the time that some residents and organizations are taking to
respond to these documents and not leave us with the impression that it does not matter what
we say. This is a done deal as presented to you.
o Thank you very much.
Chair Miller:
o If you want to take a little more time, please do so.
Ms. Jamison:
o Okay, thank you.
o The plan results in a loss of a small portion of the McClellan Ranch meadow because of the
squeezing in of a new trail. In essence, lost community garden plots are replaced in large
because of the trail construction. This riparian meadow is a rare and wildlife valuable asset
and should not be sacrificed in any degree for a recreational use that is inconsistent with the
mission of McClellan Ranch which is clearly spelled out in Ordinance 710, the regulations and
guidelines in the Master Plan.
o I have a suggestion in my written comments that community gardens be expanded in other
places in the city and that the meadow not be sacrificed. The estimates for trail usage are
vastly underestimated for when the trail is connected to the Linda V ista Park, the county park
and beyond. At that time it will become the regional multi-use recreational facility it was
destined to be. It will become an alternative to paying $5.00 to park in the county park lots,
especially for mountain bikers. It will become an alternative for over crowded parking lots at
Ranch San Antonio that turn away cars every nice weekend. Even without the connection it
will become an alternative for those seeking a short walk with kids and bikes to Deer Hollow
Farm at Rancho. This trail will provide a very similar use experience and the impacts of
bicycles and dogs which the plan acknowledges will amplifY as the trail is used by more and
more people in the years to come. I think that the trail needs to be better contained for dogs
and bicyclists; more fencing to protect the restoration areas and to protect McClellan Ranch
from the inevitable off trail usage that such trails engender. The effectiveness of the
mitigation measures is wholly dependent on the quality the project, the management, and the
long term monitoring, enforcement, ongoing restoration of deteriorators ... deteriorated areas
and commitment on the part of the city. Ultimately the commitment over the years to
McClellan Ranch does not inspire confidence that this will be done right and that the impacts
will be mitigated. This brings up the same point that Rhoda said that the track record of the
city is not good and it is not inspiring a lot of confidence that all these mitigation measures
will be properly instigated. The 17 car parking lot that is in the section of Blackberry Farm for
a trailhead, I am opposed to. I think that all the parking should be consolidated in a large
parking lot and that cars should not be invited down this narrow corridor. That trailhead should
be a very small trailhead for bicyclists and pedestrians and not cars. People can walk; people
can walk from the main parking lot to access the trails. They can park at the two parking lots
at either end and access the trail. They don't need to invite parking into the middle of
Blackberry Farm like that in the 17 car lot.
o [ will stop. Do you have any questions?
Chair Miller:
o 1 believe we do.
Com. Chien:
o Thank you Chairman Miller.
o Deborah, [ know... I was on the Parks and Rec Commission back in 2003 when we started
this public hearing process and I know you have been very passionate.
o In particular, I have noticed when we were out there, you and I joined the city naturalists to go
out to McClellan Ranch preserve and walk that property.
o Your concerns mainly focused on that particular property. So with respect to the preserve,
would you say your feeling about it has changed or has it remained the same? If it has
changed, what's caused it?
Deborah Jamison:
o You mean with regards to this Master Plan or in general?
Com. Chien:
o With regards to the Master Plan and how it plans out the preserve.
Deborah Jamison:
o I am very concerned about the impacts to wildlife. I think that some of the mitigation
measures are good, but I am not confident that they will actually carried out in long term and
that monitoring and re-restoration will be done in those areas that are impacted by misuse of
the trail.
. I am concerned about blue bird nesting in the old orchard area. I am concerned about the
hooded orioles nesting in the palm trees and I am very opposed to reduction of the meadow.
o That riparian meadow is a rare type of habitat. In the days when we had agriculture in the
valley, a meadow or field next to a riparian zone, next to a creek was a common thing. Now it
is a very rare type of habitat and it is that habitat that creates the great biodiversity in
McClellan Ranch.
o It is the juxtaposition; it's the ecotone created when a riparian woodland is contiguous with the
field, and I think sacrificing even one inch of that meadow is not only the wrong thing to do,
but it is in '" it is in clear violation of the mission of McClellan Ranch to preserve ...
preserve. That is why the city made it a nature and rural preserve, not...
o And yes, the gardens are a very popular program. There is a waiting list for those gardens, and
it is time for the city to create some community garden opportunities for other... in other
places in the city, particularly on the east side.
o And it is not an environmental solution, that people from the east side driving all the way to
the west side of McClellan Ranch. McClellan Ranch should not take the brunt of the entire
recreational need for community gardens. It is time to put some more community gardens
somewhere else.
Com. Chien:
o Thank you very much.
Deborah:
o Any other questions?
Chair Miller:
o Any other questions for Deborah?
o Thank you Deborah.
o Our next speaker is Jennifer Griffin.
Jennifer Griffin:
o Good evening Planning Commission; [ am Jennifer Griffin.
o I am a long-time resident of this area; [ attended local schools; I have very fond memories of
Blackberry Farm picnics my junior high and senior end of the school year.
o I understand that this is a project of great scope and magnitude, and obviously it is going to
take a great deal of thought by the city.
. I was very pleased a number of years ago when I heard that Cupertino had purchased
Blackberry Farm to protect it. I think that happened in 1990 if I am not mistaken. I think it
was a wonderful plan to have the park available; it will be nice to have it available to residents
now.
. Obviously there are a number of issues because of the increased use of the park. Rancho San
Antonio having grown up near that area, I have seen the proliferation of people using Rancho
San Antonio Park from the first days that it had opened, and it has absolutely snowballed into
just a very important regional park. But I am very concerned about Blackberry Farm getting to
that magnitude.
. You have some very very congested areas in Monta Vista and the entrance to Blackberry Farm
has been... has had problems in the past, having gone down that little road on a school bus
many many times.
. Please make sure that any oak trees that are removed from the area are replaced with correct
species, field grown oak trees; they are available. Stanford has had extensive replanting
programs of young oaks on their lands that have been very successful.
. Since this is the first time that the park has been opened up to public access, we have families
using the park; children on bicycles.
. I understand people with the dogs do use the park now. Hopefully people will be sensitive to
keeping dogs on leashes. I am particularly concerned about squirrels; dogs will chase
squirrels.
. You have a number of sensitive riparian areas there. You also have a number of areas where
bikes are probably not appropriate near creek beds. Having three brothers, I know how
wonderful it is to get into areas in the spring when there are lots of mud.
. I do hope that people who use the park and have dogs or using bicycles will be good members
of the public and keep dogs on leashes, on trails, where they are supposed to be and have a
good use of bicycles and not take them down into creek beds unless that is as the city dictates.
. I understand there is a native fish population; hopefully that can be brought back. Is the water
controlled through Stevens Creek at this time?
. Also too, please have increased security of bicycle patrol officers. I think it is very important.
. Thank you very much.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Jennifer.
. The next speaker is Audrey Butcher.
Audrey Butcher:
. I was born in an orchard, still live in one, and knew both Gladys and Louie Stocklemeir.
. I am concerned about those ten trees that you are removing. What are those ten trees? The
Stocklemeir trees?
Chair Miller:
. We will answer your questions later. If you would just give us your comments and if you have
questions, [ will make sure we will answer them before the end of the hearing.
Audrey Butcher:
. Well I did not understand why ten trees should be removed from that property. I wasn't able
to see the map very clearly.
. I don't think trees should be removed from an orchard because it destroys the unity and you
can no longer disk or spray properly. But those orange trees do not need spraying. I have i8
orange trees that my father in law planted over 100 years ago and we never spray them and
they are healthy and they produce lots of oranges. I don't know why any trees should be
removed from the Stocklemeir orchard.
. I am glad that you have wood rats in your oak trees because there should be; we have them
with our oak trees.
. I am also a little concerned with those bridges because there should be some way to be certain
that bicycles walk across those bridges. I no longer am a bicyclist so I can say what I want
about those who use them.
. But my son, daughter and I were assaulted in hoity toity Los Gatos by bikers. We were
observing an art exhibit on the bridge but they thought we should get out of the way because
they were more important than we were.
. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Audrey.
. Our next speaker is Andy Butcher.
Andy Butcher:
. I am living on a ranch currently that has been in the family for 125 years, and I have had a
chance to go up and take a look at the Stocklemeir orchard and I would like you to take a lot of
consideration for all those beautiful persimmon trees that are on the north end of the property.
I have never seen persimmon trees as beautiful as those and those really need to be protected.
. I have read a couple of conflicting ideas about the orchard. I have heard one person that all the
orange trees will be removed completely and not replaced. I have also heard they would be
replaced with apricot trees.
. I think a lot of concern ought to be given to what you want to do with this property. I
personally wouldn't mind if it were replaced with habitat, but don't tell my family or other
orchardists that.
. I am glad that with the present alignment of the river that you have taken into concern its
gradient and consequent erosion. I think it is very important to be aware of that and I actually
hope more than, may I say this simply naturalist, I have a degree in horticulture and I am a full
time gardener for Stanford, I am active with the CMPS; but I hope that... I am sorry, that
orchard needs to have its integrity retained.
. As far as the alignment of the river, any increase... any shortening of the length of it is going
to increase the velocity and increase the erosion. It looks like you have taken that into
consideration. I hope that you really look at this lady's document when she is finished with it.
It sounds like she really is on the ball.
. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Would it be alright if! asked you a few questions sir?
. You said the orchard needs to have its integrity remain. Could you comment on that why that
is important?
Andy Butcher:
. Well whenever you have a margin on an orchard, you have a problem with pests on the
outside. You have a root problem, it is difficult to disk. You put a path through it, you have
doubled its margin. You have impacted the integrity of that orchard.
. I can see how it would be nice to have people traveling through it and there might be a way to
do it on a temporary basis, with a temporary path.
. I know that there are federal standards for bike paths and so forth. Maybe we could do
something a little more innovative than carve up the orchard.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you. The next speaker is Nicole Rau.
Nicole Rau:
. Good evening; I am a terrible speaker but I felt like I should have a say tonight and I agree
with Deborah. I wish we had much more time because there is so much that could be said
with this plan coming up.
. My main concern right now is also the orchard at Stocklemeir; where I wish there was a way
we can do an alternative plan and not have to carve away so many trees and threaten some of
the blue birds and other birds that nest in the area.
. Right now I am working and helping out at the Cupertino Historical Society and I have
recruited a couple of students who are working on the education program and I had always
hoped in the future we could use the orchard as part of our education program, because so
many have disappeared in the area and there are now shopping centers; and so many children
do not have an idea where their food is coming from.
. It is good to have an environmental project but if the orchards are missing, it is missing
actually a big part of their history about the area as well; which I would hope we could
integrate that and have both like our national history as well as the history of the area and
preserve that in some way with the Stocklemeir property.
. Some other concerns I also have are also liability with increased visitors passing through the
Stocklemeir area as well as restroom use; if there will be enough and if so will they be going
through Stocklemeir.
. Also the cost of security enforcement, with the increase of people on the trails. I would hope
that in the future there could be a joint benefit project but I think there does need to be a great
deal of revision and some things worked out with this.
. I hope we can preserve the orchard and keep that as educational resource for students.
. And now the trail will not only be for hikers, but also for seniors, and students or other people
who might have an interest in the area.
. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you. Nicole, we have some questions.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. On the Stocklemeir property, where would you suggest a trail be placed?
Nicole Rau:
. I actually in honesty I just found out about the plans the night before and the maps are very
very difficult to read.
. An eight foot paved trail or they are saying a permanent trail, is that asphalt or is that going to
be paved?
Vice Chair Giefer:
. It is a pervious... after reading the report it is some non-toxic permeable surface.
Nicole Rau:
. I would definitely have to have a clear view of the map and look at alternatives and would
hope there could be other routes.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Thank you for that.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you. The next speaker is Mike Foulkes.
Mike Foulkes:
. Thank you Mister Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I am Mike Foulkes here
today as a board member of the Cupertino Historical Society.
. I think Nicole's comments were dead on and so I am here it give a little more of a historical
flavor. I think the overall document that has been discussed has a lot of good pieces to it and I
think there is obviously a lot of work that has gone into it.
. But Blackberry Farm is the focus and I think at the Historical Society that is our problem is
that the focus on Stocklemeir is fairly non-existent. I think you have heard from several
speakers about the orchard.
. Part of this goes back to when the Historical Society went to City Council. As you all know
the Stocklemeir house since the city bought has remained derelict and is in great disrepair and
many worry that it is not going to last very much longer if we don't do major work on it.
. So the city has had ongoing discussions with the Historical Society about coming and taking
over that property and working on it. In fact we have a memorandum of understanding with
the city on this and we have gone out and doing surveys and raising money, etc.
. The problem we have is that we have always envisioned having the Stocklemeir property not
just the house. This plan unfortunately and perhaps for reasons of golf or other reasons cuts
the property in half, takes away a huge portion of the orchard which is critical to the plans that
we have been envisioning to make that to raise the funds to help with Stocklemeir property
and takes and puts the path, the walkway right in between the property, really making it
useless for most educational activities that we have envisioned.
. So while 1 understand there are some rationale for that in the overall plan, it really does
devalue this whole area and makes it very difficult for us to fill the mission that we have been
contemplating for the several years with the city.
. My concern is, in this document there is lots of millions of dollars are going to be spent on
restoration and upgrading of facilities. .
. There is nothing in here for the Stocklemeir home. If we are truly going to cut up the
Stocklemeir ranch and kind of destroy the ranch aspect of it and really make it more of a
restoration project which is the choice of the city, then it is going to be very difficult for us to
bring in the resources and 1 would hope that if the city is going to destroy the orchard as a
education tool and then there at least is consideration to and funding to really restore the
Stocklemeir property because 1 don't know it is something our organization can do. I know we
have several board members who will probably elaborate on that. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Mike.
. Next speaker is Mark McKenna.
Mark McKenna:
. Good evening commissioners. I am Mark McKenna, I am representing.. I am President of
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. 1 actually hate following Mike Foulkes because he says
everything so eloquently.
. So what I would like to first say is on June 3rd we are having our 40th anniversary dinner; it is
$100 per person and you are more than welcome to come.
. Having said that 1 would also like to echo some of the comments that have already been said
earlier.
. Moving the creek over, moving the trail over, it is kind ofa slice and dice of that property, and
it makes it useless to us. If the creek stays where it is, soils won't not be disturbed and we
won't have to worry about mitigating for pesticides. We would really love to see a trail go
right down along where the present creek is, where we can display the orchard and the creek
and we can do interpretive classes on the two of them.
. Thank you for your time.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you. The next speaker is Joe Walton.
Joe Walton:
. Thank you Chair Miller, and thank you commissioners for working hard on this project; it is a
big one and I think it is going to be a great one when it gets done.
. I am Joe Walton and I am going on forty years of residence of our fair city. I serve on the
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and have for some years. I represent the City of Cupertino to
the VT A on bicycle and pedestrian issues.
. The park has served as a safe route to school for many many years. The City Council, I think
at their last meeting decreed that the gate would be closed and no more people would pass
through the park from Scenic Circle Drive.
. The problem is that it is a safe route for students going to our three schools, middle school,
high school and elementary school. Particulary for those on bicycles traveling in the morning
and in the afternoon on McClellan Road is a very dicey prospect. The road is not large enough
to permit a bicycle lane or striping for bicycles. So as consequence the students is at risk.
. Formerly, bicyclists and students walking to school could utilize that path from Scenic Circle
. across the park and coming out on Byrne Avenue and an easy walk to school. So that has been
closed, but I think it needs to be re-thought and reopened as a controlled path, not a public
path, not a western gateway to the park, but rather for .students use only. It would be open
before, during, and after school hours for a limited time; and then it would be closed.
Obviously it would be closed on the weekends and when summer gets here it would be closed
all the time. But it is an important path and I think we have just recently a young student
bicycling to school who was collided with a car, even though he was not run over, I don't think
seriously hurt, but it highlights the fact that if we allow that situation to continue that we are
going to have many more people contending with the terrible traffic and as a consequence
suffering injurious injuries.
. So that is my pitch to give some consideration of the reopening of a pathway across the park. I
have a letter I sent along to Director Smith; I think you have gotten that so it will be in your
packet and it will go on to City Council.
. I think it is an important consideration. If you have any questions I am up for them, otherwise
I will repair.
Chair Miller:
. We have a question for you.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Thank you for joining us this evening.
. On the current plan there is a light weight vehicle, one bridge that may accommodate students
potentially from Scenic Circle and I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on the
placement of that particular bridge?
Joe Walton:
. If you were to... I understand you are taking bridges out, I am not familiar with the plan
exactly, but the pathway comes down at probably the lowest road elevation to the elevation of
the park itself, it is slightly downhill.
o If there is a bridge some place in that vicinity that would accommodate walking and bicycling
that would be great. At the other side of the park, on the east side of course they just pedal out
the entrance. But some consideration should be given.
Vice Chair Giefer:
o Great, thank you.
Chair Miller:
o Thank you Joe. The next speaker is Joyce Eden.
Joyce Eden:
o Hello, thank you for taking public comments. I appreciate the work that is going into this
plan. I appreciate the City of Cupertino for buying these properties with the intention of
preserving them.
o You are probably all aware that this is, especially McClellan Ranch Park is an incredible
treasure for the city of Cupertino and for the future of our children and grandchildren. I love it
and I want the habitat preserved and we have the beautiful gift from the previous City
Councils of having it designated as a preserve so I am very interested in the focus remaining
on that.
o Since the other properties are contiguous and go along the creek and have important habitat,
and I am going to guess there is species there we don't even know about. Let's try and
preserve that; so I do oppose a wide trail that includes bikes.
. I have been waiting probably for at least a decade, maybe longer for the bike trail from
Stevens Creek Boulevard to go through to Rancho San Antonio, so I would urge you to put
funds into that vs. widening a wide trail for bikes along this river corridor.
o I have three boys, they are grown now, but let's not fool ourselves about a bike path, unless
you have some plan that I can't imagine which you could, but I highly doubt it, of how you are
going to keep the kids from going off bike or even the high intensity bike racers that might
want to go there from on their way to Stevens Canyon Road or Foothill South, whatever it is
called now. That is a big concern.
o I did hear Miss Giefer mention permeable path; however I have seen this happen in way too
many national parks where the intention was to have a permeable built path and it ended up to
be paved; so just wondering about that plan.
o The bat habitat - I understand there is bat habitat that may be destroyed from the configuration
and that is really not a good idea. They do eat a lot of mosquitoes and we want to keep that.
o We want to keep the quiet atmosphere there; the slow quiet atmosphere which is the problem
with the bike path through there. As you know I am a biker, but not there.
o I understand that there is going to be a new snack bar, and I am very concerned with that
because again people since there is going to be a trail, people will be carrying their snacks and
the wrappings and I imagine it will get out of control and thinking of mitigation, oh there is
going to be garbage cans, oh there will be clean x amount of times; it won't happen. It just
won't end up happening.
o So the less that "if we build it they will come" in terms of those kinds of things, the better.
And also the issue of keeping the bikes on the trails as I said.
o The 15 ... the 17 car parking lot in the middle of the property; please don't do that. Let's keep
the vehicles out as much as possible and that's adding those 17 places in the middle there is
really not a good idea.
o I am not sure how the configuration works but I heard people talk about the children passing
through and I do support the kids having a pathway and a bike way going to the schools.
Maybe there is a card they can use with the gate, some kind of configuration like that. It is
very important. We want the kids to walk and bike to school.
. Another aspect of the snack bar, please don't make this a cash cow. It's real easy to make a
public land into a cash cow for the city. Let's pay for things through our taxes and not try to
do that.
. The same goes for all the construction. Construction, mitigation; oh keep so far from the
riparian zone, don't knock over the trees, and so on. This never works, so please understand.
You are bringing in big vehicles; there is going to be damage beyond, way beyond what is
planned for. So the less construction, the less big bulldozers and cranes the better.
. Oh, and I do want to say about the monitoring. Unless you put monitoring into this plan and
you put long term funds for monitoring, it will drop by the wayside; it won't happen.
. Also, I want the bird habitat preserved; when you have dead trees that is habitat; it is not just a
dead tree and it is very important.
. Thank you very much.
. Oh, and I ask you please, if you don't read the plan, read the public comments. Please do that.
. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Joyce. The next speaker is John Kolski.
John Kolski:
. Good evening commissioners and staff. My name is John Kolski. I am a 61-year native
resident of Cupertino and have lived on my family property since it was purchased in 1902.
. I am here speaking for myself and six of the oldest and longest native members of this
community who had extensive acres of orchards in our city and founded our city. And 1
believe we all wouldn't be enjoying our city today if it wasn't for the older founding members
of our community which we should honor.
. They all and I would like to save the Stocklemeir orchard as a heritage orchard. We have only
that orchard to save now. Sunnyvale has a nice, that Charlie Olson takes care of, a nice
heritage orchard and we really don't; we have I ittle bits and pieces of what is left from all the
old ranchers in this community and not one left complete orchard.
. There is some problems in talking to the old timers about changing that orchard.
. One - that is a really well preserved orange orchard and I realize that the descendants of the
Stocklemeirs never liked their parents having an orange orchard, and that they would have
rather having to have had other fruit there but that's not really a reality there according to the
old timers.
. That orchard produces a lot of oranges. Right now it needs constant pruning; it needs disking;
it doesn't need spraying. It needs to be just maintained. But the problem that that orchard has
with replacing any of the trees with other trees, stone fruit, prune trees, apricot trees, anything
other than walnut trees is the oak root fungus.
. And oak root fungus thrives in the ground at Stocklemeirs just like any other place where it
has constant water supply. Moving the creek only helps make the oak root fungus worse in the
whole area of that orchard because you bring the water closer to the trees. Orange trees and
walnut trees survive; apricot trees and prune trees, and almost anything else after a few years
will die in that oak root fungus conditions of over moist soil continually month after month,
year after year.
. The trail that would go through the center of it creates another problem as you have heard
tonight; that you are impacting the ground; you are cutting off the natural water supply from
the surface and you are cutting offthe air supply to the trees.
o You also bring a factor in that has been brought up tonight and I won't dwell on it, is the
impact of the trail and then the impact of the people walking off the trail around trees. I think
we all know that's a problem around the root systems of trees.
o Chips - there have been chips ... wood chips spread on that orchard already that I think some
of, if you don't mind me saying some of the old timers really got upset about because they used
to take care of the Stocklemeir orchard for Mr. Stocklemeir. They have been disked in, that
cuts off the air and stops the weeds from growing. We all understand what chips do in your
yard but it stops the air and the water from going in. It is terrible.
o Fruit trees also bring another problem to that orchard area. It is debatable of how bad of a
problem. [fyou put peaches or apricots or prunes, or plums in there; you are going to have...
if you think you have a deer problem there now, you are going to have a bigger deer problem
because it is a sweet fruit. The stone fruits are a sweet fruit and they will eat the fruit. On an
apricot tree they will strip the leaves from the tree and the trees will die. The deer will kill the
trees.
o Orange trees are a little big, they have bitter leaves so they don't eat the oranges obviously
because of the rind on the oranges. They usually don't eat the leaves, at least they don't strip
an orange tree to where there are no leaves to get air and water from the top of the tree.
o That orchard needs to be disked. I have gone to the city quite a few times and [ think Steve
will go along with that and had people volunteer to disk that orchard.
o Everybody thinks that the orchard needs to have the weeds growing and doesn't need to be
disked. The ground needs to cultivated; the ground needs to get air and water through it and
the orchard just needs to be taken care of.
o I think we owe it to our founding members of our community that are still alive to have at least
one place left that brought us all here to Cupertino in the first place.
o Thank you for your time.
Chair Miller;
o Thank you John.
o We are back to Lee Shodiss; is Lee Shodiss in the room?
o I am out of speaker cards. Does anyone else wish to speak on this issue, on this item?
o Okay, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission.
Vice Chair Giefer:
o [ would like to start with a couple questions for staff with regards to the project.
o After reading the packet that we received and I did read all of it, the first question [ have is
why can't we restore the creek where it currently is? Why are you proposing changing the
placement of the creek? ... Anybody.
Therese Smith:
o Any of us could do it.
. The biggest issue is that the removal to impediments to fish passage. There is actually a
couple things going on but one of the significant ones is that hydrologically, and there has
been a lot of engineering done for this. This is not something that has been taken lightly; and a
lot of alternatives generated.
. We were looking for a system that would be self maintaining; we don't want a lot of fish
structures that require maintenance and could potentially be eroded. We need to achieve a
certain gradient; we need to replace spawning habitat, spawning gravels. We need to take care
of some areas that are undercutting; replace some areas that are artificially filled with the creek
channel itself and reconnect that channel to the floodplain.
o Janna could probably go into this at great length, but in order to improve the habitat for
spawning fish, it is necessary to have a gradient long enough that picks up the vertical drop,
that has eroded over years of misuse of the creek. It is actually about driveways through it.
Low flow.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Right, I walked the property again this morning or this afternoon, but I could not help but look
at the creekbed where it is today and wonder why you can't either engineer the soil to ... and
again [ am not a hydrologist, whatever the right term is ... but it just seemed to me it. would
take a lot more effort to realign and we would lose many more trees, than to try and remedy
the problems we have in the current creek.
Christine Schneider:
. Maybe I could elaborate on Therese's response a little bit.
. We looked at restoring the creek within its self, in situ; and part of it is going to be done it that
manner. The part from the Blackberry Farm fencing to the walnut orchard down to about the
first low flow can be done in situ, within the existing channel; but that area is not as deeply
incised and down cut.
. It almost looks, when you look at the area along the parking lot today, it almost looks like it is
a levy creek channel out near the bay; it is not. It is so deeply incised that it floods; it doesn't
even connect to the floodplain.
. All of Blackberry Farm, all of Stevens Creek Corridor is in the 100 year floodplain; and now
the typical ten year flood just flushes through that area and drains to the bay. It doesn't
overbank; it doesn't feed those (rees any longer; you; you don't see baby sycamores out there;
you see big majestic trees that are reaching the end of their life span and falling down.
. If we were to fix it within the channel, the solution there was all hardscape. It was stoned, hand
placed stone pools, mortared in place that would break up that gradient and that you would
series of six inch step pools all the way down, very hard in structure which minimizes your
ability to plant within the creekbanks, because you are trying to plant within concrete and
boulders. It does allow the fish to move but it doesn't enhance the rest of the habitat. It
further disconnects the creek from the floodplain. So by lengthening it and widening it, laying
those creekbanks back we are able to do so much more for the ecological function of the
corridor. So where we could do it in place we did.
. We also then, the Stocklemeir orange orchard has raised a lot of concern tonight and [think [
should address the golf course area. We wanted to restore that portion of the creek actually in
situ in the channel. However, in that area the entire edge of the golf course is lined with shot
creek, rip rap, poured concrete, and it is all over time decaying and being undermined,
collapsing and falling apart.
. We wanted to widen that creekbank out and we are limited by a major sewer line that runs
almost immediately adjacent to the creek through most of that portion of the area. Our only
fix in situ is to pull all the concrete out and put in a poured concrete vertical wall along that
portion of the creek to protect the sewer line and then to create a very low bench where we
could do some planting in the bottom of the channel, very minimal and then we could plant no
trees at the top of it because you have a sewer line to deal with as well.
. We could have done that as well, that was one of the options. No one was going to want to put
money into that; it's not environmentally sensitive. So in that case we thought of what else
can be done in that area, in the absence of completely ripping out a sewer line which would
require a pump station and all the other things associated with it; and that was to flip-flop the
creek and the habitat that is along the Stocklemeir property is still in great shape.
. There are beautiful oaks that provide the oak fungus to the orchard; there are beautiful
buckeyes, sycamores and by transitioning the creek to the other side, you maintain water
connection to those existing trees and then you are able to replant the whole other side. It does
impact the orchard significantly. It is a tradeoff between natural habitat versus historical
orchard.
. That orchard is actually relatively new; it is 30 to 40 years old. Prior to that time this was a
pick and pay walnut orchard that was sprayed; and we're concerned about pesticides because
of that use.
. Over time the front end of the property is still historic walnut orchard and persimmon and a
variety of other citrus trees as well as some olive and some kumquat and some loquat all
within that area. That area is indeed preserved but the orchard trees closest to the riparian
habitat would be lost; and I don't know the exact count; I could give that to you. 87 orange
trees would be lost; about half the orchard. Maybe that is a long answer as to why we couldn't
fix it in place.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I heard several different things that were going on at once. With regards to the Stocklemeir
property, I actually heard that there was an alternative. It may not be the one you like but it
sounds like you did investigate another alternative.
Christine Schneider:
. Yeh, there is an alternative.
. It would essentially be a wall like this.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. So moving on, my next question is in regards to the tree replacement.
. You are proposing a 3: I replacement for the native species trees that are lost; and oak which is
probably several hundred years with three acorn species of similar oaks as opposed to field
grown oaks.
. Is that right? Did I misunderstand that in the report that your tree replacement will be.. I can
tell you where it is in your appendices.
Christine Schneider:
. I know where it is.
. Let me say too that the tree report is as aggressive as possible. Let me look at that particular
tree that you bring out. I don't even think that tree is actually coming out. Is it, let's see.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. We didn't have a tree map so when I walked the property I was actually unable to pick out
which trees that they were that were. . .
Christine Schneider:
o It is on the demo plan, but you don't have a tree by tree by tree.
Vice Chair Giefer:
o I am very concerned. I am sorry, it is a 91 inch circumference on the tree.
o Now, my question is you're proposing to replace them with basically one or two inch sprouted
acorns. Is that correct?
Christine Schneider:
o There are three large oaks that are of that significance...
Vice Chair Giefer:
. There is more than three.
Christine Schneider:
. Well no, of that size that are in that area and they are actually on the west bank picnic area
where the creek cut would come through.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. But you are proposing that you replace them with acorns?
. So you are going to replace a 90 inch circumference oak tree with three trees this size.
Janna Soquel: (7)
. First of all let's separate the two issues.
. There's... this whole project really strove to reduce tree loss and there are some places where
trees will be lost; but there are over 4, 000 trees within the whole Stevens Creek corridor.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. No, I hear you and that is not my issue.
. I understand that, but we would never let a developer come to us and say] want to cut down a
100-year old oak tree and I am going to put in three sprouted acorns.
Christine Schneider or Janna Soquel: (77)
. The reason for that is that we are trying to maintain the genetic integrity of the corridor, and if
we were to put in a boxed oak tree, a 36 inch box which you would typically require of a
developer who was removing such a large tree; it would not be of the Stevens Creek corridor
watersheds stock.
. And as a matter of fact, box trees over time are out compete by that acorn within a IS to 20
year period; and actually the acorn tree actually does better. This is particularly the case if you
were to plant a One gallon versus a 15 gallon tree. Within 3 to 5 years that young tree, the
smaller tree would be much larger than the IS because the root development in the specific
soil conditions is what benefits that particular tree; and you collect an acorn [rom onsite.
. This would be probably actually be required by the jurisdictional agencies in the area as well.
Therese Smith:
. I was just going to mention the Water District guidelines for native plantings are that if you
cannot provide stock from within the watershed you have to plant an exotic. Because they do
not want the cross-contamination between the species that are watershed specific and ones that
were cultivated in other watersheds.
. So we may be required by permit, this document is a/so written for the benefit of the
permitting agencies; and we suspect that is going to be required of us.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Have you considered transplanting?
Christine Schneider:
. Transplanting does not work.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. It worked across the street.
. We had TaylorWoodrow dig up heritage sized oak trees, box them up and replant them.
Christine Schneider:
. It is possible to do that in certain locations, yes.
. The three trees that are of significant size are too large to be moved. Some of the....
Vice Chair Giefer:
. You have some smaller ones.
Christine Schneider:
. And the smaller ones are all against an actual roadway and they are all in poor condition and
would be difficult to move because the root mass is so stilted already.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Okay, the other question that I have is in general I felt the negative dec. was very biased
against dogs and dog owners; and we have coyotes running around as well as dogs.
. Now, I don't know the background of what people are doing in this park, because it is not one
that I walk in often, but... and I think that Deborah Jamison probably did the best job of
anybody of talking about the wildlife habitat in McClellan Ranch and why it makes sense to
only keep them on the trail in that area.
. And I am not suggesting that dogs be allowed in the creek, but I think you need to allow them
anywhere else people are allowed in the Blackberry Farm portion, in the picnic areas.
. This will be the only park in Cupertino that dogs are not allowed. (urn hmm)
Therese Smith:
. The dog issue was one that didn't really come up until we were drafting the document and I .
insisted that.. that the current operation of Blackberry Farm is that during the 100 days it is
opened, dogs are not allowed and there are no dogs allowed.
. But last winter I moved out to Blackberry Farm to work for a couple of months so I could see
how the place operated. What I noticed is that this is people drive there to walk their dogs in
the morning. This is what they use it for; and so I thought we had to provide... and I can tell
you the biological team wasn't excited about this, but we had to provide some opportunity for
dog owners and then if during this environmental review it fell out, it would fall out.
. Having an 800 person picnic area with the potential for several hundred dogs at anyone time
just does not seem like a good idea to me.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· And I am not suggesting that the pay for picnics bring their dogs but the people who are
walking that might just go off trail to have a snack or have lunch or something, you know.
. I would be breaking the law if I brought my dog.
Therese Smith:
. That is correct; if your dog was on a leash, however, you could walk it.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. We are going to walk it on the trail.
Therese Smith:
. We are going to have to balance the habitat.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. And I am not suggesting that anybody go walking through the habitat, dogs or people, because
we want to retain that as habitat; and I am not seeing that you are suggesting people swim in
the creek either.
. I am not suggesting dogs swim in the creek either; but I just think that it is too limiting as a
plan for us to not allow dogs to go where people are in the Blackberry Farm portion. I am not
... my comments do not apply to McClellan Ranch at all.
Therese Smith:
. Well that is an interesting comment. We will take that into consideration.
. Enforcement is going to be very difficult.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I think that if you allow dogs to stay on the path walking through McClellan and if you have
specified free picnic areas for people who are walking through McClellan to go to Blackberry
from the neighborhoods who happen to have their dogs.
. I would like there to be a place where I can legally, with my dog on a leash, sit and have a
snack.
Therese Smith:
. There will be tables on the 17 person parking area, which is .. the plan is hard for me to read; it
is right here ... It is hard to see it.. there is actually because it is under this red; but there is a
small trailhead with 17 parking spaces, a restroom, and there will be some picnic tables there.
. Oh yeh, here is the existing softball diamond, right there; and it will be right adjacent to that. I
have heard some comments about that parking being in the center of the park. The rationale
for that is that the Council was very specific that during the time Blackberry Farm west bank
picnic area, that 100 days a year when that's a for-profit operation, they wanted, and you
actually enter through a kiosk and pay to go to that parking lot. They wanted to have a place
for people to park and not have to go through the kiosk. That was a specific ... that was
Council direction that we provide that kind of opportunity outside the pay-for area; and that is
right along the trail. That little area would be available to you.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I mean a bigger, easier to post "no dogs there" and then if ... your report consistently said
there was a issue with dog droppings, but I observed no dog bags as you see at every other
public park. It makes sense, they are not allowed there right now; so you bring your own bags.
I don't see the same problem in other parks that I visit; that people don't curb their dogs or pick
up after them.
. I was very pleased to see that there is a 2,000 square foot environmental center proposed at
McClellan Ranch.
. I was also very displeased that I saw no green building philosophy or sustainability for that;
and I am wondering what your... I am interested in your comments on how you are going to
improve the sustainability and make the buildings that will be rebuilt and new buildings and
what your plans are for sustainability and green building in this park.
Therese Smith:
. Well, that is the goal and I thought that was in the document. If it isn't, it was an oversight ..
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I didn't see a word about making a green building or usmg green building principals or
working on self sustaining or photo voltaic or anything.
Therese Smith:
. That is specific Council direction.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Okay, that is good to hear; I am pleased to hear that.
. I am just going through my notes here because I have many.
. I was just curious, in the 4H; it has been along time since I visited the 4H area, but there were
horses there last time. You are not suggesting that horses also... this is not an equestrian trail
tie in up to the hills?
Therese Smith:
. I have never seen horses there; there are horses there now?
Vice Chair Giefer:
. There are horses there now.
Therese Smith:
. That is not part oftheir program.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I was just wondering.
. Then why isn't it part of the program? I am just kidding; we are putting enough different things
on the trail right now. (laughter)
Mr. Piasecki:
. Horses on leashes....
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Horses on leashes, with your own bag to pick up after them, that is what we want. (laughter)
. Do you want comments or just questions?
Chair Miller:
. Do just questions first and then we will come back for comments.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Thank you very much.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Lisa. Cary, do you want to go next?
Com. Chien:
. Thank you Chairman Miller.
. My questions will focus mainly on the two parts that I think the public has commented on
tonight and that is starting with McClellan Ranch Park.
. Therese, isn't it true that at one time that the department considered alternative routes for the
trail that goes through McClellan Ranch Park?
Therese Smith:
o In terms of the driveway or the trail?
Com. Chien:
o The trail.
Therese Smith:
o Yes, we did.
o The current trail alignment... Well, two things. Mr. Foulks talked about an MOU with the
Historical Society; actually what was adopted a little over two years ago was a resolution
giving the Historic Society the ability to come in and negotiate a long term lease for that
property upon reaching certain fund raising goals. That offer is still on the table. That is this
area here.
Com. Chien:
o I was asking about McClellan Ranch. I started with McClellan Ranch Park.
Therese Smith:
o Oh, I am sorry, I thought you were talking about Stocklemeir.
Com. Chien:
o Yeh, I started with McClellan Ranch Park.
o I believe when I was on the Parks and Rec Commission you had presented alternative routes
that could have gone through McClellan Ranch, is that correct?
Therese Smith:
o Oh yeah, many.
oWe have been through many many alternatives. The current alignment is the eastern most
alignment.
Com. Chien:
o Isn't is true that the eastern alignment as it exists right now is less of an impact to the neighbors
because frankly the neighbors are further away and they are across McClellan.
Therese Smith:
o It wasn't so much the impacts to the neighbors we were concerned about; it was the impacts to
the meadow. On two issues, there is a foot path that currently exists; I am not very good at
this... there is a foot path that currently.. okay Steve is going to do it ... exists along there. It
is just a little track and it is used for nature study.
o The multi purpose trail, the one that would allow dogs, goes to the far east, sort of behind the
4H facility and the reason we are moving it further down slope is so that we can accomplish
the construction of the trail and make it accessible without getting into a lot of retaining walls
and switch backs.
o So it will go to the far east; it will be separated from the walking experience and hopefully not
impact the natural experience in the meadow.
o And I can tell you that the Council met on this, these individual decisions were made over a
period of years with a lot of public testimony and you were involved in it and you know how
that went. We do have finally an alignment I think is a good compromise. That is a good
compromise.
Com. Chien:
. And the trail that goes through there in fact is a more difficult one to implement because of the
grading, if I remember correctly.
. Is that correct?
Therese Smith:
. It is not as bad with the relocation of the goats downhill.
Com. Chien:
. But compared to sayan alignment that goes through the west side of the preserve; this would
be much more difficult to implement?
Therese Smith:
. There would be a lot more issues associated with that and environmentally I think.
Com. Chien:
. My other question is centered around Stocklemeir property and a little bit of surprise there
because I don't recall hearing as much concern there.
. So my question is what was the nature of that agreement with Cupertino Historical Society, the
one that Mr. Foulks mentioned?
Therese Smith:
. It is not an agreement; it is a resolution of intent to enter into an agreement upon the Historical
Society formulating a plan and reaching certain fund raising goals.
. One of the reasons the document is largely silent on what is going to happen to the
Stocklemeir property is we don't yet know.
(some text missing from beginning of Tape 3)
Female:
. Society schools are. ??
Therese Smith:
. There have been a lot of things talked about, some pretty ambitious plans, and I think the
biggest, the most difficulty that they have implementing those plans is they can't do all the
things they want to do onsite; retain an orchard and park cars.
. The most recent proposal they have come in with calls for the house, which is up here, to
become a period home; the garage is behind the house to be replaced with a historical
museum; that construction of a 150 person picnic area and a 100 person picnic area to be
rented out, and somehow within that envelope retain an orchard and... there is no ... they have
no plans for parking cars; they want to use the Blue Pheasant parking lot.
. So until that plan is I think more realistically refined and this body will see this plan because
this property is zoned agricultural/low density/residential; it would require rezoning and it
would have to come back with you and you will be grappling with a lot of these issues; once
their plan is more fully developed.
. We are sort of silent on this at the moment, and what we plan to construct in 2007 will be this
side until these issues are resolved; and we have talked with the leadership of the Historic
Society and said we would I ike to do something up here in 2009, so it gives you a little more
time while we deal with the rest of the park. So that is kind of where that is.
Com. Chien:
. So Therese, knowing how premature the plans ofthe Historical Society have been, why did we
consider it an alternative route through the Stocklmeir property that would be more in line with
the pipe?
Therese Smith:
. As Janna mentioned before, when the Nelson's developed this golf course way back when,
they hardened the edge of the golf course, and most of this work that was done in Blackberry
Farm, the extending the picnic area out here at Horseshoe Bend, ,the filling of an area to
expand the parking lot and this hardening of the channel along the golf course was not done
with the benefit of a lot of engineering; and what we have discovered in the process of doing
all our engineering, is that this hardening is eroding out; we have had a very wet year and we
are having real concerns about what happens here, and as we mentioned before, there is this
sewer line right along here that we have to protect; so we need to be planning to do something
there.
. As Jana mentioned earlier, there is a nicely established row of ... there is oaks and sycamores
along what is now the west bank of the creek. If we were to simply just move out the golf...
you know move out the creek where it is along the golf course, we would take all of that
vegetation out.
. By flip-flopping the creek and by that I mean taking what is now the west bank and making it
the east bank, and saving that vegetation, putting the creek on the other side, you move the
creek while keeping that side of the channel anchored while maintaining that habitat, so in our
planning for the purposes of just getting our document through to the end, what made the most
sense of the creek was doing this.
. The document acknowledges that there will have to be future environmental review when the
final plans for the Stocklemeir property use are known, and we are just putting that out there
now because if we start to lose the golf course we will have to do something.
Com. Chien:
. That is all I have for now, thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Cary. Taaghi..
Com. Saadati:
. Thank you Mr. Chair.
. What is the average or minimum and maximum without the trail?
Therese Smith:
. I am sorry ...
Com. Saadati:
. Minimum and maximum without the trail.
Therese Smith:
. Width - 8 feet.
Com. Saadati:
. It is constant? 8 feet?
Therese Smith
o Yes.
Com. Saadati:
o What is the minimum required?
Therese Smith:
o 8 feet.
Com. Saadati:
oWe did not consider putting a 4 foot trail...
Therese Smith:
o No.
Com. Saadati:
o You mentioned that there is a permeable parking surface proposed.
Therese Smith:
o Yes.
Com. Saadati:
o How did the environmental impact would be addressed as far as oil and ..
Therese Smith:
o No oil
Com. Saadati:
o Car oil. If it is parking, there is going to be ...
Therese Smith:
o Oil leaking from cars.
o That is an impact now, but those oils run directly to the creek, so at this point they would be ...
they would leak into a smaller permeable parking area. There is no plan to capture that, but it
is much less intensive use.
Janna Soquel:
o Actually the Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that the project have a stormwater
management plan, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan.
Com. Saadati:
o So the area of the slope is going to be reconfigured so the water hopefully runs through some
green area.
Therese Smith:
. That's right, and there is going to be ... as shown on the plan, there is a planted buffer; a little
bit of a buffer between the parking lot and the actual creek.
Com. Saadati:
. Is it correct to assume that there is going to be 561 trees planted for 187 removed trees,
proposed removed trees?
Therese Smith:
. No, the 3: I ratio is only for the oak trees; but I think ultimately that number of trees planted
will be more like 1500 because of all of the habitat restoration that is ongoing, that is above
and beyond what we are just mitigating for.
Com. Saadati:
. The 1500 is going to be planted as a part the project by the time the project is completed
Therese Smith:
. Right, perennials, trees, and shrubs.
Com. Saadati:
. So we are going to exceed the 561 then, which is 3: I ratio.
Therese Smith:
. Oh, by far.
Com. Saadati:
. Okay.
Com. Saadati:
. My concern was dogs on trails, as Vice Chair Giefer brought it up. Are there going to be any
bags placed along the trails?
Therese Smith:
. Yes.
Com. Saadati:
. Some other cities have that.
. What type of monitoring... what type of enforcement is going to be in place to ensure that...
Therese Smith:
. What we propose to do and this is subject to negotiation with OE 3 which is one of our unions;
and we really... I can't say we have gotten this far yet ... either by contract or by hiring, a
new classification called Park Service Worker which is similar to what they have in Mountain
View; if you have ever been to the Shoreline Trail and to Shoreline Park, they actually have
rangers; and those positions are different than anything we have in the city now because they
combine some elements of code enforcement and some elements of light duty maintenance.
. So they are in the park; they are working; but they are also empowered to write citations. I
think it is something that has been coming; something that we have needed in parks; we just
haven't had critical mass to make the creation of those kinds of positions feasible.
. With the reopening of Blackberry Farm, it will be feasible, because we wilJ take some
positions we have right now that are purely maintenance and transition them into a new kind
of position.
Com. Saadati:
. Have you used volunteer forces to enforce some of the rules like this.
Therese Smith:
. Well, I actually volunteer for the National Park Service; typically what happens is the
volunteers have a radio and if they need somebody to do enforcement, they call them. You
don't normally put that burden on a volunteer.
Coin. Saadati:
. How many orange trees going to be removed from Stocklemeir property?
Therese Smith:
. About half of them.
. Now I want to say something about the Stocklemeir property and I think it is important to
know this that we are in a situation right now where we have to start replanting that orchard
because fruit trees don't live forever; no tree does. But generally speaking, they are not trees
that live as long as say Oaks. So we are in a situation where we need to start a management...
I think Mr. Kolski eluded to it; we do need an orchard management plan, so this would
certainly hasten that.
Com. Saadati:
. Did you consider to run the trail around the perimeter of the property versus going through
almost the center?
Therese Smith:
. Well it would run along the creek, so that what is really driving the removal is not the trail, it
is the relocation of the creek. And again, you have... it's a tradeoff between taking out the
oaks and the riparian habitat on that one bank.
. When we flip-flopped the creek, we lose orange trees, but we are gaining some enhanced
habitat; and if we take on orchard management, hopefully we can achieve a balance.
Com. Saadati:
. Could you elaborate the effect of this project on the community garden as far as the number of
spots.
Therese Smith:
. Yes, it's quantified in the document and I am going to, off the top of my head, say we are
losing four to the trail, but adding nine. So Deborah is correct in her comments that we are
losing some of that edge habitat.
. This is something we talked about because the garden supports a particular kind of bird; it
supports songbirds; the meadow supports rafters; there is a lot of diversity down there because
of the two activities.
. But you know, what is the right balance, and in the document we didn't see a great impact of
adding those garden spots because we are creating so much other edge habitat where we are
taking out picnic areas and adding oak woodland uplands adjacent to the riparian area, which
right now if you go out there, there are cars parked right up to the creek and we are doing away
with that activity; we are foregoing that revenue generating potential to create that woodland
habitat, that oak upland habitat.
. So you are going to have that important edge for a longer stretch of the corridor.
. So that balances something that you know we could debate; but we are cognizant of that
important... how important that edge is.
Com. Saadati:
. I think that covered all my questions. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you T aaghi. Gilbert...
Com. Wong:
. Thank you Marty.
. I was wondering if you could bring that map up again, Therese.
. A lot offolks mentioned about the meadow. And could you specifically circle which meadow,
I just want to make sure.
Therese Smith:
. Well, McClellan Ranch is right here, so this is the meadow and these little squares here are the
community garden plots.
Com. Wong:
. Okay, and the concern about protecting the meadow is because where the location of the trail
was? Ijust wanted to see if you can answer ...
Therese Smith:
. Well the trail is actually... the meadow is an important part of all of our trail discussions,
because we discussed a trail going through here and a number of locations.
. But the trail's actually following along the east side and this is the meadow, and the edge
habitat is where you have you know, the meadow and the creek and the meadow and the
garden; it's those parts that are so important.
Com. Wong:
. And the part that we will be losing part of the community gardens, where will some of the loss
would be?
Therese Smith:
. Well, when the trail comes through here, whoops, when the trail comes through here, right
there, it is right in here. I think Janna could probably show it better with the mouse because
that red line is so thick.
Janna Soquel:
. The trail is going to skirt up around the back of the 4H area here, and everything in red is
going to be changed.
. So because the trail is moving here, you are losing a few garden spots right in this zone in
order to accommodate for 4H, we are adding garden plots out here.
Com. Wong:
. Going into the meadow.
Janna Soquel:
. Going into the meadow, right. And so what you are doing is shifting everything by the
distance of one garden plot which is about 10 feet, times the length of 9 garden plots. So if
they are 10 by 10, it is 90 feet, plus there are some fence lines in between.
Therese Smith:
. They are not very big.
Com. Wong:
· Okay, every time you go one foot into a meadow, you would be losing precious ". okay.
Janna Soquel:
. Yes.
. And the overall number of the grassland habitat that is going to be lost represents about 4% of
the overall grassland habitat; that is not is very big.
Com. Wong:
. Okay, the other thing has been a lot of discussion about the Stocklemeir property with the
Cupertino Historical Society and if you were to relocate that creek, more or less some of the
plans that the Historical Society wants to do, is probably going to be up in the air. Is that
correct? I see a lot of nods over there.
Therese Smith:
. Again, our project that we are going to build stops here. And we are putting this in for
environmental review; this piece. We are throwing this out here for environmental comment.
. We would like to begin writing grants and we would like to begin raising money to do a
project up here in 2009. We are waiting for a proposal from the Historical Society that we can
forward to you and process with a zoning amendment.
. And, you know, they are going to have to come up with that plan so we can move on.
. In the absence of any participation from them, this is what we would propose to build.
Com. Wong:
. So you would still go ahead and do the restoration, or you will hold off on this.
Therese Smith:
. Well, we don't have any plans to do anything up here before 2009.
Com. Wong:
. Okay, I see what you are saying.
Therese Smith:
. And it may require a modification to the document at that time depending on what their project
looks like; we don't know that at this time.
Com. Wong:
. Okay, and back in 2003 I think maybe only just Taaghi and I were fortunate enough that Steve
and you took us on a tour all the way from Rancho San Antonio through Stevens Canyon and
everything.
. It was really nice going through that orange orchard was that, you know, a lot of the trees were
very full and it was growing really nice and everything; so are you saying that maybe we need
to hire an orchard management and come and make sure while we wait until 2007, 2008, 2009
for a plan from somebody, I think that hearing from the public, maybe we need to maintain the
house and maintain the orchard while we as a community try to figure out what we want to do
with the Stocklemeir property.
Therese Smith:
. Right, we are going to re-roof the hOuse this year; it has gotten that bad. The city architect has
put some money in the capital budget; if it gets approved.
. Also to analyze its condition in terms of just bringing it up to code. It is going to be a
significant amount of money to put that house back on line; it is not currently connected to the
sewer; the leach fill has failed.
. As you know, we once had it rented and we had to condemn it and evict the tenants. So it is
... what it is going to become, I don't know; I know the Historical Society will be a player in
deciding that. You will also have a lot to say about that though as well. It is going to require a
zoning change to make it a public use facility.
. Com. Wong:
. The other thing is that this whole capital improvement... the cost. Where is the cost coming
from?
Therese Smith:
. For the part we intend to build in 20077
Com. Wong:
. Correct, the restoration.
Therese Smith:
. It is largely grants, and Water District.
Com. Wong:
. Largely grants; not _ budget?
Therese Smith:
. No, we will probably need help from the city budget, but at this point there are not city funds
appropriated.
. We are going to be taking a budget ... a full project to the city within the next couple of
months. We have about $5 million in grant funds and it is really up to how much the Council
wants to get done at one time. It is up to them.
Com. Wong:
. Originally Blackberry Farm was only open 100 days as you said, and now we are going to
open it 365 days, and we are going to be reducing the picnic grounds. What kind of impact
will it be to both the neighbors, traffic, impact to humans, you know using trails 365 days
because when I walked back there in 2003, we walked through the Water District area, walked
through the city, and we actually saw deer and we saw wildlife and what I am concerned about
is once you open up 365 days, having traffic, having foot traffic, etc., you know, there is going
to be impact on this area.
Therese Smith:
. You want to answer that, you have been doing trail studies.
Com. Wong:
. The human impact on the wildlife.
Janna Soquel:
. On the wild life; not on the residents.
. You are absolutely right; you are opening up the area to additional uses, and the trail will have
some level of impact. I suspect many of the species in the corridor will be just fine.
. It's areas where you have sensitive nesting habitat where birds could be disturbed at that time
that are of concern to everyone, and that is in part why the trail is cited (sited??) as it is cited;
and it's in part why there lots of mitigation measures also associated with the dogs, because
that is a whole other use that has not been occurring in the corridor and that is why there is an
additional planting mitigation to include another acre of habitat for cover and for forage area
because of that additional use.
. But you are taking a corridor that is infrequently visited, particularly the Water District parcel
which is between McClellan and the garden area and Blackberry where it is fenced off, and
opening that to a through traffic. So you are changing the character of the park to some extent
to accommodate the human visitor.
Com. Wong:
. My concern is that the wildlife, the deer, the birds, because there is 200 days where it is pretty
much not touchable, and most of the residents who do live on the cliffs, get to enjoy a quiet
park-like area; so I am concerned about that.
. The other thing is that, I know you kept talking about (a cereal mine??) at Blackberry Farm
and Blackberry Farm is something that was developed, but did you ever consider about
relocating the golf course and have the creek on the other side so that we could keep
Stocklemeir property in tact, and the orchard in tact?
Therese Smith:
. Well yes, we went through many alternative concepts including one that actually had a
driveway through there and no golf course.
. The Council considered many many alternatives and you get to the point where you could do
just about anything you wanted if you had unlimited funds. Moving the golf course was .. is a
big expense; even relocating holes and reconfiguring for very little return if we can work
around it, so I think that is where we landed. Don't touch the golf course until we are really
ready to ...
Janna Soquel: (?)
. I think that I work in many spaces within Santa Clara County and you are stuck now dealing
with what is left over; we have built everything and it is just a very tough struggle to fit all the
needs of the community for a golf course, an intact orchard, a through trail, a reduced
commercial picnic facility, a swimming facility, habitat for the wildlife; 4H for the children,
community gardens... you are asking a lot of 60 acres and it is a compromise at every step
along the route.
Com. Wong:
. And I agree.
. One of the things I asked this question back in 2003, was that, and I think Deborah Jamison
brought this up, was that there was a master plan for McClellan Ranch; I actually had the
Planning Department dig it out for me and maybe something that you would want to bring
back to the Councilor even back to Planning Commission is that how many of those items
have you accomplished? I am sure you accomplished something.
. The other thing is that both what was brought up by many speakers was the Simms?? property
and Stocklemeir property what was the goals of those two properties when we bought them a
couple of decades ago and were those goals accomplished, because as Parks and Recreation
Commissioners, Planning Commissioners, City Council members, or even staff change, even
you learn Therese some of the stuff that Deborah brought to our attention as well too, that you
know, some of the stuff we just overlooked, so that would be a nice thing to bring back as a
report to see what we have accomplished and what more we have to do.
Therese Smith:
. If I can respond to that, the document references McClellan Ranch master plan and
incorporates aspects of it; the Simms property was discussed by the Council as recent as I
believe last Fall, and they reaffirmed their desire to lease it because our lease was up. They
reaffirmed their desire to lease it at fair market value, not as a caretaker facility, but at fair
market value and at leas with the current budget situation and the current Council, their intent
is to use that as a rental property for as long as it is viable.
. As you know the Stocklemeir piece is no longer viable as a rental. So you know, we didn't...
there were comments about the scenic circle access, there are a lot of Council decisions made
that we did not second guess in the environmental document; they got to define the project and
we just took it from there.
. So I think what the document states is that at the time the Council no longer wants to rent that
property out, that becomes then a restoration site. I don't know when that will be in the future.
Com. Wong:
. And will someone follow up regarding construction, when they are going to start using
construction, also one of the concerns that the community brought up regarding construction
pileup on the city property.
Therese Smith:
. Okay, what they are referring to there is the O'Neill / McNair (?) property; right, exactly, the
home construction; and as it turns out we have tried to play hardball with Mr. McNair, but it
turns out he actually has, there is an old haul road easement back there, and it exists from 1917
and he has the right to drive through there, so our attempts to play hardball with him backfired
a bit.
. 'What we would like to do is ultimately get him to extinguish his rights there so that there is no
longer a throughway behind the Simms property along the creek. But that is going to take
some delicate negotiations with Mr. Mc Nair.
Com. Wong:
. My last question to conclude is that a lot of folks were talking about heritage orchards on
Stocklemeir property. Is there any way that we can try to preserve intact that orchard?
Therese Smith:
. Yes, and that would be very interesting to have a definition of "heritage orchard". What my
understanding is from looking at old records and old photographs, before Blackberry Farm
was a golf course and I think Jana mentioned this, it was a U-Pick walnut orchard and that's
what grew here, and we have some remnant walnut orchard on the Water District parcel.
. There are places, the Water District parcel was talked about, and some of the visions that came
forward for this property; the Water District parcel which is actually this parcel in here that is
kind of between McClellan and Blackberry Farm, as (a new orchard??) site and there are still
some mature walnut trees there.
. I think those ideas can be worked in once we know what is going to happen up here; if we still
need an orchard we can work that out. But we really do need to encourage the Historical
Society to get a plan before the Planning Commission to see what is actually possible there.
Com. Wong:
. I am just using the word as an adjective "heritage" it may be 10 years, it may be 4 years, it
may be 50 years, that's up to question.
. But you know when I was born and raised here in Santa Clara County this whole county was
covered with orchards and I think the community member has a very good point is that a lot of
the young folks, especially my two daughters will never get to see an orchard in Santa Clara
County unless I take them out to Central Valley or maybe up to Pittsburgh, Antioch, beyond
there.
. I got very lucky and got to pick walnuts or peaches when I was young with my parents, but
you know you already have mature orange orchard with some walnuts, and so why do you
want to reinvent it over on the Santa Clara Water District area, which I do recall walking there,
two or three years ago with you, but you know, this is something that is already there and
everything cost money.
Therese Smith:
. We can retain about half of it with the creek project and have the habitat and the orchard. We
can't retain all of it. And if they in fact want to build a museum into (and two??) picnic areas
there have a restored house and somewhere park cars, it would be very interesting to see how
well that can be made to fit.
. I will also say that we have the Blue Pheasant leased out for another 3 years, 3-1/2 years, and
that operator has an option to renew and I don't know what his feelings will be about that
business when that day comes, but at some point we as a community will either need to make a
big investment in that facility or maybe it goes away and there is parking and something else
can happen here. But that is down the road.
. I guess that is why we are stopping right here. We know there is still a lot of unanswered
questions.
Com. Wong:
. Another thing that was brought to my attention, is Rhoda Fry. An emai] that she wrote that
since we are opening 365 days, and I would assume that the main entrance will still be Byrne
to San Fernando to the picnic area, what is that impact on that particular neighborhood,
especially that road going in where those few homes are. What is the traffic impact; how are
you mitigating that fact? And noise as well too.
Therese Smith:
. The ultimate plan is ... as you know there is a bus pull-out on Stevens Creek here now that
serves Valley Transportation Authority and so our plan is within this parking lot and within
Stevens Creek Boulevard, to ultimately have bus traffic on this end and to put a bus dugout on
McClellan to serve the ranch.
. So I think Deborah talked about how the arterials really ought to serve the majority of the
people coming to the corridor and I think that will be the most convenient way for them to get
there.
Com. Wong:
. So there is no bus turnaround at San Fernando?
Therese Smith:
. There is within the parking lot; now 100 days a year when we have school groups and things
coming into the Blackberry Farm area, well school groups... ultimately ifthere is a trail, we
can drop school groups off and walk them in, but you are still going to have picnic traffic 100
days a year coming into Blackberry Farm.
. And again what we are evaluating here is the delta between what is now and what will be in
the future and while it won't be just a quiet preserve, it is not going to be an intense as it is
now.
. Now we have a facility that can accommodate up to 4,000 people a day, and we will be
reducing that down to 800.
Com. Wong:
. Correct, but that 800 is for 365 days.
Therese Smith:
. No; it is for 100 days.
Com. Wong:
. Only for 100 days. I just wanted to make that clear, because the committee was saying
something else. That is good that we cleared that up.
Therese Smith:
. No, it is still 100 days.
Com. Wong:
. So, in other words, after the 100 days, that gate will be, closed. The swim pool will be closed.
Therese Smith:
. That is what happens. The bridge, the way it is configured in the proposed plan, which is
actually pretty elegant, you have got this west bank picnic area which is where that picnicking
is going to occur, and you have got a bridge that connects the pool to that area; once the west
side closes at the end of the season, that is gated off. The trail comes down through the east
side, so that part of the operation closes down.
Com. Wong:
. And the parking lot will also close at the same time too?
Therese Smith:
. No, the parking Jot will just be available for anyone to come in and park. If they want to drive
through the neighborhood and come down there and park there, they can. But there will also
be parking available on both ends.
Com. Wong:
. Currently right now, is that parking Jot open 365 days or not?
Therese Smith:
. The park isn't open 365 days, but you can come down and find cars in it; not a lot, one or two.
Com. Wong:
. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Gilbert.
Chair Miller:
. I think most of my questions have been answered already. I just have a couple more.
. In terms of noticing for this meeting, was this a citywide notice for this meeting, or what kind
of noticing went out.
Therese Smith:
. No it wasn't; the environmental document when it went up on the website, prior to going up
on the website, April 28'h, we did... we have a mailing list of several hundred people because
we had all the people involved in the visioning and the trail.
. We sent letters out, newsletter updates to everyone, and we put it up on the website, and then
just standard city, what you call, agenda posting; in addition to the clearing house. In addition
to that the corridor was posted so that people coming in and out from all angles would see the
signs announcing it.
. In addition, I believe there was an advertisement around in the paper; in addition, it was posted
with the County Clerk; in addition it was sent to the State Clearinghouse and sent to all the
regulatory agencies.
Chair Miller:
. Deborah Jamison mentioned that a 60 day period for receiving comments might have gotten
more comments from folks that are very experienced on this and would contribute very
germane comments. Had you considered a longer period; why was only 30 days chosen?
Therese Smith:
. We had a number of ... as you know the Water District is our partner in this, and we had a lot
of back and forth, a lot more input through them that took, probably delayed the release of the
document by two months.
. We are on a pretty tight time line with the Dept. of Water Resources to get a CEQA document
done next month and want to meet that goal. It was always our intent to have the 30 day; that
is the CEQA process, it was always our intent to alIow 30 days for public comment and we are
doing that, and I understand Deborah would like more time, and it looks like she has already
gotten all her work done, so ... she has done quite a bit of work. But no, we wilI not be
extending the public comment period; the agencies have the same statutory 30 days in which
to respond.
Janna Soquel: (?)
. If I might add, generally speaking if a comment period is extended, it is usualIy extended for
an EIR and it's usualIy extended to a total of 45 days and not 60 days.
Chair Miller:
. Okay.
. Another comment that Deborah made, is that when this trail hooks up to a larger trail system,
there will be a lot more traffic than considered in this report. Can you comment on that?
Therese Smith:
. Again, we are measuring with this review the delta between what we have there now and what
we are proposing. The future trail connections will go through a project you will review. You
know where that is on the quarry property and have to hook up to Stevens Creek County Park
and the... I think the thought that people would park here and bicycle up through Linda Vista
Park and then through the quarry to get to Stevens Creek Park .. I think there are very few
people that would do that; I think we would analyze that at that time, maybe see who is using
the County park and where they are coming from, but the people with the athletic ability to do
that I think would be pretty few. Because that is where they would start their ride after they
got there; I think it would be a fairly minor impact, but we could analyze that further at that
time.
Chair Miller:
. Another comment that was made was that it wasn't clear that the report considered over use or
off trail use by bikes since we are having a bike trail in there.
Therese Smith:
. I would say to you that we have given design thought to that and we have cited a trail in ways
that we hope to limit and discourage trail travel anywhere else, bike travel anywhere else other
than the trail. We have a significant amount of linear footage of very low split rail fence to
keep people on the trail in areas where one might think they would want to jump a curvature in
the trail, and that is included in all ofthe grant applications to provide funding for that.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you.
. I know that you said you would only consider the delta; but given the magnitude of this
project, had you considered that maybe this was an opportunity to perhaps put in a design that
would actually focus on reducing the impacts to the neighborhood surrounding Blackberry
Farm?
Therese Smith:
. Well I think the Council did a number of alternatives, and I think as Jana phrased it perfectly,
this is a series of compromises.
. They looked at alternatives that for instance would generate no revenue for the corridor and
decided realistically if we were going to provide patrol and environmental programming and
all these other things, that we had to provide some revenue stream.
. It was a balancing act; it was a tradeoff; and they made that decision after a lot of public input,
so I am not going to try to re-second guess those now because they were months in coming,
and a lot of people participated and not everyone got what they wanted, but they tried to come
up with the best compromise.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you.
. There was also some comments about expending the snack facilities, and given the increased
traffic that will be on the trail, that that will create further opportunities for littering and
environmental abuse.
Therese Smith:
. Thank you for bringing that up. That was one of the things I wanted to address.
. There is a snack bar there now in Blackberry Farm, and what's proposed is a window that
opens out to the trail, because it opens inward toward the pool. And the reason for that is, in
surveys done at the senior center, one of the things we have learned is that an amenity that was
considered to be really desirable was a place where you could walk and maybe gather and
when we started working on this project it was, like wouldn't it be great if seniors would come
down here and walk in the morning and they could stop and have a cup of coffee and have a
place to do that. Wouldn't this be a great thing to add to the community. So we started looking
at ways to make that snack bar accessible from the outside. It is not a new snack facility; it is
just a new window.
Chair Miller:
. Okay, thank you.
. The next question is, there were a number of residences and we saw some pictures that
indicated perhaps the cleanup in the area is not going as well as it should and the question is,
when we have a private developer come in -and ... or business owner, and they are not
adhering to the rules in terms of trash pickup, we generally ask them to fix the current
problems before moving on to new and larger projects.
. So is there a plan in place or how would the city respond to the issue of the open garbage cans
and the overturned garbage cans, and the problems that creates with the rodents and ground
squirrels.
Therese Smith:
. Those are old photos. We have replaced ... we have spent over $50,000 two years ago out of
our solid waste fund and replaced all the trash cans within Blackberry Farm to make them
rodent proof. We also changed our operation an we went to contract so that we could bring...
for trash pickup... so that we could have more people in the park at once at close.
. Because the way we did in the past, we had two people who after close and before dark, which
isn't very much time, had to get through the entire park and pick up all the trash, and it wasn't
a very good system, and Rhoda was instrumental in having that system changed. She did
report us to vector control but if you look at our reports since that time, they have been clean.
Management changed and the physical containers changed. So I think she won; she did a good
job on that. She made us change our ways.
Chair Miller:
. That is all the questions I had.
. I have a question for Steve now. What, from the staffs standpoint would you like us to do at t
his point.
Mr. Piasecki:
. If you have any additional comments that you haven't heard that you would like
communicated onto the City Council, voice those now and I will be writing it down and then
we will prepare a response in conjunction with this document; we are not expected to give you
a response right now. We will just take your questions.... Or your issue and respond to it in
the environmental document.
Chair Miller:
. What about voting on the EIR?
Mr. Piasecki:
. It is not an EIR; it is an environmental assessment, neg dec., and you don't need to. This is a
public project, this was only an opportunity to provide more public input on the environmental
assessment; it isn't like alI the other private projects that you see and we go through that other
process with. It is a little strange, a little different, but you don't see very many of these where
an item like this is coming before you, yet you don't really have a decision making role
relative to it. You are providing a service to provide more opportunity for input.
Chair Miller:
. So we don't have to; but it's really up to us.
Mr. Piasecki:
. I think the commentary is important; if you have comments that you want to make sure get
included, that is another way for you to communicate interests and issues individually as
commissioners.
Therese Smith:
. If I can add one comment, because we are stilI in the public process, anyone taking action
before May 30th would be sort of stepping on the toes of the public; I think some people have
not yet had a chance to submit their input, and I think this meeting tonight being televised wilI
stimulate more comment, more input and I really want to thank you because we could have
done this with the Parks and Rec Commission, but it's nice to get fresh input. They would not
have asked the questions you had, they would have been so tired of it. But... so I really
appreciate that you have done this; you have a Chair that sits on the ERC so you have
experience with this kind of document, and it's realIy helpful to us and helpful to the public.
So thanks.
Chair Miller:
. WelI thank you for bringing it to us.
. Okay, why don't we do comment. Lisa, do you want to start.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. First, I would like to say that I am actually really excited about the change, the anticipated
changes to Blackberry Farm especially. But I do have some concerns.
. McClellan Ranch I think we heard the comment tonight that rather than increasing the garden
plot sizes, that perhaps we should look for a suitable place on the east side so that we are
distributing that equally throughout the city; and I whole heartedly agree with that. I think it
would help us with regards to less impact on the meadow, which I am fully supportive of; and
even though I want to be able to walk my dogs through this whole place, I agree that we need
big screen, such as the example photo in the appendices of the curved gates, and golf ball
fences there.
. Because I do think that this is too sensitive an area and we need to make every effort in the
McClellan preserve to keep bicyclists, hikers, and dogs on leash of course, in that area. But
on the other hand, I would like to expand the areas that are appropriate for dogs on leash to go
in the Blackberry Farm portion of it. I have different objectives depending on where I am.
But I want to do everything we can to preserve McClellan Ranch as it is and make sure that we
are not violating the master plan because it is such a rare area as a preserve.
. The other thing is, as you may have guessed, I am exceedingly concerned about the tree
preservation. I think that having 90 inch oak trees eliminated and ... and I intellectually I
absolutely understand why you would replace them with 3 inch oaks or something to that
effect. We would never let a developer do that. Never; and I am not comfortable saying it is
okay for Parks and Rec or the city to do that, because I think we have to lead by example, and
I see some opportunity as an example to keep Reach A in situ and maybe straighten it where it
curves; have it go more into what is the current parking lot, so it appears to me, and I may be
using the wrong reference points, but when I am looking at the map in front of me, it looks to
me like we have an opportunity perhaps to straighten it out more here and preserve more of the
trees if we keep this portion insitu, and the oak picnic area; follow it down, so you are not
losing these oaks or these oaks, which are my biggest concern.
. So I don't know if you have looked at that, but as a comment, that's one of the things that I am
concerned about.
. I would also ... it sounded to me as though you did analyze keeping the creek in its current
streambed and what it would take to achieve your objectives, which I actually agree with in
terms of repairing the riparian habitat, restoring the vegetation, the native vegetation, but I
don't want to lose the oaks, and so ifit is possible to do it without changing tl:te stream or if
you can change, adapt the plan that is in you're the packet that we have been given, and
preserve the large oaks, I would prefer to see t hat type of solution. Either fix what we have
today to preserve the trees or minimize the impact on the trees.
. The other... I like the ripples ?? I like the idea of keeping the felled?? Trees where they are to
create habitat, those are all wonderful things; I am fully supportive of that.
. I would like to see some sort of an east/west pedestrian bike safe route to school. I like the
idea that Joe Walton ?? had with regards to opening the Scenic Drive gate during school hours.
. As I was in the park today, I saw lots of students using it as a sl:tort cut, so keeping that gate
shut isn't stopping students from short cutting through the park. Of course we would need to
make sure that we have a bridge conveniently located for them. And again, I don't know
which bridge they are using today.
. The comment that was made to me by one of the students that I stopped and asked; he
wouldn't ride his bike because there is too many things that pop his bike tires; so .. I hear that
all the time from kids. My kids ride their bikes to school and they know where the bad areas
are that will cause puncture.
. The other things I was pleased to hear is that we are going to be employing sustainable
building practices. I hope that reaches to the pool as well and that we will be putting solar
heating on the pool. I would much rather lose and this I know people will disagree with this; I
would much rather lose golf (_ end of/ape sjde A, loss offew words) Stocklemeir
orange trees. I think that we need to preserve that; I would love to see it be a heritage orchard,
and again I understand there is tradeoffs and if we can continue to make the golf course pay,
but do something to realign it, to keep the creek out of the orchard, I would much rather have
that.
. I would also suggest we eliminate the 17 parking spaces on the trailhead. If this is a
wilderness park, a natural park that we want to encourage people to walk into, they can leave
their cars behind, and as we expand it and link it into Linda Vista Park, you know.. I see
people in my neighborhood, the need to drive there is eliminated if we have tl:tat trail, and I
would look forward to using it because I think it is just a wonderful wilderness area today and
is so beautiful.
. I was also very interested in Bob Levy's suggestion of linking it to Stevens Creek though this
may be over the top at this point, but it just seemed very practical to me if there was any way
to have the park entry be off of Stevens Creek as opposed to Byrne but I understand that that's
a whole other can of worms.
. And I wondered if you had also considered having the trail going through the Simms property
as opposed to McCle Ilan Ranch at all because it seemed to me that there was some potential
there and I think that McClellan is just such a wonderful resource; I would really like to keep
people out of there. I mean, not out of there, but enjoying it in a way we would it to be
e~oyed.
. I would like to preserve the options for the Historical Society, by not reducing the amount of
square footage of that property today.
. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to review this and make our comments.
Chair Miller:
. Gilbert ...
Com. Wong:
. Thank you Mr. Chair.
. A lot of stuff that Lisa said, I agree with her; so I want to restate what she said that I agree with
her and there is some things that I have a difference of viewpoint.
. I also agree that community garden is a great asset for the community and it wouldn't ajJ be
located in one location; I think the meadow is more important for the community especially for
the children of Cupertino. So I would rather than a smaller community garden and keep the
meadow intact or even expand it; because the whole reason of having the trail away from the
creek at that point was to preserve the trail, and I believe that the meadow has to stay intact.
. I agree with Lisa that the tree preservation is very important. I understand where you are
coming from and kind of agree than an acorn or smaller tree will grow faster and that is what I
have been advocating for but, we have been putting developers and property owners here in
Cupertino with a higher standard and if we say to the Parks and Recreation or city say that you
can do an acorn vs. other folks have to do a 24,36 inch box, I don't see the equity or fairness
there.
. I also agree with what Lisa said is that if we can save an oak tree or heritage tree or trees, I
would rather save the tree than to move the creekbed. I think that the tree is very very
important. I meant that yes, the creekbed should not have been moved in the first place when
some of the picnic grounds that were put in.
. Scenic Circle, that opening was debated very much at the Parks and Recreation Commission
and City Council made the final decision based on neighborhood input. I understand both the
pros and cons but I believe that if it was the Council made the decision that the Scenic circle
should be closed and that was what the neighbors wanted, I think that is what we should
follow and not re-address that issue again.
. I also agree with Lisa that this is something that City Council has to weigh in regarding the
golf course vs. the Stocklemeir property. I believe that the orchard trees are very important
and I think that community input that we heard today; and I think that if we had another
opportunity and I know that the period of public hearing is from April 28th to May 30th; it
wouldn't even hurt to come back after the period has closed and just have a followup here of
the Planning Commission because I think Deborah by that time should have a finish report and
actually can print it and maybe submit it and you know... Deborah has always you know, been
coming to Parks and Recreation, Planning Commission and City Council and has always given
useful ideas, and this is a property we bought maybe 20, 30 years ago and I believe that to put
it in and say this is just a regular 30 day public hearing process; this is something more
important; this is going to effect me, it is going to affect my children, it is going to affect the
next generation, and I think that if we are going to do it right the first time, we need to do it
right today, vs. wait and I know that the grant money, you are working very hard to get the $5
million grant money; but also we want to make sure that we get this Stevens Creek corridor
area right too.
. I know that some of the things have been decided, you know, is there going to be a 6 foot trail,
8 foot trail, all of those things have been decided; but there are still some unanswered
questions like the Cupertino Historical Society, you know, they are still trying to work out
their plan, work it out with staff, and I think that I agree with Lisa too, that is that we need to
partnership with our non-profits, like the Historical Society and see that if they can get a plan
that is saleable to the city and saleable to them, then where we put this creek trail is going to
affect their plans.
. So I don't see what the rush is going into this.
. I also agree that we should eliminate 17 spaces at the trailhead. This is supposed to be
preservation ofthe habitat. Also I think that we still need to follow up that before this area
was only open for 100 days; now we are going to have a trail that is for 365 days, so we need
to see what is the impact on humans and the animals as we walk on the trails.
. I still would love to have another opening on Stevens Creek Boulevard that if we re-Iook at the
golf course is to have a road or some kind of access that folks can drive up to a certain point
and then they have to walk the other way, than to mitigate some of the traffic and some of the
buses that go down Byrne to San Fernando.
. Over and over and over people come to us and say that we are tired of hearing that, and I
believe that if we cut off that access, here on Byrne A venue, and have the access on either
entering from Stevens Creek Boulevard or from McClellan, I think that would be a win-win
for the community.
. The other thing is that options of the outreach, and I know that we got a lot of outreach tonight,
but I feel that it is important to bring it back after the public hearing is finished and folks like
Rhoda Fry and Deborah Jamison, I would love to see what their input is as well too.
. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Gilbert.
. Cary...
Com. Chien:
. Thank you Chairman Miller.
. You know sometimes I think we get mired in details and perhaps I have had the unfair
advantage because I was on the Parks and Rec Commission for three years and I was able to
hear a lot of this while we were in the planning stages.
. The big picture here to me is pretty clear now. The Council, back to Council in 2000, not our
current Council, directed that we look into opportunities, additional recreational opportunities
for our city. So we decided we are going to take this piece of land very much like a developer
would take a piece of land and plan it, but the only difference here is a developer there is only
one stakeholder, really that developer for that piece of land, but here we have many, many
stakeholders.
. That is what I really learned through this process, that we have a lot of stakeholders and we
have got to do our best to try to address the concerns of each of these stakeholders. And I will
give examples real quickly.
. I think that over, one of the most important stakeholders is really the past Council, going back
all the way to when they first established the particular ordinance, Ordinance 710, which said
that any uses in McClellan Ranch Preserve has to be consistent with the preserve there. So we
heard that and we said we are going to keep the trail out ofthe preserve and we are going to
take it along a graded area that is more difficult to plan and keep it away from the preserves.
We heard that, and I think that was really the spirit of most community residents who wanted
to preserve that piece of property and we did that by moving the trail to an eastern alliance.
. Scenic Circle residents also came in talked to us. They said they didn't want an access from
their neighborhood and the Council voted to close off that gate to bring relief for that
neighborhood.
. Community gardeners wanted t keep their plots; in fact we have added more plots for them; I
don't necessarily agree with it, but I think we have done that in the plan.
. So those are just some of the stakeholders that I have saw and I think we have really done our
best to try to address most of their concerns. That is not to say there aren't any additional
comments and we have heard many of them here tonight. I think there is room for adjustments
as we move forward.
. For example, I would support not adding additional plots so that we can keep as much of the
preserve as we can. [don't know if it matters to the environmentalists who want as much of
the preserve as they can have. Perhaps a row of plots would mean a difference and I would
support not having that additional row.
. So really that kind of sums it up for me. I think once all is said and done, this is going to be a
good jewel for the residents of Cupertino, and really the goal is to keep this as a local amenity
for our residents. The goal has never been to make it a regional park.
. Lastly, kudos to the staff and to the Commissions who have worked on this; I know they have
spent long hours doing this. Also to the TV crew for providing those cut-ins of the property
because I think that is tremendously important for our viewers at home.
. That is all I have.
Com. Saadati:
. Thank you.
. Other commissioners have provided a lot of good comments, so I am going to just provide a
couple.
. I do bike on the weekends sometimes; I don't get in my car and do my shopping with bikes
and I encourage creating a walkable city.
. However, an 8 foot wide trail does not have a serene, walkable environment to me, and I have
been on various trails also; and [ am not sure if a 4 foot wide trail was considered. I know we
had discussions in the past; the Caltrans requirement for bike trail has to be a minimum 4 foot
on each side, but if it can, that would be a lot of improvement and instead of having a trailhead
parking, we have bike racks; so people can bike there and then park their bike and walk.
. Also, I would like to see as much of the orchard preserved as possible, 50 percent seems to be
a lot; the community is connected to that orchard and I think we may regret it in future if it
takes so much out.
. The good things here that has been implemented, reducing the number 4,000 to 800 that
environmentalist sensitive steps actually that has been taken, there are a lot of positive aspects
of this project, and I hope that it moves forward, but as I said earlier, I have hiked a lot on the
trail, 2 foot trail; the feeling is completely different when you are in a narrow trail vs. an 8 foot
wide trail; it is not a trail; you could drive a maintenance vehicle on it actually.
. That is my feeling about the project.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Taaghi.
. Well, I don't have that many comments either, given all the good input you have gotten
already, but I do have a couple.
. My first concern is over the comments that there hasn't been enough time to respond
completely to the documents, and my feelings there is that it's more what I would say from an
industry... looking at an industry example, it is more important that we get a quality result
than we get a faster time to market, so to speak.
. I think that if there is a way to extend this period so that you get all the input necessary, and
that means that this project gets delayed for some period of time, I would rather see that then
rush to a conclusion that then turns out that there were some things that we hadn't considered
that are extremely difficult to undo if that is even possible. So that was my first concern.
. I agree with my colleagues on ... I also think that it's... I understand we have competing
objectives here and that's always difficult, but my feeling is that I wouldn't mind seeing some
of the golf course go in return for saving the orchard as well.
. I agree also with the comments about saving the meadow, and maybe that means that some of
the garden areas have to relocate to another area of town.
. I agree that [ am not convinced that having that 17 car parking lot adds something.
. I also agree with the comments from the commissioners that we want to make this as much as
natural habitat as possible and extending that even further, I kind of feel like with a project of
this magnitude, we should be looking at not just status quo for the impact to the
neighborhoods, but looking at ways to reduce that traffic, particularly since it appears that the
majority of people coming in on buses are not even Cupertino residents; and so we are
impacting our neighbors for a very small amount of profitable return to the city and to the
convenience of people who don't live here; and somehow that doesn't sit right with me.
. I guess... and then comments that I have had before, I feel also that some of these comments
we have heard tonight and just hearing them and having read the report that maybe some more
study needs to go into ... or further study into the impacts of traffic when this system gets
linked up that perhaps we haven't fully taken into account.
. So those are my comments; there was one Commissioner suggested that we bring this back
after the close of the comment period. Is there any interest in doing that from anyone else?
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I would support that.
Com. Chien:
. To bring it back to our Commission again? Sure.
Therese Smith:
. Mr. Chair, I have one concern.
. Some of the items that have been discussed here by the Commission; one is the 17 car parking
lot; yes, we could bring these things back, but the problem is there is a lot of debate that went
into those decisions; they weren't random and they are actually Council action.
. The reason behind that parking lot is that as I mentioned before, for those times when the large
parking area is used to support the 100 days when that fee for picnic operation is running,
there needs to be something for the residents.
. You could say that people should walk in, but our concern is we have heard from the
surrounding neighbors, that people don't want park goers parking in their neighborhood. So
there is that impact, and so everything was a tradeoff and the difficulty is, and I apologize that
you don't have all this background, but we can respond to your comments in writing and we
can provide you at the end of this comment period, with a summary of everything that goes to
the Council in response, and you could certainly come at ... and everyone... even though the
public comment period for our written response ends May 30th ... the Council hearing isn't
until June 20th, and people will continue to prepare their remarks for presentation at that time.
. But I think the body that made those decisions has to then evaluate those decisions in light of
the impacts. It's hard to put you in a position of questioning that.
. So I would recommend that we provide you with our summary of all ... we are getting a lot of
responses in writing... we provide you with all of that background, plus response to all your
comments, and then not hold another public hearing. That would be I think a better way to be
true to what... to the decisions that the Council has already made.
Chair Miller:
. Gilbert ...
Com. Wong:
. So, what the Planning Commission is recommending is not to change any City Council's
decision; all we are suggesting is that we want further input. This will give the community
more time to give input before the June meeting.
. So the June City Council meeting is not going to change; we are not advocating any change.
What we are advocating is that for city staff, that you heard a lot of response today; what I
suggest is that it gives you an opportunity to come to the Planning Commission, explain to the
community, you know... what you heard tonight, what you heard from us; explain to us, so
that when it goes to City Council you won't have a long City Council meeting, and hopefully
most of those technical questions will be answered at our Commission level and have the City
Council look at the bigger question saying that do we want to invest the money and move the
creek over to the golf course, or etc, etc., etc.
. I am just saying that it is public input; it is just a recommendation; we all know that the City
Council makes the final decision.
Mr. Piasecki:
. And hearing the sentiment of the Commission, I assume there is a majority of you. What we
can do is raise the issue with the Council, and if the Council feels there is value added with
that to their decision, then we will ask them to bring it back to you at least either as an
informational item or what have you.
. Why don't we just handle it that way; we will bring it up to the Council that you have raised
the issue. And if they want you to do ...
Com. Saadati:
. I am in favor of this.
Mr. Piasecki:
. Is that okay with the rest of the Commissioners that raised it?
Chair Miller:
. Lisa??
Com. Giefer:
. If the response to us would be, here is the same thing again and here is the summary of the
comments... then yes, it is a waste of our time.
. So I would just as soon hear Council's comments and make our feelings known to them.
Therese Smith:
. F or instance, the Scenic Circle, I mean access... we even have some council members who
want us to put that back in the document, but in the absence of a Council vote to do that, we
can't analyze that.
. They have made a decision one way, close that gate, and there are a lot of good reasons to
open it, and some of them may have even changed their minds. But until they have told us, we
want you to analyze something different, we have no business picking and choosing; we can't
do that. It is what it is.
Chair Miller:
. Gilbert ...
Com. Wong:
. So I think Steve's recommendation is pretty good; if you can bring it up to the Council that the
Planning Commission would like to have further recommendation based on community input,
and our input...
Mr. Piasecki:
. And then if it helps them with their decision... let it be their choice.
Com. Wong:
. And our feelings won' be hurt if they decide not so.
Chair Miller:
. So there is no further action on this item.
. We conclude this item and we will take a short 5 minute recess.
END OF VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF ITEM 3
Submitted by:
Elizabeth Ellis
Recording Secretary.
Message
\( ~vJ"\ t-'v( (!WIJ.' \
rage I or ,!.
No (fQA (0""''''''''''''' -t S
Therese Ambrolll Smith
From: Richard Lowenlh,,'
Sent: Wedn...day, May 10, 20063;16 PM
To~ ThIlrese Ambrosi Smith
Ce: David Knepp
Subject: FW, I'd like to meet with you "'9arding Blackberry I'arm
Therese,
When people ~se BB Farm d~ring tM"off season", are they Irespassing?
RL
From: f\hodll Fry [m!lllto:fryhou""@eartt>link.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 7:16 AM
To: rtchard@lowenlhal,com
SLlbject: RE: fd like to meet with you regarding Blackberry Farm
HI Rioh"l'(1-
Here you go:
b\!JW~.cu~.Q~l!.~m.mffllJ!9-''!~rtn]!!.~!JiJ!!d urn(i~./p~lk. l\:!\i!.J8!tiurJ(li.lliYJ:lr,. !,iI""k w,,/iu!.I\I}"'!
I haven't even gotten through the entire sel of documents yet.
This p",," needs 10 58rVe the community and it does nat.
The council V<lt~d to CLOSe an CXISTING PCDCOTRIAN sce"".. point to BBI' at Eioenio Bt YO beaed on the
following criteria. rellidentiai neighbomood, only one sidewalk, nll/Tow road. steep road. This plan INCREASES
VEHICULAR access AND ADDS PEDESTRIAN at Byrne and San Fernando AVE - a residential nelghbolhQO(!.
no sidewalks, narrower roae, sleeper rcae. rile psda5trlan ilCce$$ polnlls a 4-foot wiele caged !lall aClJacent ID
the driveway" the construction of this trail will endanger the trees we need to protect our homes from golf balls.
As I said at council, we all need to SHARE the joy and the burden of Iil/ing adjacent to a park, yet this plan
presents only bUrdens to this neighborhood.
The plan makes the park even les$ accessible to Manta Vista. During off-season, there Is nO aocess to the lawn
ari;lund the pools or the picnic area. Earlier plans were tabled because Ihey fell that li;lc many bOO985 were being
added but il WOUICl be tco expensive. Yet this pian Incluaes a pricey vehloular bridge (rather lhan all pedestrians);
puts in a concrete wan surmounted by a fence all arouna the poOl area; puts In a new parking area to park 5 cars
at the rEllrea!; which il already does; new sn..ok b<lr, maintenance facility; adds parking adj8Cllnt to houses on
S8n Fernando Court, etc....
We ore deyelopln9 G pl"n In,,! wlli allow "Ii P9opl.. to aOO""$ Ihe pllrk 011-...."""" whll" providing trail acc.n
during the season.
I am very excited about this plan.
A5 I understand it. when the voters approved \he bond to purchase BBF, there were not supposed 10 be any
ocerational chan~es until AFTER 20t3. Changes before tllis lime could be a .iolatian of law and it is definitely a
~iol<ltion of the public's trust.
best,
Rhoda
---Original Me5Sllge--
5/1 0/2006
El 39l1d .
ONI1~3dnO ~ A1IO
9'3EELLLBB~
~E:Ll '3BEZ/1E/SB
Message
Page :2 01'2
Prom: Richard Lowenthal [mailto:lichardlij>lowenli1al.com]
Sent: TUl:~~dY, May 09,200610:2.0 PM
To: 'Rhoda Fry'
SUbject: RE: rd nke to meet with you regarding Blackberry Farm
Rhoda,
Before getting together I'd like a chance to go aver the dooum.m15 with Parki and Rec;reillion. Whit
documenlll are you referring t01
Thanks,
Rleh~rd
From: Rhoda Fry [mlllItQ:f'ryhouse@ear'tt1link.netJ
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 7:00 AM
To: rlowenthal@C1Jperti'lo.org
Subject: fd Nke to meet with you regarding Blackberry Farm
Hi Richard:
I'd like to meet with you regarding Blackberry Farm. Previously, the parks department re1used to show
me the documents. Now I finally have gotten a chance to see them. .
I'm aViti~IG most timeos
My home phone is (408) 996-8173.
Please C<jI or email ilnd we can .set something Up
,
,
In~nu I hell, the letters that have been sent to our neighborhood have been misleading - consideling the
!':urr.. ~Iatl!l ofthe documents. N....rly 5% increase in lraffle. Swimming lessons at Blackbeny Fann.
whi generate many altar! visits and peoP/e speeding and unPleasant noise from 1IIe pool (very different
fro recreatlcnal noise). 86 daily bu~, 85% of which do not serve Cupertino residents alld the crewel.
pl"""nt ..../d..n/$ from u$ing the pwk. ~ .~d expeoted that bU$e$ would drop off at Stevens C.....k
BLVD, but this is r'IOl the case. The construction projected 10 endanger numelQus animals includin9
. beneficial bug-eating bets which protect us from WEST NilE. Parl< size back up to 800 - which isn' a
usage reduction at all- in reiu<<" in only tumi"9 away 6 group. il year. Em...
Thanks,
Rhoda
5/1 0/2006
PO 38\1d
ONI1~3dnO jQ ^lIO
99€€llL8IaP
P€:L! 'lfJeolI€/Se
D CL V,,}. &i"e.<?AA S-t-e:", e V'At<\ \
sec. Master Plan - Monta Vista Neighborhood comments/questi
Page 1 of2
Michael Bookspun
t'rom: DBvll1 Green"",,11I ["lIr~en~ter@9rn"iI.GOn'lJ
Sent: Friday. May 26, 2006 4:23 PM
To: City of Cupertino Par1<s and F{ecr.."ti,,"
Cc: Therese Ambrosi Smith; Michael Q'Dowd
Subject: see Master Plan - Moota Vista Neighborhood commenls1qUeSUons
D"a.r Park.s & Rec,
In accordance with yom letter to neighbors dated Apri128, 2006, the Manta Vista Neighborhood has
compiled a list of issues and requests about the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan.
We would like a written response to the questions.
Regards,
David Greenstein
dgreenster@gmRil.com
408/446.2525
.~-------------~-
Specific issues as they appear in the Master Plan:
S"cuou 2.3.1
- How will tbe project be funded?
Section 2.3.1.1
_ What happens 10 the fish habitat and stream restoration if the project is not funded by the Slate Board
in 20071
Section 2.4.2
- What happens if Phase 2 of this project is not funded?
Section 3.4
. During constrllctiOI1 what mechanism is there for us to get action on problems thaI arise? Will there be
monitoring devices tor dust'!
. Is the city planning to keep the native trees some of us planted several years ago along tbe creek?
_ What is the plan for the trees On the water district property, both in the field and along the stream?
_ Will the destruction of habitat during the project take into aCCO\lnt both the breeding and migration )
seasons to min,mi7e affect. to wildlife?
- Where will fencing go and what type offencing? Wbat fencing will be removed?
Section 3.5
- What plans are there for historical markers in this historical setting?
Section 3.13
. What is the emergency eVAcuation plan for RRF if there were a fire or other disaster?
C&G..Aj
I~(I\J;G
6(0
Section 3.14
- Currently 15% ofBBF users are from Cupertino. Atter the improvements, what percentage of
513012006
n 39\1d
ONI1~3dnO ~o ^lIO
99EELLL81i1~
~E:LI 91i11i1l lIE 191i1
see MMter Plan - Manta Vista Neighborhood oomuients/questi
Page 2 of2
Cupertino users are expectedry .
- The plan calls for 100 picnlc tables and a.n 800 person capacity. Will this be roo at capacity all year
round?
- What wiU be the maxim wn speed for bicycles 011 the trail? Will there be two lanes for traffic going
opposite directiollS? .
How will the trail \)e managed if there are problems with usage? To whom do we complain?
Section 3. J 5
. Will traffic increase overalllhroughou1 the ye!lf? On Byrne? On San Fernando? -
- Why are busses still coming down the San Fernando entrance'! "There was sllpposed to be II bus pull
out at the :Blue Pheasant parking lot and kids walking vla the trail to BBF.
- The plan states 44 bus round trips down San Fernando. What does that mean? Does it mean 44 busses _ C H2A -
picking up/dropping off kids or l76 paQsew total (4 x 44)1 _~
- The pill'king at Blue Pheasant will have 100 car spaces. Wasn't the original plan to have 120 spaces?
cr;~A-
+ro..~~r
Requests (in no partic~lil(r order):
. Have BBF busses drop off kids at Blue Pheasant entrance.
. Allow dogs in the parle
- P",...rve more ot'the trees in the Stocklmeir orchard.
. Have an emergency plan in place to evacuate people from the JllIfk.
" 5/3012006
..
aT ::!lltd
CJo4IHl3dfKJ .00 ^lIO
9<JEElLl813~
PE:lT 9l3aZ/TE/9ij
..
D f2 'oO(1J-1A
:3; 0-"",,- ,'i) 0", 4 V"'<< f (
"30d~ e-X~S)W lfel('Ukjt
co~ent period submissions.stevens creek corridor
From: Tnerese Ambrosi smith
S*n~: Thur~~&y, M~y 11. 2006 1;12 PM
To: Michael Bookspun
subject: FW: comment period, stevens creek corridor
please start a file for stay comments that come through email instead of the websits
so we don't lose any.
thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: oeborah Jamison [mailto:ddjamisonOcomcast.net)
sent: Thursday May 11, 2006 1:37 PM
To: Therese A1116rosi SlIIith;. Richard L.owenthal; patrick Kwok; orrin
Mahoney; Dolly sandoval; Kris wang
Cc: jana SOkalej Terry Greene; ~armen ~ynaugh: Ralph Qualls; Barbara
Banfield
subject: RE: comment period, stevens Creek corridor
please treat my comment below, which I submitted as an official comment,
to be included in the comments/responses roport to Council and the
public. It is a formal complaint about the 30 day co~ent period during
the busiest month of the year for conservation, nature, and garden
or1~nted residents.
Than IL.lLO u .__
':;;:---"~-,
oeborah JamiS,
> 'ec' RE: Com~ent period, stevens Creek corridor
>Sent: 5/4/20 7:23 PM
>Rerpived: ~/4/06 11:~5 AM
>From: Therese Ambrosi smith, Thereses~cupertinD.or9
>To: Deborah jamison, ddiamisDn~comcas..ne.
> Richard Lowenthal. R"owenthal@Cupert1no.org
> patrick Kwok, PKWok~cupert1no,org
> Orrin Mahoney, Omahoney~upertino.org
> Dolly Sandoval, Dsandoval@cupertino.org
> Kris Wang. Kwangl!!cupert1no.org .
>cc: "ana sokale, janaslc$aol.com
> Terry Greene, TerryG@cupert1no.org
> ~armen Lynaugh, CarmenL.lilcupert i nu. ur'y
> Ralph Qualls, RalphQ@cupertino.or9
> Barbara Banfield, BarbaraB~cupert1no.org
:>
>Hi Oebbie-
>1 have been aSked to respond to your request.
:>It did ta[(c lonQor than anticipated to get: the docullent out, but w. are
>collaborating w1th another, larger and more bureaucratic agency (.he wa.er
>district) and had to receive clearance from many individuals and
>departmcnt~ in that organization before releasing the public review draft.
> I believe the product is worth the wait, and as you pointed out, is quite
>comprehensive.
>with respect to the time needed to review the document: it i< nn~ .<
>overwhelming as ~t first appears once you gat into it. we have hard copies
>ava;lable at the library and city hall if it's d1ff1cul~ to review
>electronically; that should saveJlOu some time.
>Our schedule has always allowed for a thirty day comment period and we
>need to stick to that. We have made commitments to grantors to keep this
>projact moving, The permit application process. which involve~ multiple
>agencies, will also be time consuming, and cannot commence unt11 we have
>completed our environmental review.
page 1
6l ~\ld
ONI1~3dn~ ~o A1I8
99EELLL88P
PE:L t 988l/tE/~8
comment period $ubmissions.stevens creek corridor
>rnerese
>-
>-----original Message-----
>From: oeborah Jamison [mailto:ddjaNison0comcast.net]
>sent; wednesday. May 03, 2006 8:00 PM
>TO: Richard Lowen~halj patrick Kwok; orrin Mahoney; Dolly Sandoval; Kris
>Wang
>CC: Therese Ambrosi Smith
>subject: Comment Period, Stevens Creek corridor
>
>
>oear Mayor and city Lounc11 ~embers,
>
>I just submitted the following comment using the online comment form for
>the stevens creek corrdior rnltial study CEQA documents. ~ike all CEQA
>documents, it is very lon~, and contains a great deal of information.
>perhaps I am the only resIdent who is interested in just about every
>a'peet of the project, but because of the short comment period during the
>one month of the year wh~n con5ervationists, nature and wildlife
>observers and advocat@s, gardeners and anyone with an outdoors
>aricntation is m~;m3l1y QUsy pursuing their interests and fulfilling
>organization committments, I think most interested residents will have a
>very hard time responsibly reading and co.prehensivel~ commenting on the
>;nformation in the documents. ThQrefar., I am requestIng that the comment
>period be extended. please recall that not only is this process over S
>years old, but the release of this initial study was delayed for 2 months
~fr~m thp ~rigin~lly ~nnouncAd rA1A~<A d~tA in Febru~ry. r do nOT think
>that an extra 30 days to accomodate people who are not employed to review
>these documents is asking too much. I think the quality of the comments
>that you receive will be better and more useful
>
>My comment:
>
>This document, actually a collection of many documents was first
>announced to be released in February. Instead, it has been released at
>the beginning of the absolute busiest time of year for anyone involved 1n
>nat~re, wildlife and garden activities and organizati~ns. Native plant
>enthusiasts are taking and leading wildflower toyrs, volunteering at and
>goin9 to plant sales and shows. and working on their own native plant
>gardens. 8ird~r> hav,", m"ny ri..lu l,ip> ..nd tln:t:<.Ilny bin.1 >urvey> tu l~ild
>and participate in during this prime ti~e of spring migration and return
>of the breeding populations. Gardeners are taking advantage of the still
>rnu i:;L gl'ound and wa'"mi "9 ea"th to plant: and tt"a.nsp 1 ilI1t:.
>
>Public agencies have paid staff to review and comment On environmental
>document.. Many of u. have other jobs in addition ~o our avocations. Just
,.down1oading and printing all of the documents takes hours.
,.
,while the city had the power to delay the release of these do~uments for
>two months, interested residents are now expected to read, analyze,
>formulate opinions and submit written comments on a very Multifaceted
>project, ovar S years in the planning so far, all within 30 days,
>undoubtedly the busiest 30 day period in the life everyone with an
>outdoors orientation and conservation committment.
>
>please consider this a formal complaint. I request that the city delay
>this precess by one more month by extending the comment per;od to 60 days'
>and notifying all of the interested parties as befor~.
>
>Thank l!i:uL...:.-'
~h~~9
page 2
0E 39\1d
ONrl~3dnO jO AlrJ
99EELLl60v
vE:lT 999~/rE/59
bo b ~ lC%:Jf l.9 v'f €""'(J.' I
Page I of 2
ND [fQ.A cov...",,~-tS
Michael Bookspun
From: Therese /lmbrosi 3mith
Sent: ThW'llday, May 25, 200El 4:32 PM
To: Michael Bookspun
Subject: FW City requesli for citizen input
please add to our stash of comments
thank YOIl
----{)riglnal Mes5age----
From: David Kn~pp
~t; Thurxlay, Mi)Y 25, 2006 3:36 PM
To: 'louiseboblevy@wmcast.nef
SUbject: RE: City requests for citizen input
Dear Bob and Louise,
I Inspect SElF three or mar. times per week and find it very clean. The pictures shown ~ old pictures. I saw
them being taken, and the photogrl;lpher was walking ahead of the clean-up cr"w. The County did an InepecUon
lJto.;gu.., I requestO<l it. They g..ve me a Iiat of thing~ to do , ondl completed (h.. Ii.!. I hl>VO "1,,Uo;or form the
County certifying that.
Since they were taken, things tJ.i!~ changed. We now contract IOf clean-up ra1l1er than uSlnq high school klels,
and we replaced all the containers with varmint-proof cans, a $56,000 expense.
Why assume that "nothing ever changes"? Don't lake my word for it. .Take a walk through the area end call me If
it's not Clean. If it's after hours, call me at home. I'm in the phone book.
Sincerely.
David
--Ofigil1al Message---
Froml louiseboblevy@a>mCllst.net [m~llto:lou/seboblevy@""m.....t.nef;]
Sent; ThursdllY, MllY 25, 2006 11:36 AM
To: courier@communitynewspapers.com
SUbjtild: City requests for citizen input
Dear Sirs:
Meeting after meeting is called by the city and its managers and commissions. A1mO$t all ask
for "citizen input." How many comments on a specific topic does it take for the llI'Oup calling the
meeting to take any notice ofllie comments? I can't think of any meeting I've attended, or watched
on the city channel, where there bas been any change in what was being proposed. It would be
interesting to know what it wO\lld taI<e to cause a change. Or are these meetings jilst a chance for
pcople to talk, with no eKpectation of anytbingchanging?
In ~ rceont PllUllling Commission mcoting, pioturcs wore shown of!rn$h at Blackberry Farm.
Several years ago, when the trail through BBF was first being proposed, similar pictures were
shown. and the county health department insisted that concrete sleps be taken. Supposedly all
trash would be placed in a closed dumpster BEFORE the park staff left for the night. But....tbat
was then, this is now. New staff, new council, bul nothing ever changes. Citizen input is still
ignored.
MrDMFE Levy
5/26/2006
[,1 ~d
ONI1~3dnO ~O A1IO
99EELLL81ll>
t>E:L1 900~/tE/91l
AV\.f\€
(JCj
e VV\.a, I
rag" 1 01"
Therese Ambrosi Smith
From: Rld,erd Lowenthal
Sent: Saturday, May 20. 2006 7:00 PM
To: AnneN9@"oLMm
cc; cstanek@echek>n.com; Dolly sandoval..; Therese Ambrosi Smnh
Subject' RE: Request for you to comm.nl on S~V&f1$ Creek Trnll PI~n
Anne.
Perhaps an angle on this IS to design the bridge 111 for the purposes of the EIR. even if not implemented at this
time.
KL
From: AnneNg@aol.com [rnallto:AnneNg@aol.rom]
Seltt: Saturday, May 20, 2006 5: 55 PM
To: At1neNg@aol.com
Co csta~@eChelon.com; dolly@dollysandoval.com
subject: Rl!: Request tor you to comment on stevens Creek Tran Plan
Hi ClIfl'lrtino SVBC memben;-
Remember the iSiue of access into the Stevens Creek corridor from Scenic Circle? The Cily Coundl voted 3-
2 I~ 1,,11. to our ch39rin, 10 close that access, and in fact I lInCl"r<;tand th.. gate, is 90ne and a solid fen~.e,
'renforced by the hostile Scenic Cirole residents, is now in place, However, one of the Council vole9 to close
access has been repiaced, so we're hoping to be able to reverse that decision in the future.
Scenic Circle is a loop street down in the Stevens Creek vaUev oolhe west side of the creek accessed by
tuming right from the end of Palm Avenue. Check it out some time. The street runs alonlllhe edge (If ~
fUture pari<, and is an ideal place for the bikefpeel accesslllat did exlS! on and off until very recenfty.
Whllt with that Council decision, there's a new problem. Pari< plans now call for removing bridges over
and fords through the creek for valid environmental reasons, including the bridge in Blackberry Farm that
made through access possible. The EIR Is now .1Ip for approval. and the publiC comment periOd eMS May
28. PLEASE send" commenl to the eft"'" thai a bridge should be pr.eserved to allow l!ICC8SS acroSS the
corridor there. See
~t1o:/lW\wI.cu~ino.ora/cltv aovef!2[1,~mf9.~.p.!!rtrnBnts and offices{parks recl'8atlonfstevens creek corr/index
Of course bikafpeel access to the colTidor from Scenic Circle is desirable for all human powered plIrk usafS,
being the oniv possible banign alternative from the west to McClellan Road and Slevel1$ Creek Blvd.
However, it is e~p"ciCllly illJpurl.",t KJt Ilu""", J,lVWl;:IW ~lv\.h;l"l. ~l Uncoln/KennEldy Middle/Mania VISta High
schools who iive west of the creek. If you've experienced the before and after schoollnfffic nightmare on
McClellan !load west of Manta VISta HS, you understand the problem. It's no place for inexperienced
cyclists. As yoU'll read In the June Crank, Monta Vista High's otherwise very $uCOO$sful WalklBike to School
Day was malTed by a carfbjke crasl1 at the McClellan cro&swal1l al the bottom of the MI by the creek. In fact,
the sludent cycll5t rear-ended a molor vehicle that had stopped for a pedestrian. so the motorist certainly
waSll~ at fault, but I think ~ proves my point. .
L 1;0..1\-
-bafn1
Fortunately for us. Cupertino resid..nt Carol ~tanp.k. whn IIisitl>rt Ii'll> Rlk../P"rt l'.ommiMlnn m.....'ing
Wednesday evening, has done much of the work for us, Carollivas west of the creek in the vicinity of Palm
Avenlle. Her smail to access supporters follows, with instructions on how to comment on thi". "Mitiaaled
Neg.Uvl;: D~laralioo". Unless you want 10 ~ad throU9h tile whole report (which is fin.., of coul'lIe), read Ie the
and of Carol's email. Please copy Carol Icstanekl1lJechelon com) and me if you do submit comments.
Thanks, Carol!
512212006
So 3~"'cI
ONIl~dflO j(J AlTO
99EELLL88P
PE:Ll 988o/1E/S0
Message
Oo.V\J 5CicV'"h Q.VV'o-i I
Yagtl J U1 I
Rhoda Fry
.N () LfQA CQWWeAtS
-"".__..._~...__...__,_~_.._. . ...... . .......,.....___._~_~__..,.._~,~_~_~~...,'_.~~.~_"'~",~,____..__~.u.~~_~~.~~.,""_.......... ......__~_~"~._.._..".__~,..........._~_,,,"_...~~.._
'-From: DlIvl<l J. Sdonti Idav;dscionti@allrthn~k.net]
l3$nl: Monday, M~y 29, 2008 2:4A PM
To: Rhoda fry
SUbject: fl.o: The now blackbeny farm,__
From Oavid J. SClonti
listen to Il~ obnoxioua llub-woofer speaker from someone'8 car enlsring 88F. The only time ~'Ve ever hIK:l anyone ask us
about our though'" in r~.rde _ to eny Impa<:l" from the aetivilies. workillllB, Dr planned operational change~ regarding BBF;
was by E110 Nellon, the previous ow~er of Ihe park, who had a proper ;>eASe of responslbilty, business "'hlCS, and Jll'Olll$$IOnal
courtelOy. Only once orlwice '" year would you hear a garbage bin being delvered to lhe perk on iI weekend ""'riling. That's
when ISS had Il's SMUlIl pi~"lc that required th" wholo pallc for 2 days. City aflirials h3Vtl had lIIla big push in fBC8nt years In
r&gards fo walk-atlilly in and throughout the city, yet when they 1hemselYes have eveninll meeflnllll allne R8Ire81 Cern.r (RC) ,
they alllry tosqUIlIl;!e their ClII'& into the looped driveway so as IlOlta havato lake amJ extra alep$than n_Sly. TIlo6ewho
arrive too late, park along both SIdes orme entrance driv\l\'IIay in front of the RC and aleo along ..Ide 111.. lItoM retaining wall at our
property 10&; It's Quite a Joy fo be awlIkflned at night by vehicle doors thumping cloeed repeatedly under our bedroom windowa.
tok>w th"Y wilnt to make an ollcial perldng lot for us to enjoy out of our view windows.. think they should encourage WSlkllbillly,
and put tile parl<lng for tll8 RC, in the pllr1<lng lot thai'. boaen rignl neX! to and behind the RC lor the iBat 50 Y","rG. The bact pis...
for the klll$k is approximately whel'll the golf meinleoance yard ie. After the new entrance off StevBr18 Creek IlMIls completed,
the 113 mile entry will .n.ura ne he3lth ~nd safety issues or Impads on Illlople or neighborhoodS fnlm the exhllust of
idUng internal combustion engines due to traffic back-ups ClIuaed by 100 narrow, iIIeo." driveways HIVing commercfal or
larllll non-(;Oromercial business operationI'. The location ofthll new entry will lake advantage of the wll8islent Southerly wind
directioll ~nr;l wil mix with the hermM a~d deadly hy<jrocarbonll. gr~11y l'Aducing the particulate I11llt\llr wncantralion by the fime
it reaches the lungs of lIle people in the homes that border BBl" on it's Soulh side. Where I stand on the dog Issue goes without
saying, but even I realize Ihe need fur some who are nol dog people. I have dog issues down there myself. Don 1161S picked on
by some Clogs and tI'lelr owners who """"""""",, hi,; \load ll'lllnlng h oubrrioGlve behavior.
5130/2006
1:9 ::f)l1d
o;Il~3cl10 ~ MIO
99€€LLL88f1
f1€:L, 9ael/t€/Sa
C O-ib \ S+a",eK evrcc.v; \
page :.< or :J
Anne
In a messao" date<i !i/?O"OOO 3:51 :40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time. cstanek@echelon.com writes:
Hi Aceess Fans,
Yes, Ws me again updating you On the current situation with the Slevens Creek Pedeshian .md Bicycle
Trail. .
The Master Plan for the Trail hai been posted on the Cupertino City website. The plan caUs for the
removal of three pedestrian bridges going across the Creek to the current picnic erees. One of these
bridges Is the existing bridge that connects the Scenic Circle area to the park. If tilis bridge is
remo."'d, any future hope of getting aGeess to the trail from this side will be 10&1.
The plan is GtJrrently In a 30 day public comment timeframe. Comments can be made on the websitfl
until Mav 20th. All commente muet be addressed by the committee before the plan 909.. back to 111..
City Council tor nnal approval In June. Mayor I.owenthal has previously expressed hope lhatllOlll9 of
the Council members would change their opinion about this issue upon further consideration (and we
now have a new COuncil member ~Inc" l"i~ W~~ 1~~II"Ylewed). ~il1"" you Ilave previously supported
accesS to the trail for bicycles and pedestrians from the Scenic Circle area, I'm writing to ask you to
make a comment on the plan before the end of tM comment period. The hope is that tor now, at
least we Can slop the I'9moval ot the bridge until a broader review could be completed to see how the
new trail could Include design features that would encourage student bicyclists to use the trail rather
than McClellan Road to get to Monta Vista and Kennedv. At tilis time. I believe this broa<ler view of the
Trail !IS a safety enhancement to the community has been overlooked.
He,. ii a link to the Plan ,,",1 wh..r.. ynll "M .ubmit ynur r.ommenl5:
!llIp'/Iwww.cuoertlno.oralcitv aovemmentld~D8rtments and offices/Darks recreation/stevens crl*lk corrflndex.
H.:ppefulty you wUI teke e. f~w minl,ltes to comment online before May 29th. Thanks OQ muc.h.
Carol
. P.S. You will need to comment on specific sections of the report. If you \!On1 want to take the time to
download every section, here's some suggestions to the relevant sections that you may want 10
comment on:
Section 2.5.1 (Page 2-16) Removai of EXisting Site F ealUre - Pedestrian Bridges
"One of the bridges 10 be removed has historically provided public access from the Scenic Circle
neighborhood and other oeighborhoods on the west side ot the creek. At the request of some
nelghbo'l' In ths area, the City Council directed that thi. bridge be removed "nd thai no "ceRU b..
provided from the Scenic Circle neighborhood. Shoula any new bridges be conskle,ed In the Mure
they would need to go through the permitting and CEOA process separalely."
Note from Carol: This may be our only chance 10 ask because changes in the future would require e
new Environmental Impact Study which would probably not be undertaken. You could oomment thai a
tew neighllOra Should not be able to cut oll thIS access from a pUbllO street to a PUDIIC patK anomat
many neighbors want this access 10 be preserved and even expanded to encourage sludents to use
this as an alterative to using MoClellan Road. .
Table 3-<3:(Page 3-105) Existing (2005) Weekday and Weekend Daily Traffic Volume estimates
5_ McClellan Road (Westot Byrne Ave.) 4,153 (daily) Weekday trips
Note from Carol: Scenic CirCle hiilS about 30 residences and no thru traffic. ObvIOllSly, redirecting
sludent bicyclist.; through here would ridduc& their ""po.ure to car traffic by " t;.ctor of ..( loost 26. That
alone should suggest ll1at this could be a safer alternaUve and deserves revieW tor this purpose.
Page 3-107 A relatlvely large percerilllge Increase (In tralnc) will occur at McClellan Rancn Road
entranee.
Bus TraffIC
5/22/2006
9l :3';;)\1d
DNIl~3dn~ ~o AlIO
99EELLL813~
~E:Ll 9130l/1E/90
Page3 of 3
? Rus P~II Out on M,Clellan Road Page 3-109
1II0te from Carol: While the report addressed the potential issue with buses trying to accelerale up lhe)
grad.. yoing W"",l on McCiell~n. It did not >Iddrass the hllZard on the grade due to slow mOVing
bicyclists and the lack of room for a bike lana on this section Df tha road. There Is not adequate room
for buses to pass bicyclists going up this grad<!.
Bus Traffic
3. Existing Crosswalk on McClellan ROlId
FI~hing waming IIgh~ would bE inomllcd on coch hill nod the crosswalk WQuld be painted ~d 10
enhance visibility of the crosswalk.
NOli from Carol: AS many of you know, this cro~~w... ..><. U.,,, sil" af th.. colli>>lon betw....n the aWdent
bicyclist and oil oar on Bike to School day in May. The il;s~", in that oollision WIiS nol visibility of the
crol>Sw",lk. II was the lack of room for the bicyclist 10 pass and the inability of the bicyolisllo stop behind
a oar that stopped at this crosswalk. Providing an alternative path from Scenic elfClli woula remove
much of the risk for bicyclists on McClellan from 2 and 3 above.
5/2212006
U, 3rn1d
CNIHJ3dffi 30 ^lW
[ f &f>< -
-trz.-ff;1
99€ELLL81311
l1E:LI 99gZ/IE/~9
A\~x
.e1lV\(J. \ \
\'Sa',
Therese Ambrosi Smith
/Vo
{EQA C()YV-w..~~ -( 5
From:
$ent:
To:
Subjeet:
Michllel Bockspun
Wednesday, May 24,2006 3:31 PM
Therese Ambrosl Smllh
FW: Concerns ra; Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
-----Origina1 Mesaage-----
From, Al~ Tsai [mailto:alex cj t.ai@yahoo.comJ
~@nt, Wedneaday. May 24. 2006 2:~7 AH
To, city of CUpertino Pa.k. and Recreation
SuPject: Concerns reo Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan
Dear Me ~here~e Smith,
To folloWUp our discussion reo the potential impact of
Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan on my property in
the bcsi:nn;i..ng of the y.~r. I'd like to r.("~.p t.nf.'.
J;:1)l'llmary I noted from our meeting as: the comment to the
project:
1. Mitigation meaSures for negative impact trom
driveway and trail ye.r-round usage
Based cn the city'. aecision ~o align the trail to the
east side of the creek, and tbe planned year round
u~age of the driveway around my home, ~Id like to
request city pu~ in plaoe the required meaB~~s to
mitigate the negacive t~a!!ic/noice/privacy impace to
I\IY hoo''8 d\,l,G; tQ the new proj ect.
~ ~erified by the actual measurement we did tcgcth~r,
tllo aIot:ll.J""c.::Jo.. u[ Ll1e Hew t.-..il i6 ooly -70ft; l1t maximum
from my home, much less than the claimed minimal 100ft
from all other residence property line as reported to
the p~11c ap.d couc11 members in t.he pJ;"<<;::v.i.VI,J..l;i 1ol1Ly
cou~il meeting . Major Patrick Kwo~ indicated this
issue should be considered as part of the design
pha~e. The driveway pL.nned to open for year around
u~age is even closer, it's right adjacent to my home.
I'd like to urge city to cake the same high standard
.s in addressing the west bank/scenic circle
neighborhood's conce~ and provide specific
measurements to reduce the impact to my home. As
discussed, my family would like to see some buffer
between the drivew4Y and my property. We are not
asking a lot aa other neighbours, hut plea5e give us
some br~athing rOOm (e.g. 10ft green buff8r bet~eec
the driveway and the property line). In ca5e the
trail/driveway ha~ to maintain the layout as shown in
the map, please at least buildUp the existing rockwall
on the property line to ott to provide vertical
spacing/buffer as the minimal mitigation.
?. ~At~ck and Height of the Restored Maintenance
Building and Public Telepnone Sooth
Bas@d on rnA city huilding code. the planned
maintenance building behind my house shall observe the
minimal setback from the property line (10ft tor
~/; 38\1d
ONIl~3dro ~O ^lI~
'39E:E:L1.L8~~
~E::LI 9001:/IE:/ge
acceesory building;} and maximun height limitation
(~sft1). R~ght now the exieting building and ~he
tele~hone booth is inf~inqin~ my property line and
need to bu fixe4 a~ I brought up to you last time. I
did not see the la.test map have anything incorporated
- )uet a reminder.
3. Water meter/pipeline ~oc_ted between my residence
and the ~ineenance building
This is part of the easement agreement in the deed ~
city need to proviae ingress/egre9s accea6 to the
mainenance of public utilities for my home. The water
meter/pipeline ie located on the hack of the existing
.....intenance buildinq and water company has complained
eeveral times to me the storage area gate is oteen
locked which force their personnel to go thru the
narrowed strip behind. ~he buildin.g - :it:. mi'JIY C-:"'1l~'"
liahUUy iss~e.
A~ we discussed, city need to eneur~ ~he acceea wI the
new project or consid&r rilil(H":!;;"r:i.r\q t.MA mp,t-.Fl'l"'/v1rp.' in/?
if the area for the new building is to be enclosed.
4. 2.sem~nt of Ingr~AA/P.aYp.~~ of ~hp ~n~~~nrp y~~d and
Prohibited Hours of puhlio acca88
The ~urrQnt/futher ent~ahe~ rOAQ f~om San FernAodo CC
to Blackberry Farm is under the e~~~ment agreement as
psrt of the my property deed and city's purchase
~Q~~r~~t of ~B~. i~ whiah it rGquire~Qiey ~o p~ohibit
publ~c ua. between llpm to 7am year round to reduce
nOiae/traffic to my Private property. I'v brought it
up .SI4V.I:'-"1. t.im..Q' wi YQ'\4 and ci.ty - the .cigh we ca.grecd
wa. put up and removed quic~ly_ Now there are still
people drive down to the park late in the ni~ht or
early morning when tho park l~ c~o~ed e6p~cialLy iu
summer time.
The CUrrel'lt pl<<n on tho weL J::IL.ctLc;::~ l..-tl.C: u~w park hour$
will be <lawn to dust. Ph co"....ct it to oheerve the
e._sement agree~nt and do the needful to prohiD~t tee
problem 0.13 pArt oL o,;:ity' ~ ;n~Clpoll;;silJl.&..\.y.
In a.ddition. pleae.. note the de.e.d includee the clause
chat. C1..CY shall not. const.rucc fenae or building Whleh
may adversely block/obscure view from my houae. Pls
address ~y potential issue you see in th~. regard snd
l<eep Ille posed, so we can avo~Q prObLelll in the ~uture.
Regarde,
-Alex Tsei
2197$ S~n Fernando !\ve, Cupertino, CA 95014
408-$25-2481
DO You Yahoo I ?
Tired of spa..? !lahoo] Mail has the bellt spam protection around
http,//mail.yahoo.com
2
t~ ~d
ONIIH3dno dO AII3
99EELLL8e~
pg:Lt 9QQlltE/SQ
LRC Public Comments 5.10.06
Rhoda Frey commented and her concerns are:
1. There are dogs off leash
2. SCCP Plan reduces the park carrying capacity but not usage.
3. Her belief is that park entrances should be placed at major thoroughfares rather than
by residential neighborhoods.
4. She would like a vehicle depot put in at Stevens Creek Blvd
5. The majority of buses and traffic will increase by one third based on SCCP
documents.
6. A pedestrian trail is being put next to a driveway that endangers trees, which also
shields homes from golf balls.
7. Concern for Brown Bat Maternity Roost
8. 'This project may result in massive numbers of mosquitoes increasing the risk of west
nile virus
9. Concerned about maintenance noise
10. Safety issues with golf balls
11. Concerned about City following through with mitigations
Bob Levv
1. Is the prospect of flooding reduced or staying the same?
Jennifer Griffin
1. Concerns about security
2. Concerns about dogs being kept on leash
3. She hopes that Field grown native plants and a heritage orchard apricots are planted.
E E
06/20/2006 15:16
4087773148
BLACKBERRY FARM
PAGE 01/01
~ lri~M~{~(~
i2 J~I~ ~~~--:J~)
BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO.
C.C-/(p-?-D-oto
.::it I r.,
EXHIBr c
June 9, 2006
General Office Cleaning
Mr. Michael O'Dowd
Blackberry Farm
21975 San Fernando Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Floors / M!llnr:en:mcc
Re: Blackbeny Farm Picnic Grounds
Construction Cleanup
Dear Mr. O'Dowd:
Exterior I Pressure Washing
It has been brought to my attention by one of my employees
that a woman has been coming to the park and taking pictures oftra<;h.
My employee has seen hcr three times (the latest incident was on
Thursday, June 8) and is concerned for her job Since the woman has
taken pictures prior to sel"vice being started on each of the three days, I
believe that the pictures are not a fair representation of our service.
Fab Are-<'s / Clean Rooms
Window Washing
If a complaint is made against De An7.a Services, I would
appreciate the opportunity to respond to the complaint. The woman
has taken pictures around S :30 p.m. and cleanup service begins at that
time.
Corpet Cleaning
Please call111e if you have any questions.
CES, ,:cl
~/
/
/"/
1 01 Fil1lt Street. #430
Los Mos, California 94022
Phone (408) 246-7172
Fax 408.246.0317
ce-kr 20 - OIR
;tJ:-lfo
This shows the text of Measure T official ballot that
was a.QProved by a majority of Cupertino voters at the
General Election of November 6, 1990.
CITY OF CUPERTINO MEASURES
Shall Ordinance No. 1534 of the City of Cupertino, adopted by
T the City Council of the City of Cupertino on August 9,1990, be
approved in order to authorize I) the acquisition and
preservation of Blackberry Farm as open space, the acquisition and
preservation of other open space land within the City and the construction of
public recreation facilities consistent with the preservation and public use of
the open space, and 2) the imposition of an electric, gas and teleptlone
utility users excise Tax at rates of not to exceed two and forty hundredths
percent (2.40 %) of the monthly bills for said ul ility services (subject to an
exemption for senior citizens), for a period of not to exceed twenty-five (25)
years, provided that the City Council has taken the initial legal action
necessary to assure the completion of the acquisition and preservation of
certain municipal facilities, constituting open space facilities, generally
described in the Ordinance?
m
><
::I:
m
-I
<TACLOUU.
so....... .
.
. YEa 23e....
: NOm...
i
. YES Z3ll....
: 1C024O~
" YES 242.....
o ""'NO"iQ....
,
~ YEa 2:151.....
.-
NO ZlI2",
,
YES 2llO",
IiOiiii ...
11
.
I
O~AL."LLOT COUHTYOPSAkT"'CLARA
OKNE...A1. ~C'TlOtoI NOVI!........,""
... .-.-rTDl ~.._
O ---
....-s......O""~T'_DIMtlc:l~..,~........
-- - --..... h .... DfIl'cIaol __ ""-ng. n_ ....... (1"'-
:.."'=~~~c...~kt..~~..nDt~..~~....
.~~~~"r'::..~_r~-:,.:..~~~.:= NO 284.......
~......r_l~.?
VOTING FOR nua ~.U! DOlI!& NOT lNC........t! TAX".
E T......""'-"-.........
.........~<<-....._'l'
Th........<Jl_.....OW'CaunlyT......~.............~
~~D,;'j...!..~.:-..__:.":.::::.,c::-~~oc..r. YES zsa....
~=-~~-=.:::.c:;;:..~~-=: 1iiIiii.....
...~"'.apMI.-I-..__... "---JIf'OPwn__
-_.
CTTY ~ cuiiiiiTiiQ ii'i'AiURea
T lIhIlII~""'.,&S401"'CIty~~-.-...,....ClIy
~Of"'C4tyd~O'IAuoIMl.. '-.o.M~ln_
...~')..~-~fI#~'"-
... ..-n ...-. ... ..........., WoO ~ at __ .... ...-. ....
..,...., ... c.y ~ - --....-., "" ~ -- '--........
__r..... .......,__....,,_~_._~_-...-...
:'...::.... ~-,... -:..=- =. =.... -::.::..::..,-:..Ql....'"':.: YES t7S.....
=~~:l=-==:::.Clfto~--===Iiiii7i.....
..........._~"'-------....--
,.._......... <If __............. --. --...... _...----.....
--... "--110_ ~'l'
U ---
Do~.::=-',::::=~,:~~~~ .!!!E!'+
~~:.;:::C~~.:=-:::::.= NO 2.,......
-...........---."'.or____..........__.~of_
('2)...-~..._CII!...._~...__.
.
.----:
t:"~ -'. J
. ~ \ -:. ~,' ~ . ..,'. :',.' ~~".' ,~,"':: ", '."~'~ ~ ,i: ; :;: :.. "~". ''''':~ ':. ;:' -;. ......;~'" ".~ ..pl ~.~,~\ "1J{:. ''''~')'''h'.... .1:';',', do' _~~,., ~ '.," "
. .' .. ',' ,~..' .." ,>\...,.....,:.'..l'>'.j~,\.;l...... }.~,i~.~.~lJ#~~......:...j..~.j.,!...:~: " ~-. ',,'" 'h"'~~"
" .... .. " ,.', '. ", ,'. ',.; . ,~, ~ ,''lr :, ;~...-:;~. ,.;';.~...'?~,...'\~~~~~,
.. . .. ~ : ,. "".,. ..,'>~ ,:. . "..' . .l,. ,'" ."/~''1;:-'-;.''"'-;:.\~:~ ',",'
, ~ . " . . '> ,_'."." . h' . ,',' . ',... .
,.'fr:~:.;_....
'-: ~.f.:
'-",.'~'.' .
.. ,"
MEASURE T
:rMPl\RrIAL 1\.'OO.YSIS.
'!his JOOaSUrG seeks voter awrovaJ. for the acquisition Mrl praservation
of the ~ lcra<m as BlaCkberrY Fal:n1 for open space, as loIel.l as the
aapisition of the FL""""rt; Older Elementary Sdlool sita Mrl the
c:onscruct.io." of p.lblic recreation facilities thereon to insure the
pre.smvation of the larrl as p.lblic open space. 'Ihe cost of these
aapisitions and facilities is eatimate:l to be twenty-five millioo dollarS
\o'hich will be fJ:nanc:ai by the general fUrd of the City of Q.lperti.Ix> at an
annual cost of appzoXilnately 2. J million dollars per year over a
twenty-five year period.
TO a~t the general furrl of the City of CUpertino, this """""'"'''' also
seeks voter awrovaJ. for ,the ilIpooition of an electric, gas, am ta1et;hone
utility user excise tax at a rata not to. exceed 2.40% of the lOClllthly bills
for said utility SGJ:Vices. n>e !'L(,.:.,...n.. of the ~~ tax will I:le
depoSited into the general .':Urrl of the City of CUpertin:>, b.1t will not I:le
levied until the City CcUncil has CCIIIll'BllOed the initial legal action
'OOC(>c=ry to insure the acquisition and preservation of Blacl<ben:y :ra....,. or
other open-spaDEl areas within the city of 0Jpertir0.
E><empte::l frail the taJc are resi.clentia1 seJ:Vice users of s.u:ty-fi va years or
older, religioos organizations, Mrl p.ililic ageooies.
'!he tax will be autallatically repealed twenty-five ye;u:s after it is first
imposed.
=rently the City of CUpertino has entered into written "gr~ with
respect. to the p.lrChase of BlaCl<berrY Fantl am. the FrelllCt'lt Older
ElementaIY School site oontin.Je11l: upon the passage of this measure.
Ch8xles ~~iliBn
Clty Attorney, City of Cup~rttno
"'~~J~~i~~;~
(:,:;..~':( .
(OPEN flI.'1lQ': ltR UJ=<.L'.llD),'\. . .'. ...,;,:J:' . "i'" "
. :,".'::.";:' . """,\..'!;.': _ _ "...:'r:'j" ,~
Ycur YES vote on ~-"''Ir<l T is crucial to IN--1Il:'VIl on1 protect ql8n ~,";"'" <">"'!~'"
...thin the City f ,."..........._ . .' .'. . .... ....,:'$'!t,.~,..,,;.
w. 0 ~....-_. . ":';:.'_d~~:::;_~.:'r>','
. "j.
,"'-
A1GJQ!Nl' ltR HEI\SURE T
':;"":
CUrrently for sale are:
.. BlacJd:>erry Farm, the oldest ani lar<;J&St q>en space racreatiaW.
"its (33 acres) within the City. '. ..
. .
.. Fl:'eIllC<1t Older El8ll&'1tary Sdlool "its (11.8 acl:'Bl<).
unl...... the City of Qlp8rtino ~ these lal3t :r.emaininq large parcels .
of q>en spaoe both will be lost fClJ:'8YP'l:'.
Your US vote on Measur8 T will ...........-ate the funds needed to acxpi.re tbBlIB
two "ites, thereby inEIur1n;J t1lI<l preservation of recre.tiooal q>en space
within D..Jpert.ilx>. I.aIs of these sites will inevitably l8!ld to their
!IUl::looquent dsveluf'OOllt.
, . '.- .~.' .'. ,.', ,-; -"".'-'Y'
'1he ave=ge cost per bane is Elfit.i:mated. to be $2.50 per Dart:h, .;m WCI.Ild.'be,;0i;::'::;
l>dded to utility .bUls. a.uo~ will also .be prq:>articnatBly.taxI8C1:,;;
R.evm'lUBS generated frail the c:xntirJu,J.rq q>eration of !il' ,,('I(t-.Ar.ry Farm' ani
the fRlhleasing of the Blue R1easanl: Restaurant will be ~1ed to ~~ty :
payments. '1he utility tax will teminats in 25 yeanJ, or SClCDlr, :U:1:ha
properties are paid off earlier.
'.'::~c;;." ,.
..~;\:!-::t::
",.;
Senior househOlds (age 65) are ~t frail this measure.
Measure T haS.been enIom<rl unaniIlnlsly 'rti the City <mroll. It alsO has
SUWOrt of CXIIIlILIl'lity Bnd kusiness leade.m, envil:u.llIlentalists, ani civic
arrl sports organizations. Protecting Bl.acI<I::eny Farm will ...._BrY8 both
the rich heritage of the City and this valua.ble recreatiooal q:>enspaoe.
AcqUiring the FL~ Older Elementazy Sd100l "its will all""" this spaoe
to be used as a IIIllCh needed fam.Uy parle am yoot:h SpCII:ts facUity.
Measure T is our only ~t..mity to make this vital inv_l..uarI.c; in the
qJa1.ity of life for current and futUl:e generations of Olpertino
residents. Vote YES an Measure T.
/~
,ft.rC D. , President
CUpertino Na Little League
ow~~..>>-
AUi'D Bidwell, PreSident
D..Jpert.ilx> Olam.ber Clf ('l ....oA, ce
~~
. Ja , , Mayor
irector, D..Jpert.ilx> E:iucatia>al
Foordatian EOOowment
~)O j) /?9/M
A. Ro;fersYM"Y=
City of CUpertir]6
___1 /?' .
-~:;z /~
Teny BrGIn Construction CJc:qlany,
Inc.
,
,
~ROPOSED BALLOT ARGUMENT AG~INST CUPERTINO CITY HR~SURE T
Readlrg"MeaBure T, would yoU ever suspect. that Ol'dlnanclO 153411aY8 "'Che
pu~polie ' . . Is to Impose a utIli ty us..:-" 8xcl8e' t::>x ... .to 1'81' the.
u8ual and ourrent expenses... "tt},e City . ..7" Acqul8itlon 'and
preservation costs tor Blackberry Farm and other park land are hardly
'usual and current expenBes!" Vote NO on Measure TI .
City officials believe a utility tax passed by a simple majority can be
laundered through the Iteneral fund tor a projeot otherwise reqUiring
two-thirds approval. This subversion ot Proposition 13 will be tested
In the courts should the measurP pass, but we can stop this tlagrant
bypass attempt no~1 Vote NO on Measure TI
They say It Is a small tax. But It. Is stili a tax. It is dltfioult to
recall a time when a government bodY reduced Its revenue base, and the
ctty is certainly not tryIng to do that now. We already have too ~any
"mtnor costs", such as cable TV franchise fees and FCC-Imposed network
acoess charges. Let's not add another I Vote NO on Measure Tl
It a utility tex Is ever Imposed, shouldn't It be used for something
related to gas, electricity, or telephones? Why pay tor park land with
tt? What do utility services have In common with baseball diamonds and
picnic areas? Not muchl Vote NO on Measure TI
The undersigned authors of the primary argument against ballot Measure
T at the General Eleotion to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 1990 In
Santa Clara County, hereby stfite that such argument is true and correct
to the best ot knowledge and belief.
I
Date
91 ( 6("f I
Date
8/17/'10
1'111.1' Ian Party of Santa Clara County
Signed
Signed
Jeannie Ti
own~leEt?~~y Fine Gems
Rod Otto
Owner. Rod Otto Herlswear
Date
g I t1 ((1 [J
----
8/17/9d
.'~~~~i:;~;=::i~i::~~;::~~~';,:.
REJllIIXAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE T
Vole YES on Measure T.
The opponents of this me8SUte would ratheT sacrifice Black~ Farm to development than
pay 8t a day to preserve it for open space. Purchase by the CIty is the only alternative to
prevent more traffic congestion and density.
Don't believe the "high taxe." rhetoric of the opponents. In 1989, Cupertino property
taxes were actua1Iy reduced whe:l Memorial Park and CitY Hall bonds were retired early.
Even with the passage of Measun' T, the total City taxes paid by the average homeowner
will remain the lowest in the County.
The opponents argue that Meanll'c T will hurt busin~ss. but would the Chamber of
Commerce have endorsed it if that were true? In fac~ corporations and bu.inesses support
Measure T, along with environmental advocates, youth sports organization. and the City
Council.
Why do these groups support the passage of Measure T7 Because preserving open space,
.aYing our City'. heritage and preventin8 additional traffic congestion and density make
sense for Cupertino. A utility tax that is lower than that of many neighboring cities is the
most equilabk way to save Blackberry Fann and the Fremont Older Elementary School site
forever. And remember - seniors (age 65) are exempt from this tax.
The alternative to Measure T is the loos of Blackberry Farm to development and more
traffic on our streets.
Vore:YES on T.
~M4~,}~
B ara A. Rogen;, _ r
City of Cupertino
~ ft"
'to Donald Allen, Presill.ent
Cupertino National Bank
J~
W ,;1iair-Elect,
west YMCA Board of Mmagers
ormer Commissil)ner, AYSO Socc.er,
Region 35
<
, hauperson
o Parks & Recreation Commission
. .' '.. .' '.' -' " \ ";0
oJ . . " ~. " . ~ . . '.
. .. .., ~ ..' ' - .' ~ . . " : . . .
~. ~:~_t:;:~':~~:j~Oj.~~;I~;~'~;~~~!t~:'~,j~,i;:;'~.i'I;.;:~~~~~J;i'~:"{';fl',l:i;'<~i-~;'''''~'~';,~J:-::;~kt;:
,ii".r'~:"rf,,('."< ,',' ;~';i;~i;,~: :7':'-,;':<:::;~'.tl:',;":':~"'~;' .., .. . '.
~~~~"'~~~~:~;".'::l.:~:A.<I:t.+."i:;Ji.~'i;"\"'-:~:"\rj-~;;,._:.,._.:.:,~,\~ .,-,:' ;
. _ _~. - ,.' " ~..:. _ " -- '1'-~:~~li~t.""\'ili'.(a<'''::'W~.~~-~;;J.:~:~j.;j.;''~;%~,,~:
..~~
tt~
)
REBvTTAL TO ARGUMENT FOR HEASU!'E T
J'"
IT'S A FAKE
Read the
taxpayers
They wi I I
fine print.
at least 57.5
want morel
The impartia.l a.nalyst agrees it will C05t
million. Even that won't satisfy the spenders.
~;,
h"
~,l
r
Measure T is dishonest and reully promises nothi~g. It only gunr"antees
to tax us! It' extracts money from residents and businesses in the name
of "open space". Restaurant? Golf course? ConcessiollS? D&veloped
areas? All run as businesses? That's not operl spacel
Tl1e money goes into the general fund. No gllarantees, no requirements,
just vague promises I Don't let $2.50 fool you. Inflation took otf the
day after Measure T went on the bal lot!
nDS LOSE OUT
tor many years children, parents, and coaches have been crying for team
sport fields. Measure T gives them nothing! Fremont Older School
isn't mentioned in either Heasure T or Ordinance 1534.
The proposed youth fund is being held hostage to passage of Measure T.
Cupertino's ducks ~et more attention than our childrenl
IT'S A SCHEME
Cupertino citizens are asked to pay twice for Blackberry Farm: once for
adnlissions and once for taxesl Non-residents only pay when they go.
Local governmellts manage to operate police and
libr~ries. and parks. But when they stray into
recreational businesses, we taxpayers bette~ guard
racket club is a loser. ~ven the Clty admits th3t.
than enough1 Let's not subsidize another!
fire departments,
new areas I ik~
our wallets! The
One loser is more
Join in the Cupertirlo T Partyl
Help dump T overboardl
Vote NO en TI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The undersigned authors of lhe rebuttal argument against Measure T at
the GC"loral Ll~ction It; be held on Tuesday, ~ov~mber 6, 1990 in Santa
Clara COLlnty, hcreoy stale lhat such :-1rgurnent is true and correct. to
t!Y best of, t!;t'lr kno",.IOge an" "oJ lef.
~ CJ. JiL.cF.-. Dal"g~2-0,fc
L.0UlS L. De Lu Buslrless~an, Kl\\anlS member
~~---oJ , ~( <J.,.J-.-.-4
~,Rafalovicll former
a-r. ~1]-2;C.~=--
/on Petersen
UI\A A. rn.r
Annl1.L.~
. Dale
President, Cilpertino Chamb8r cf Commerce
.....-;' ~
- / / "',
t".3/;;L6/'70 ,_~"'- c. ""J""_,,,~_
Aga i ns t was t(~t~'u I Spend i ng'
g-~~ -'t..~
Date
C i l i 'Zen::!
Businessman,
DatA ]/..')0/93
west Vaney/CegislatJve
Date ,P,6~k~
Kiwanis Aember
Committee
:~~Y~j.'i~i":;~~~~~~~~;'\;::~;:;;;;~:i~:~;;;;'~~i~,";~~~;~~i:~:~l~;:';"\;':~~~:;:::~:';
) Addi tionB.l SignerlJ:
REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT FOR MEASURE T
r-:J'IC %
~~n~~ V,Y~ecrCl8.ry, CHI~:~~ A ah(at \/astcfu! ~pcnding
~~ Date lY/~/CjO
Donald A. Frol ich Former Cupertino Mayor and Councilman
-1{A ;.J.,) ,1 ;(0.:, /,..,i/C> Date .eY":>4/9d
Nick J. L..1aneo () Former Cupert lno Mayor and Councilman
~/? ~. Date ,fJ)...<t/9r"'
in R. C rter Retired Cupertino po;?maoter
Date ~
Local Veterinarian ~ /
'j
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
~ 8
'"
~ 9
'"
... 10
0
rr: 11
0 .
... ~
oJ' 12
=> : u co
~ : , <
2 .
, u Z 0
.' 13
o : > ~ .
. !2 u
o ~ u ~ o u
=> , . is u . 14
rr: P . u -
e 0
. ; 0 "
u. 15
z ~ . . u
. Z , -
~ : . ~ u
2 . 16
0' ~
~
Z' :>
0 u
0 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JAMES E. JACXSON
A Professional Corporation
JAMES E. J1..CJCSON, ESQ.
RICHARD K. ABDALAH, ESQ.
10455 Torre Avenue
cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 252-5211
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
SHARON E. BLAINE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ~ANTA CLARA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ELLY WERNER, NICK J. LAZANEO, I
DR. JOE BROWN, DONALD A. FROLICH, I
ALVIN R. CARTER, )
j
I
I
'SHARON E. BLAINE,
'plaintiff,
VB.
DOROTHY CORNELIUS, CITY
CLERK OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO,
GEORGE MANN, REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
Defendants.
NO.
STIPULATION TO ORDER
GRANTING PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
Real Parties In Interest.
The hereaft~r parties described stipul8te to the entry of an
Order for a Permanent Injunction demanding Defendants, DOROTHY
CORNELIUS and GEORGE MANN, to:
Delete the names of NICK J. LAZANEO, ALVIN R. CARTER
and DONALD A. FROLICH from the argument in opposition to
Measure "T" which will appear in the voter pamphlet to be
distributed to voters in Santa Clara County ~or the November
6, 1990, election.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
. 11
<;
'" 12
w ~
, ~
, .
w Z 0 13
, " ,
. 0 w
~
w :; , w
. ~ o , 14
. u 0
0
" 6 . ,
. " . 15
. "
. " . >
. ~ "
2 " 16
~
c
~
u
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED:
, 1990.
..d;;,;~':'~:)(;:'" :"'';~;\,,:i'~''''it:r:i;\ .',;~."
,,:__: '-I'~-" i:t. .._ ',~'~'( (..."."'~ """'.~}:":'i:'y.t.j<l!;;i!J,ii';'
:_ <->'~.'::;;:2;:.:'L""""" ,'~~/~!:.'i't(~~J.r
'i":~L-~:Y~ ,'! \:~.,'.,r,:f,'~l,f!#,~~~~f:1
JAMES E. JACKSON" ,r,.r,p'It,,1''':''''
A Professional corporat1on"".,~i~;,,'
.~ ',:.'c::F<:y:, ,.,:
. ::)f~~'r[:" .
/.',
I
.\
.,
By
JAMES E. JACXSON, 'BSQ.
Attorney for plaintiff
. .'-
DATED: +.
t"
1990.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
By
DATED:
. 1990
CITY OF CUPERTINO
By
CHARLES KILIAN. City Attorney
p.M.easureltJ
-2-
t~ ...-. '"
JACK.SON. DONOVAN. RUDD. MULFORD 8 SVALYA
....... ....-'OC~TOCMf or "'~M"'"
..JAMC~ L J,o.o<.SON
,.,~ L~_
DANIEL C. DONOVAN
!IT1:PMEN S. RUD:l
CLJZAIICTH A HUV'OflO
I"HILUP G. SVALYA, IMe.
AlJec J. MAcAU.1STVt
AlCHAAO K. ABOAlAH
Tl-40MAS r'.. T~IEL
_IC~Y H. WONG
."I:A COOl: 40.
TIU"E"HONC .....~Il
~...C.I....ll..l: O..-~04.
104.. TO""'II: AYI[NUII:
CUPl!tlTINO. CAUPOIlNIA .eol.c
September 6, 1990
Dorothy Cornelius, City Clerk
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
CUpertino, CA 95014
Re: Blaine v. Cornelius. et a~
Superior Court No. 704380
Re: Cupertino Mea:::ure "T"
D"ar Dorothy:
I have given Chuck Kilian copies of the various documents
including the Order to Show Cause which was signed by Judge
stone on September 5, 1990.
It would be helpful, (but not
non-opposition to the grant in'!. of
signing the enclosed Stipulat pn.
to sign a similar Stipulation.
necessar~l, if you showed your
the Prel~minary Injunction by
I am alsp asking George Mann
Also enclosed are letters to you from Al Carter, Nick
Lazaneo and Don Frolich with regard to the removal of their
names..
truly,
I
E<S E. Jackson
JEJ/csc
cc: Chuck Kilian, Esg~
w/enclosures
Enclosures
, '.
pn'llANntlH OF ITNDER.S.T"NO'ING
"
, i..
This Memorandum of understanding sets forth the
co~itment of the cupertino union School District ("District") to
,",ork. in good faith towards an Agreement with the city of
cupertino ("City") to use certain property owned by the District.
The termS and conditions of said Agreement may include the
following:
1. T.pe sites:
The sites subject to this Memorandum consist of
approximatelY 30-40 acres' and the exact location shall be
determined by the District.
2, :Ihe Term:
The term of the Agreement shall be 25 years, subject to
further nego~iation.
3. Th@ Pu.,.-nOSA of the Aaraement:
The purpose of the Agreement shall be to proserve and
enhance the use of the open space portions on.t~e sites, and they
shall be used for youth sports and related community open space
activities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the District'S
instructional program shall have first priority use of the sites.
4. ~i tv' s Obl i~ill5m:
a) city shall pay for and construct all standard
level improvements and renovations of the turf of existing fields
and related facilities necessary to fulfill the purposes of this
agreement, District ,;hall approve the ..standard level"
1
." ~~
..~
,
~
established Lor each site.
Any improvements made above that
standard level shall also be approvod by District. The cost of
such improvements above the standard level shall be paid for by
the party proposing them.
b) Subject to paragraph 5 below, City shall pay
for and be responsible for maintaining the sites subject to this
Memorandum, at a level equal or greater than currently provided
by District.
c) City shall indemnify and hold District harmless
fro~ injury to person or propertY,arising from its activities on
the sites.
d) Subject to paragraph J, city shall be
responsible for schedUling all non-school use of fields.
5. District's Obliaations
a) District shall annually reimburse city an
amount equal to what District is currently spending to maintain
the sites, increased by an agreed upon cost of living factor.
This obligation shall extend only to that portion of the sites
that District uses Lor District instructional proqrams.
b) As to those portions of the site used by
District for instructional programs, District shall pay City a
lump sum equal, to the amount which, in its judgment, it would
have expended on renovation of the site&.
c) District shall indemnify and hold City harmless
for injury to person or property arising from its activities.
2
< "
6. 30int ObIiaat1ona:
Dietrict and City ehall in 9004 faith attempt to
develop a ~a8ter plan tor each of the achool aites, in a ta.hLon
intonded not to impact curront activitie. on the eites and to
~eet the budgeting needs of eech.
7. HAm~randum Subjoct to .BA~irement. 0' ~w.
The enforceability of this Memorandun of Understending
ia subject to all applicable State law., rule. end regUlationa,
and Distriot Board policies.
8. Neaotiations of .RluIU>1Jl.ll\g_T~t:JI1" and CO'l~Ht1onl:
Thi8 Kemorandum sets forth the partios' oommitmont to
nogotiate an Aqreement. Said Agrsoment is subject to furthor
negotiations between the parties.
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Dnte:
J1,.-1..'1-'i'D
.y/~
Dato:
~!21//10
CITY OF C~RTINO
'y' /V~~
3
?-
J..I\p.cr:.c.~
"'4:0.1 ~..QN
O-'NICL t:.. OOHOVAH
S1'C~ItN""'-'OO
I:UZAlltTH ~ ~Ll"ClftO
~1I.1.1" 0, SVALVA., IHC.
AUCC.J. ~.TC:A
~AAO K. .....~
Tt-'OMA.S Co THUO.
..JI:~"H.WOr<<)
JACKSON. DONOVAN. RUDD. MULFORD 0 SVALYA
..." ~TlON 0I"'~1:Ta
1004.. To",.e "..YEMUE
ClIPU.nNO. CAUPOIlNlA 0801..1
AIUtA CODe "0.
"1:A.c~"o"" .......n
,....e.'...I..e ""8'J(M.
September 12, 1990
Charles T. Kilian, Esq.
LaW atticss ot Charles T. Kilian
1740 Technology Drive, Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95110
Re: Blaine v. Cornelius. et al,
superior Court No. 704380
Dear Chuck:
I am enclosing a photocoPY ot the endorsed Prelimift.Ey
InjunP~io~ issued by Judge stone on september 12, 1990. I have
seL~ed a certitied copy ot this personally on George Mann on
september 12, 1990.
Please let me know it you would desire personal service on
Dorothy Cornelius or whsther the service ot a photocopy enclosed
horewith to you would sutfice.
It the later is suffi~ient, I would appreciate your signing
the enclo~ed Acknowledgment and Receipt of Preliminary
Injunction so that I can file it with the Court.
~<y ,=>y,
.-
.
'--- .
Jams" E. Jackson
JEJ/CSC
, /"
cc: Dor.othy Corne11us v/
Enc'osures
, ~ I:
, , ~~','
:)(.
?l
,.,
'}" ,
...J:,
2~
2~:
,?I.~ :
27 i.
"
,
I
" J1J':r:.S !:. .'JAC.KSON
1\ Prcl'e.'1'::it'rl.:li~ COJ."Fornt i(jn
JI'.H;;r, ,,~. .:ACI:,CJN. E!'Q.
P-1CfJA?D K. AllO;.L"II, [.5Q.
) ()~ .S5 Torre J1.V~;"'\1C
Cl.Jr..-l.'rtt:'J':1, ,?, ~1":Jl~
! ,1('(;) 2S2-'~/. J 1
(ENDORSEDJ_ ...'
F ' .'~ fE~
SEP 1 21990 (lJ
~!,~:Ml"~w"
..
- ......
2 !;
.,
I.
. '
...
,.
,0
..', ~
i~t,","':r'r,':'~'!-. :nr !':"tini: if r,
,r-::!i ~\ :',):i ::. ;}i t/\'!.Nr.
'J
"
S:;:.
:>UI'EIHOR (.:.tJk'i' OF THE ST,\T::: OF Cllt.lFOf'Nl/\
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CU,?.A
9,
]0:
i::HM10li E. BJ....JNF.
~:o.
-'f) , "'r
t\ '1'~'~U
J:
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
,.
'...,
:;.1
PlaintiU.
pnELIMIHAR~ I1IJUNCTION
vr.,.
I,
~ ': ,I
DOl<1)711Y C:Oltl:!:T.tU;;. CiTY
CLF'~Y, Ot '.::H~ r. f,'f 'J" 01, cUr/r"::7~ S(I,
(";rO~(:l: r~i.JH1, I',:.,: t~:"'i.'J-J.,:\l: (\!' "r)~..En.:;
D!' r;~F L'OU::T'" c.r \;,~"~;'! i~ rt..:.l~^,
! :1
if)
I)', t ('> ~', ~ ,'"'l II t s .
1 ~'
;:1..:.'1' ":~:;:::T. NL~'r..... r_..,.;:....~Ir.'::.
.1,:'.' ,C j'\':: ;.~:'";;..:, r '),i;~. ,., ;'.. r:"H.r:ll.
:. :// I j! . !'.... :':';P.
"'1...11 ~',,'r; ",. :": :;1t.r.'1'~~~
,..__.__l
The np!lliccti~n ~r ~~djntitf for the Preli~jr~ary Injunction
I:.nd~ l.('re'.I~~r, ~.)mc on !i"~J~llarl)" for hearing by the Court
. ~--"::":;.:.l:h'~_..:'-?.___'
1 ')',)0, pU!"5uant to ('In Ordc;:r to She...... Cause is:,;ued
,.
hy t.hiz CO\lrt !'1;'\.Septcrnt.cl' 5,'199J.
Plaintiff appca~ed by
culJnLo.1, J1\.!:r.rl t. J.l,'_l:SGN, tSQ~
VlJCI; rrw)f l:l':ld(~ to thu sa.tisfaction of th.~ Court, and goed
r:;a1l5C ll!J:~C.;l: in.] ':!lercfc.l'c:
,I I ,.
~ '
:
.....
. .... '
. I:
1..
L
~, ! ~
.; "
I:
3 ;.
IT 15 ORD}:m-::J that during .the pendency or this action the
above-na~cd Dp.fendants and their officers, aqents, employees,
repres~ntatjvcs and all persons actinq 171 conc~rt with them,
"h"ll be and th..~. are hQrQ~Y onjoined and restrained from
engaging in, cor.,:nittinq 0r pertorming, directly or indirectly,
J jl
:.
by any illCf'JnS wh~~socvP.:-, l\ny of. the followinq acts:
~
:-.. ;'~"m pu;,J.ishi,,'J the n~:n"s of !lICK J. UZ;"IH:O, ;\LVIN R.
C;..l~"'i'r::{ ~nc.: :.',~,:':\L~ #\. rnOLICH .?I.L u Si<<;;~hl~(,ry t~ tt.c argument
"
,i.c,ain~,t !,.l.~.".)t t-::-:-1l:i\:rn "'l'".
3
) ':' 1 S i"'.:!--:'l')~! i. l!'r:~ '~,:.. t) ~hl:1t: the- ubove-n.:t.:-:-..cd r'C'. ~cndants,
~ (, .
~'-:'i"O'lq\, C':R::r.r.'!t':; '~!'".{~ c::.::rF.GE l~-\l-lH, ~\i.all b...... .''\no ':-::::0 her~by
I.
rc.)\\\r-C.': ;nd "'r.~ ~'~':1 t., !orth\.lith:
121-
'1
il. Hcn';vc t',e n'lc',:; elf lIIC!( J. I....ZAtlEO. hL'!I:: R. Cl,RTER
).,
.'
ar.,; rX)):r.r.D ;,. f';tOl.TCIt :ron: thQ argn"'ent in oppo!Jition to
1."
l~c,~':.iu~e "':'~', ",'~'.jL'h \:ill "'P?car in the votr.r pa'l'flphlet to be
\5,
,:
1-1,
"
di5trjbu~c~ t.) '.'0ters in Sa:1ta Clarll County for the November
6. 1990, elect ion.
); Tht' court rCf'C'I-V(>S jud'J!:lcnt to modify thin injunction as the
18 ~nds of juslic(.: r:':.:1)' rc.::q,~it"e.
"
/
10
n.
-.. '1~q- ,.-
'J. _~~II.,.~.;
Jl:DGE or'THE SUPERIOR COURT
DATr.n:
, . . ~
~.' ~ "" _ --!-~f.,-_ '
U90.
1\ ;
2.3
....'~..\"'\'\'l.l"
.,::;..~.~, OR C It'I,}
::~~~\'_.~.:":: . :.. . .O/~' ,.,.,.h, 11I11I.ntb. umctnlld'
,f .,:-.... '"so "" A.' .:,,<tP '\ ,.. "I,ll':''' rut It Ollltnu
ir,':-: i'~:'~:'.f' .:,.\f/lll
~ " ''':: .';. ," . .. ~
f.." (-<,.'.r. . <: <'[i"? IOc'
~.....' :- I ',. ~ ..~~ ~ 1... ......J
~~.:... ;-,._I.:"':fI>iJ: .,.....~ ~....--___
~.:~~,. . \;.~.i i::;~~ . '~':!?~YDA;;;;:KAW~
~,w';', . ~ ..... h'"~-;-C...~~..
"(<,"-i "':~':'."'o~~ ~~~
"",,0, 'l. A R'''-C ~ T -__../ -
lilt 1'\ l'\. ~~ , L'"
l\1\.\t\,\",,~ ,;: II
-2-
--
':'.1.
:':J
n
27
I'.N~~sureJ.l
"
LC..
,.
.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
:1
9
10
0
d. 11
2 ~
..... " ~ 12
::>:
~ . , < .
! . -
oS " z 0 13
) "- .
, !2 "
Q ~ " - 0"
~ g . ~ o . 14
. j u 0
0
. , ; 0 ' ,
"' 15
z ~ . w
. " , .
~: . 0- w
o " . 16
0' - w
~
Z . "
0 v
0 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JAMES E. J~CKSON
A Professional corpoI~tion
JAMES E. JACKSON, ESQ.
RICHARD It. ABDAIAH, ESQ.
10455 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 252-5211
Attorneys for Plaint!.ff,
SHARON E. BLAINE,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY ot SANTA CLARA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ELLY WERNER, NICK J. LAZANEO, )
DR. JOE BROWN, DONALD A. FROLICH, )
ALVIN R. CARTER, )
)
)
)
SHARON E. BLAINE,
Plaintif f,
VB.
DOROTHY CORNELIUS, CITY
CLERK OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO,
GEORGE MANN, REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
Defendants.
Real Parties In Interest.
NO. 704.380
ACJtNOWEDLGMENT AND RECEIPT
OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The undersigned, CHARLES T. KILIAN, on behalf of Defendant,
DOROTHY CORNELIUS, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, hereby
acknowledges receipt of a photocopy of an endorsed filed
12, 1990, by the Honorable
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION issued in the above matter on ~eptember
pe~..' "000_ / ~<
,UW/ '~
C LES T. KIL AN
Attorney for Defendant
DATED: September ~, 1990
p.y.easure21
Cu pIW"'t j t'tO h..
.c,...... of open Spl'ce
citi... Bl~bwrry
, '"
R~OUMENT AOA1NST Ml:~E ..,
~, . r~J:'- "'.
"'",t.. NO -on .............. T. Don't !Ih... t"""~,,,~.,I,l.i_,~~n-:.,~pendi
."...... w..dot-.'t _ to 1'in_-=-.. B..y _.. play~.. 1.....1:,..~)_~.
mould HIP btP t.a>t.-:1 'or- the> bttrrtt(,i't of O't~ C"OIIlIMun.ltJ... ';' """", ._J:_..~>:t:>~
.,,1"v..r..,~~ ::\~~
M...tt...... T i ~ <<InC't ...avllt'l;gan-t. Tr,.,r. CourtC"i 1 spent "'7.. "3 Idi 11 j~."Of!tT:: ~~ s ~ . ..
.-acl<ri club on t"'. _t .."f"P"'.i..... ..t.......t h. toom.. They ~...~IJl!!IlCh;o.t':
'they 6l'V8"rl C"On..i~ curt.iling ordi.nary c-it:y tI..,.-vicea to b.J~ t:h9 ~..
'. ._.._.-I"""~L\.
. ,'.A b I ........ou '~IV.'"I-'"
10C! ~ of /oity p"..-lc.., ...-.d i....-dJ~>..oa4t~i,
aftd Y'tI!"qional park., Hluch fWiO"r""'tp th.n .-ost ~..P'!<<Ij'~~ ,
1'0....... ehould bot _ county, ....,.t .. c.ty P'"<>J""':"'''~'
."
..a..1 .;;t. "",,(t.(!IiC;
''''''''', .'"1 M-tu-r....a-. Sf: CQk:1 ('''''
,'; i '~j:~;" ,C\:J 0\"t'1~,,:,:1:~
, .-c:. ...t i CW't bo1oKI, ......'taI. 'K.. '; NoW~;-' tI .
_ utility too" _ ~... ~
:- ..;;~;~..;~ "
WE I<LIlEAOY ...OTED NO
u. .... JIK"'t..., It .3B
..-.tu..-nltd .. . utility t.".
~:. i~..... without . vot...
.__~ ._n
..i 11101'\'
A bl.nk
w.. ..... .t ill payi"1I 'or 3D 1"..'" .C'hool _.. _....
pul"C'h.... t"'.. ._ 1K'hoo1 I.nd, TAlCING US AGAIN - TWICE.
Wi'Y)' .Itould _ i""""'... city t:.".. _ ..10.10. .nd ~_1
to .kYJ""'(,:)C'kri ? ~,'_'\n""'.~JlY ...f'o':.
THE HIDDEN TAX
Ctt~.i,-,o hDM.a.Jn.,4)) _ ...no
......-d a park. ,.. of .AZ~758_
build It
Did t...,..
I...,....,...., cotO t .. i aopact .11 cons.......,
Don't: i...,........ t.".. 01'\' Cup...rldr>O
il.cl..... uneMpl.oyll'Ntt"'rt:.
~idpani".ul., R-aion.,' Opan Spite... Di.t~ict
_ .p*""'" ,__ .3,!5M I*'t"'.."..,.
lIot. NO on _.u.... T .nd atop tlti. land
C"C>nt 1"01 .
CHI'lNOE CITY
I MP"'O'V. ..>II.t i"ll p*I"I<.. l....... IK'hooI
Prov1et. .uplt\""Yi.ion ~_ OIl... YOU"II _pl..
~NO on
Ell)' w., '_', s..,...... ' ~
CITIZENS AGAINST WAD 9P1iHDING
Nick .1. l.a".....,. ~ <). ~")~D
1'001 _, CUptlY-t I no M.ayot" .....0 eom.c-i 1_....
l)ro..1_ B . r-J~~
. l..,.,..l \I"~~"
Th. .ttov. .ilf"Wd Authot"'ts 0", t'h.-. pt""J......-y .......g......-nt _._inat
~llo-t M.e.u...... T.t t.,... 0..,...,.1 Elec1:ion"o M- h-.ld Ot't T.....o.y,
~'....~ &. 1998 .:in Sante CI..... County, h......-by .tat.. that attetJ.,
_rvu"..,..,t. ja 'tht. end c..:.-I ~ .-ct to tn.. ~t Q' th..J,... knowledge- .......
botH...,.
--
"- ,~I :-
"....-.
c.
J~pI-t F. Dl'C...41.
'. '-. -'2CIt985 I3oPp~'" T':";"'" LA.,,,,
"Cu~lnc:i CA 9~1'"
"'--. .-", "."
'.,
.~
.,",
Alv!" R. C.rt:-er
:.c'2247C1t ....:I.~
""'Cup&Pri::lriO CA 950:14
".: };.: ,-, '.' ','I',~. : ..'
"'i.,
"
...."a'.... :.'
"1"_.,
Dooneld A. F."<:>llen
f,~,;', """22276':" H.rrt:iiraTi~IDr'
"~"Cu~l.rio C_,95824 ..
."";)-!"\." "
'"",',.
.' ~.
,;'(~,:~
..t', I .~ '-lI'"GL ") :~:.i.')>f
\.',,'..> ,:\,:\ l.'ht""-:}jt.c~,l:'
,'! ".;,:(1 ..'<11 t f.J;").:I~'
"Jr_
-..f....
;:..,
::v~
'".',1;;~
":' .~.
~.".."!Y'!ltt.~ ~I.I r',~:~~I;,i
'-' t\ ~.. ~..h~."':-"<It~:t1..
JI..,jl'11t.... 'O..lJlt.~6t"1~,~'~->
~!>....
~.l'''''-'
Hiek J.. L.zaneo
:18132 Sotith 91."'"Y AVA'
C.. poori: :I roo CA geJCIt J-+
-1.:.'~ .M ",-,t.' ~~~M ,tw-;.-.< ','r:'~
.....':,.:-tl- ,?,\dJ p-f'rlKJ<"o KI'lo1 \j.; III
'.
#.(,',..-.!
<>;
:'-t.'"
" ".-'
'.',"
,.,....
0.;1
;;:t.'\/':.'....
'4"" , w. ,.",,;,", .J!? , ~i . "
: ~ " { H; "~ '-",. '.,;~ : .' : , .- ..- .. .~,,~ . ~'.:1 ~~
~!; ~r,.... .""1> ~
'-'M,..,.. m ,'!..t.. .....c.1t
~ "..')\~:"
1,!l.... .,-t:;'~.,t t.,-,".".,,},;, ;'".,,, ~~n.L~ ,.....,"'...... ':'-:-"". ~ (: I
"::'./ """.,....."'"...1
..~.....
~~ tlJOt1z1l, ~.J~,:,)~,~(
,. .hu~~'(~~>~~
El..nor CE11y> M. u., ._,
28e76 L. Rod. C~
Cu~ino 941814 ('-1.. :....~;':.i.,-Jf.....: :"'-11
~("'fto-.,,, ...~~.D3oe...phf.,.., ".1" ~p """IJ~r-: ~'-~\"'f
''-I2e!NISI~~~TPWV C.hof'V' ','nr..<
Cupef"1<h>o CA 9MJ...
."""1"0.1.,...... "(Ct."i~,oe~ r'lf"'1't\~...:Jc)"lr.r:.. !:r-. ~-:)....q~l &1"''":':"0 b...o'"t';:.-nt
~~ M~ '(::::;:A't~--=~O _./'~11:'''':'11~ :nl.lc'. ,c>,';r ~"':\'il':J ....'('>
f CUp.....U..... CA geJCItJ~
~,l.,"Bt'!j,'l.I\..>"l.la:o..'td.t'l1Wl" p,..;,1,]~ rt~f!" !'.i I ., tu :'~l .~ .11,1,; ,'. ,)~-,l"; ! '1!\('1\;> t p'.lr..
.. . -, "'il-' ....-...... . ,
_~ ..~-;lo... "'--.-rw ~ ....__".~ ". I.... .1~ c t '.~,;~l'.-
.!; ,....1 tU>7C~jftd"\'CM~J:~L ~ ( ., ,".1'':-.1
"
';"Iii'..fi
\~ 10
.;:,>rtw
_~~\ ,et.' ~Q 1:1-1'.'
~ :.
...,:~
.~ J' ,.~,..... .).-, t
1'~~
.~'l' .l~
.~'."q
~n:~
~ ,-, '
.,::
L' ':.,.i,..
~j,~ ~
NllC'k J. 1...........
2.132 Sou"" 1l1...,..PAW" ':f'. ,"'!.'::,,' ""'.:1
" Cu_t-I.no CA 91i!HU-+
~.>..D:)('t'i''\ gnt""(t..l'1 ..b-/PIQqL; .1!b!":C"Y'I~ J ~,,-;""'\':'L' <l:'.....':''":
f. .'I'.I(;.y.~:}
,
.....
~,"1. .~{ I:O:~
,,-,d'
......".lCf'..,:<.. ;"', :.'.1:
..>\_,.~21~.~"~C;. ,~~ \\~;
;'.;<,....l: j"'jo~;~(>.j ,::'1'"
.',
" t, ,- ~
'~':\~;::\.;:~ ::~
.iJ.
-. j" 1. i..... ~. ,
,,"',......_I.{i
'~ M','."
\..
. -' .) '}.,',. {\ ~.< l.J
._,-')0 -,:: .:" 1~f"\ :l.~ ,~,'-i
,
.1"1.
. "..... .'~-
.,.,'}...,-,;....
"" ,';
",'" 4 $"!~';;
.j-:i
"l,
,-II,.
.~.,.v.-: ..'
b,-,,, -j/';"-,:a-.M
"
."/."
, t!:
! ',~' J '._
0\ ...~ ~
',;,).
'U~\;'. ~ ~. "':
~.::.~..,.,:t~.
"'lltT
,'''--,
,I. ..,', _.'.
~ ,"Ir'. oj ..... _{ ,,, :; .-..
'~'G '.~'~ ,{ 'W'C........;
'.,;,:.
'-"",...
'(..I ~" " '., .
"'I; .....:~ j
. '1' , ,', ~_1
~ ,..,
.....,-''':; 9If.'t :1".. .;:"....~,'.'fr...(.."'" ~ull.c.o
(,,1,'n.r~ 1"11 f/.('(' 1 ,,_J ''J"O.<i1P!t',I,.)lilt:
":.}<""';";'.' t"i'fl'J. ..,l:...,j .~J 11"'t1tMJJ~'lb
.\",,;.. i."!Id
,- '.. , ~ '
~ '<' ~',,~, "
. ' ,.. ~
;1,;
':--'-..... -~-. ~. '. . ;"~.' '~-, .~: ,-~'-.-.,~ ..
:' -... ". . '. ....... ~.,. '. .........
..... , ----~.' :' . ....~ .:'~"> .~,. .:", :;....:.~< ~-::..f "~ >:~. .', . ~',:
<~~.>.:
'.' .... ~".
"."
~>?if',~.~',j ';)>;~'1t~: ":,:.\,,,.
.....
. "
. .
September 4, 1990
Dorothy Cornelius
city Clerk, City of cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Measure "T" Ballot oooosition
Dear Ms. Cornelius:
The undersigned was a signer of the ballot argument opposing
Measure "T" on the November 6, 1990, cupertino ballot.
After reviewing the statements included in that ballot
argument and checking the facts, r believe that there are false
or misleading statements therein.
Among other things, r have noted the following matters which
r now believe are either false o~ misleading:
Paragraph 1 -
r do not believe th~t the sum of $63 Million
is or will be involved.
Paragraph 4 -
I do not believe that this is a blank check
utility tax which opens the door to increases
without a vote..
r do not believe that homeowners who make
major changes in their home are assessed a
parks fee of $15,750.00.
Paragraph 10- I do not believe that cupertino will spend
$1,300,000.00 per acre for the lands involved
in this program.
Paragraph 7 -
r, therefore, wiSh to withdraw my name from the ballot
argument and I request that you take whatever steps are
necessary to have my name withdrawn from all election materials.
Yours very truly,
~f2!}O 'J,~'
Donald A. Frolich
DAF/csc
" C>kt2T} lVa Rc&j.j)vJr SiN cff 1-00/.
+-\ t \ A-M I 1I~" ~l L-o I CVTt:. c
- ~ W ThtS ~6i>~Ty :I:.'&Gor-l1JG' A-
\i);:: MAVl:(' Au!)..J.Nt S [..ooKeb -4-Cti?..
C:PA-~I( vV~l?:'v""ATL '1 C+<.JL,'1 I;) 2..016'"
,
I (11) fJJ( (7'-5" ,(- lQ:>R.'1 G~ 11>-134- 10 J)(wa-eP ;4 Ke:A-L. 1>/fJ?L< LX...,~
A- ,R..A-1L -A' }'J~-!tv iT" A'V..D ?'K.6S:rnz v/JlC;; A- cj2.~Jl. M- ~ s~r-I7HG-.
~ tl t'-# ~ .1 f t s> Te Il. f<t 'r ~l!t- ~.,: L-7 I"I/)r '"N c... .4 3' ~ 0~ 5 \t..-;Tl=(-- A-
~ ~C ~e. A ;-: ...",1 A-L ::f>;( 1{ K ~ u~...., \' tJG
~,'0 c 4- -::p,'c. tJ IC- ZV~../6JaS 5 ";;1-1..1> us.iU r.;;
~t... ~ ~ =VkGs't-J 1) A-1J :t> 1'"' .irK. iL.' rJG
UU~'r 7(3 Sv~~.
l U..JlL.t.. 'f-S-=-'r U<b.~ -r\(~ ~~L If= ~S ~~ T~-GiLlrY G~ wJ,
~<L us. 'J>o~ We;. ~e- \~cu\c..... ~-t. A..sc....~ ~u~ u:esS ~A&~ p
~CA-us.e- p:r;;: ~ '1)~w~~G A-P""1> ~e- C\Z.o~~3.
v1'"' f'1,ut:4( oF ~ -A.-~
( 3 TV oT fff~ 1"l..A-1-J I
-ko~ ( t OJDU~ to'>";JoYIki< ~.+ILk. l't" I, 1lJA& A- 1-....01<.. ~4'ru~
4>Lk-~ .
~~~ $.frJs ~~ c:.n A- t.o '\ of ~~~ LJ.1~ -:l> U L-
- I ~ ,- 0 T \.Yt"GI2.A-De:
\\\i. 3. '1.v<:;':'1J'eS"S \ JlEi \J ""1-0 't' A- ....l\'<" (.) ~A- L ~ Mt- \,( ".., ~:D .
""'T\{ A- ~ K.. You
/H/{E FILe;
/ oJ;. 00 t:;; /I- L-? I JJe .::he
Cu Pe-lZi- / jJ 0
?fri ~
c- c-l & - Z-D--Gt;,
f!-ecerueJ off~(
de,vn luaS -h n15t1f20
Kimberly Smith
cc 1(P-20.-0~
8 (! ei V t: d ~ at.-{ er }+e_~
.Wa -s {, n {site _d._.___________
Page 1 of 1
.
From: David J. Scionti [davidscionti@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 20066:05 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written communications- EIR Blackberry Farml Stevens Creek Corridor
To Council and staff,
There have been many contradictions concerning the BBF/Corridor project from the beginning. This latest
adventure takes the cake. I live directly across from the Retreat Center, and to say there isn't going to be an
impact on us during this re-invention of BBF is obscene_ The day to day activities of normal operations has put a
heavy impact on our household. As a direct result of park operations, my elderly mother had to be rushed to
emergency at EI Camino Hospital. The was not the first time. I tried without success to mitigate the ongoing
problem_ After being ignored after many occurrences, only to be rudely told by the director of parkslrecs, to " Take
city to court ",and that even so much as putting up a little sign saying to II Please do not use blowers on this
section of driveway" was not going to happen ,demonstrated the unwillingness to show any concern for the
health, safety, and welfare of my mother, or any of it's
citizens
As far as this project proceeding as planned, it would behoove you to take a good long look at the proximity of the
residences, to the planned trucking route_ Twice a day, traffic generated from school drop off and pick-up, is
routinely backed up to the East pass Stelling road. How will this be negotiated. These trucks must exit the park
North on to Stevens Creek Blvd. If this is not financially possible, then you have no business taking on such a
task.
The wind blows from North to South. From BBF to our homes. No amount of watering of the construction site
will mitigate the dust that will be generated from excavation and trucking activities. I am 5th generation
construction, so don't insult me by saying it can be done.
The ground squirrel problem that exists at BB,F spilled over into our property some years ago. The damage
to our property from this rodents digging has cost us many ours of labor. The under-mining of our piers and
foundations is fast approaching structural damage. The displacement of these rodents from BBF to adjacent
homes caused by the loss of their present habitat from construction activities will be explosive.
Since when does the health and welfare of a fish take precedence over human life.
David Scionti
6/20/2006
I.
rJJ '"d t:
0 rJJ Q)
ro .s <+-0 .t:: ro 0..
Q) E -B -B 0 .... Q) ..t: 0
-B .s .fi t: c2 0.. ........ on
'"d ro .fi .9 0 ~ ro .u .s
>. I.I... Q)
Q) ..... .~ ....- t: ..t:
.D :> '"d t: ....- .... .....
rJJ :E c2 ::l ..... ::l
e t: Q) 0
'"d ..... 0 0 <+-0 .~
Q) ...:2 rJJ 0.. t: >. U 0 .....
..... 0. Q) .m .s <+-0 :s ---- rJJ
(/) 0.. 0. .D Q) t: 0 rJJ 0 t: t:
0 ro ~ t) 5 .9 0
~ '"d t) ro 0 Q) rJJ t: U t)
Q) ro 0. t) Q) 0 .!:::l ....-
ro .D ..t: ....- ~ "r
(i5 rJJ .~ ..... ~ a ....-
~ 0 0 .u Q) 0.. .~
t: ---- -B a
.s 0\ <+-0 Q) ::5 N ..... Q) .... :.E
(/) 0 0. ro ..t: ....- 0
t:: 0\ '"d 0 c-.
~ 0 .u x ....- ro t) .u Q)
Q) t: 1a <+-0 .2 -B
0.. .9 .... c.fS ro 0 Q) c.fS t)
~ r- Q) t:
::l 0\ ....- Q) ~ rJJ as -B
..t: ---- ro
~ U ....- ro t: Q) ~ "@
t: ....- t) .... .s
rJJ 0 .9 rJJ <B '"d ~ 0..
<+-0 ::l ro .u 0 "E
Q) <+-0 ....- 0. .S: ::l .u
0 0 on rJJ 0 ro rJJ x ~ t:
>. ::l ~ Q) e rJJ .2 0
Q) N .9 rJJ
~ .~ ~ t: .... t: ro
.9 t) Q) ~ '-' ....- 0.. ::l Q)
U t: ~ 0.. ....- 0.. 0 a -B
E- o '"d ....- 0 Q) t: a 00 ....-
Q) t: ro .~ rJJ Q) .... .s
0:::: ..t: 0 ro t: Q) ::l 2 Q) ro C .s
....- .s ::0 -B >. x Q) ro ro
<+-0 t: Q) Q) >. '"d
~ rJJ ::l ~ 0.. Q) rJJ t::
0 t:: .g <+-0 Q)
~ Q) 0.. 0 t: ---- a'3 Q) .D
.q- Q) .... rJJ II") t)
0.. .m 0.. <+-0 ....- -B ro N t) .t::
M 0 Q) ::l Q) <+-0
II") ::l .:; t: rJJ '"d 0 '-' t: 0 t)
u U t: ::l Q) ....- Q) rJJ
0' ro t: ~ ....- t: Q)
.9 :> t:
0 <+-0 t) t: .~ 0 '"d t) t+:: .9 .9 '"d
~ 0 ro .9 ....- ::0 ..t: S Q) ....- b
Z t) 0. :E' I ....-
0 0 Q) ....- g >. t) ro
Q) ..t: .m ::l Q) ..t: ::l ....- ro t: ~
>-< t) u ....- .:; 0.. Q) rJJ t:
---- rJJ ....- e '-' Q) "@ Q) Q)
t: t: '"d ~ a'3 t:
E- ro Q) - 0"' 0 t: '"d rJJ on
.s -B Q) t) t) ro t: <B Q) ~ .... Q)
........ ro t) 0.. on
U "E <+-0 N Q) t: ro .E "E
0 .t:: Q) -B .9 rJJ '"d ] '"d .~
0 0 -B ro t: Q) t:
........ ..t: ~ 01) ro Q) t) ro
.u '"d rJJ X :s :=:
........ ....- ; 0
"@ ::l t: t: t)~ g Q) t:
t: ro ro ~ .9 .u
..t: ::l Q) .E B Q)
en 0 0 0 rJJ ..... ..t: ....- c.fS
U ....- Q) t) "E ....- ....- ....- .m
.... U .... Q) ::l 0 t: .:; Q)
~ .f' Q) 0.. Q) Q) '"d t: Q) t)
"E Q) Q) t) .e;a ~ 0' ro
U -B -B t: X <+-0 .s t) 0..
0 ro Q) rJJ 0 ro rJJ
II
~4
C[; I
~
r;;J
~
I
C~ _.
~C
~
I
~
~
0) ~
s
.~ \0
~'""O 0
000) 0
.~ ~ C'l
~ .~
C'd 0) ~
~ ;>
~ C'd
0) ~ @
0)
~ r:n
U C'd C'd
0) ~ ~
~
~
~;:)
._,
--,
--,
:1.,
--,
--,
'--,
--,
---,
-11
,----,
I
---,
-.-1
lJ
~--,
--,
.......-,
--.
lJ
lJ
~
::!-l
I---='
~ l~I'
~~ iJ
~
Iil
~ () .'
~ - ..'
~i ,*'1
"~f
3 . ~
~I
I/IlJ'J
()
~ IlifF.
'~) ~."
> M~ . , '
~
~
~ iii ~ 2
::J ~ t> 0
~ ij ~ ~
~ ~ .;~~~
>=i. 0 ~~O!ij
~ .. ~ ~.. ffi ffi ~ t; .
~15f.~~~1lli'l53
~ I~ i ~ 0 J~ \ \
. .
.....-,,... -
~\ -. \ - - .
-~:::::;==
. --- <:.
/-' . .:~. ..
; -',
:,' ......
t'.;"...
\
, ,
o. "..
. ,
I /
I I
[ '.J
. 1 '-------..
! . ~ - ~-----~]
I I
I
t'l
"
I .
~
e
, ,
, ,
. .'
I', .
I I
, \
....,
'... . ~ ~
,'; .
I
I I
~
~
i
.'" '.i-
f!'
"II
,." U\',.,
'''. I.
' . ..
' .' , · I
" c:t=-=' '.
' , " " ~sJl
". :' ,,'..~
. '- ,. 'f/)
· !\ "0..
h~~I~ _""~: ~/ ~
aU~ ti . "" : ':,. ,,-. '-; /,
-":'~"" 'r<'
" 1 ,
"-. "'~, .
. , .".) ,\>
<> '. "
'r :d ,.
~, Qh 'l'i', "
~ .. ~ . ,,~~ . .
'-WIIJ.:' 7~: 'lfl <' '"
" ", ,.1.1"
'. .
." '. .
/ ~ - ~.- ~ . .' .'.
' I ....~'- .......... . 'h
'" '\ \ . "
.(,'
. .
/ / i,t
. /')
,//' .' (' /
- ..\..... J
.. .-.-.
o
\~
\\
\
\
. \
r
-=:J
" .1 \ "
I .'
.....
,
I I
I I
I /
/'
,
-.-.
~.
,~
"-.
'0, .
, "
t i'
.....
....
o
. .
'.. .
0
Irl i
I
@
J Irl ~
@)
~
I
I
o
o
~;:)
~;:)
lJ
lJ
=1
~
::L,
---1
-.,
~1
-,
'"L "'L. 1
::!-l
......--...
o
-z
co
:+:::i~
. - -........
.ECJ)
-
C '--""
coc
o
-c --
O).+-oJ
L.. co
co L..
a..~
0) t.)
L.. 0)
a.. 0
en 0)
co >
..c --
.+-oJ -
ocoE
.~ ~ co
tz 0,
~-o e
::J0)a..
<..)roO)
L..
'+- 0)--
o -- .+-oJ
~ C
~~ 0)
- - -........
<..) ~O)
0)-0:5
..c2c
I-CJ)O
~
~Il
0)
L.. -0)
'" 0) C C
,"u...c 0) --
.+-oJ .+-oJ .+-oJ
CO) ~ E -~
,"u c ><
E :5 0 0)
c 0 _:: 0
Oen>.+-oJ
_: c en
>-00)0)
cO)O) 0)
0) -~...c c
= E.+-oJ co
co -- 0 ...c
.+-oJ C.+-oJ t.)
co--
.c E.$ ~
..f-oJ L.. U C
~ o~ 0
c-o 0) en
0) O).+-oJ 2
E :2 c co
::JOCO~
g ~ :~ ~
-OO)C 0)
o ...Q -~ 0
ZcenZen
~~g~oc
-........ -........
CJ)enO)CJ):+:::i
O)...Q -:.0
O)::J_ 0) C
.c en =-= .c 0
I:- -~ ~ I:- u
-.
...j1
.)..
I
:-;:)
~;:)
:LJ
~J
=1
~
::L,
- '1
-.,
~1
-
,
"'L '"L 1
::!-l
~
o
~ ~cen
~ c o~
U 0).- ~
0) E ro 0..
:5~ ~g>E
~ ~ ~"E ~
~ CO-c co
~ B E c_S:2
cO~co~
o)-c en en c
E <( ~ ~ "~
EO c:::J-
ow-co . ~ co
Q)u U ~ Q)-o
~ 0) 5 E .0
en..c U 0) >
0) ~ en u co
.~ 0)> 0) c =
'""""'""" C 1"1"'II: - -
c e -- -c ~
t+= 0.. -c -- ~
oc...E~~
Zco<:(co~
~gOcn~
U5tW~:S
-O)U:+::;en
O)o..O)uco
..c:::J..cCOO)
I-U I- o..E
7'"
...1. J
,
.
~ ...
en
--
..c
~
~
c u
0)0)
..c - --.
~o
~
.... 0..
-c
O)S-
>.p
eE
0.. S-
0..0
co~
en CO
-- 0..
~
C Q)
Q)..c
E+-'
:::J en
uCO
00)
-cc:
<(0)
oen
UJC
UCO
u
0)--=
..ccoco
~ > >
Q)oo
u S- S-
co..o..
O 0.. 0..
coco
I J I
~;:)
~;:)
:L,
2..,
=1
~
~
- 1
-.
~1
-,
"1... "1.. 1
::!-l
0) 0)
..c c
0) en........,+:::;
..c'--oc
........,~cO)
'- -- ro E
o en ... 0)
~50-
ro u ..c a..
- uE
a.. c __
roro,+-
Ci5 0:: ~ 0
en,- ~
ro 0) en u
~""""'roO)
.c:::::::en..c~
0) ro U 0)
..c~:::J0)
""""'Q)en...c:
en,.... ...........,
'- ~ ........,
CD I- u en
> CD 0)
O -~ N
U ~ e ~
........, .g a.. ro
53 -E 0) c
Eo:5~
:::J 0 '+- C
u~oO)
o Q) en E
-0 Q) 0) :::J
<( (3 ~ g _
Oen..c-oO
W c a.. <( ..c
OQ)O)Ou
> '- ro
~O)..awO)
1-U520O::
fo
-
-
0) -;:
en en
:::J --
ro ~
u -
<( ro
O-oc
w"Sro
O~<3
O)........,w
..c ro,,,
........,..c~
_c ;; ~
-0 ~ 0)
0) ro c
~~o
- c c
ro -_ ...
C Q) en
ro 0> 1:5
en C ro
roro~
........,..cE
u u __
0)........,-
--- 0 ro
ec"""'"
a.. en 53
0) 0) E
..coc
""""'-00
en ........ '-
ro c --
,.-.nO)>
c~ E 53
o :::J :>
-u;:>
en 0 0)
<(-oc
J J
-
~
'-
ro
en
en
0)
u
0)
c
0)
..c
~;:)
~;:)
l,
l,
=1
~
::L.,
- 1
-~
=="
,
L. "'L. 1
::!-l
+-'
C
(1)
too
0--
~ ~-~
(1)o::C
:: U::J
:Sce..
-- --
.fO (5 ~
-oc+-'
o en 0)
0-- c
0) -0 -c
::: c::J
coco-o
en "'-0
-- en (1)
+-,Q)>
c ::J--
(1) en (1)
Eenu
-- (1)
::J - '-
u CO en
o en+-' -
-0 ", C -0
"-L'(1)0
<( N E --
~ '-
O-E(1)
W co e..
o~8~
Q) co ..c .~
..c..c~>
.-+-'~~
r I
J
en
+-' 0)
C C
(1) -0 --
E- >
E::J 0
O~ c..
o en ~
o =-= +-'
+-,uco::J
enc(1)O
(1)::J~..c
enO CO co
cO E::
o ~ Q)
e.. +-' 0 +-'
en -- +-' co
(1)Oc..c
0:::(1)0(1)
...c:~-o
Q) +-' co -0 ·
:SOE(1)C
... E '- E (1)
O(1)~'-E
z ~ -~ ~ B
~ ~ ..c -~ 0
en co O)~-o
-U56::C<(
~Q)c~O
+-,..c(1)oW
..c+-'(1)enO
~-o>co
>CCO(1)(1)
> co..c ....'- ..c
.... +-'
".
.
0)
----1 c en
.- '"C
-., ~
a) c
~1 a) a) (.)
-, 4= E
"1... ,.. 1 c 0 -C
CO
2-, L- 0 C Z :::J -
0 0 .-
~ ~ Cl. (.)
CO .-
L- en -- 0 c
'--, 0 ~ en Cf) :::J
C ~
"t- .- - 0
=1 a) E '"C
-c en ~ c ()
0 ~ E co 0 ~
--, - ;::: 0 L- Cl.
Cl. 0 ~
---, a) () en ()
=1 Cl. a) L- a)
~ a) 0) 0 L- 0
,----, c ~ C "t- O C
a) ~ .-
-"--1 .- c '"C ~
E t::
l, E c 0 ~ a)
E E CO . ;::: ~
a) () Cl.
I 0 0 a.. Cl. :::J
---, U () ...c - ()
~ ~ a)
-, CO c ~
--, (.) 3: 3: en ~
---, - Q) Cf) a) c CO
..c E 0
---, :::J > C en c
. ;::: E ~ Cl. 0
=1 Cl. a) CO L- en
0:: 0 0 ~
::!-1 ~ a) (.) 3: a) CO
CO - ...c 0:: (.)
'"C CO (.) (.) ~ L- t+=
~ .-
~ I C a) t::
C> a) -C -C ~ a)
=1 (") :::J I- en
E :::J a.. CO ()
'--, I c Cl. N ~ <(
0 0 <( ~ ~
CO ::: a
l, M L-
> a '"C a) CO W
~ W I C
I 'J;:) ca c C> :::J C ()
W () .-
---, :E (") ---,
-1 ~;:) I I I I en I
. ~
-=l 000 c 0
l, 0 M 0 0 a) N
l, NZ ~ N M M E
2-, - (1)
--, -i:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E c::
c.. -- ca ca ca ca
- ---, =1 <~ :E :E :E :E 0 :::s
2-, (.) ...,
~ GD CID @ (fD
J;:) ::L, GO Gt)
~;:)
---,
--, ---,
:1..') --,
=-- -, ~
---,
:1..') ='
._, - -,
'J ;:) ~
:1..') ::)
,----,
---, '-1
---,
'-1 ,_{
""~
:1..') ::)
._,
._,
:1.. ') ~ ;:)
-=;. :1..')
~ ......,
---, - -,
-.
~ -1
-, --,
1 :) --,
:1..') =!
'-1 -....,
--,~
,-" --,
,-"
~ ;:) ::L,
:1..') ~
~;:) -1
~ -~
--,
- --, ,----,
--,~
-.., ~
---, -1
---, :!... '
,-1 - J
~ -~
:1..') :1..')
--, :1..'
_--, - J
~-I ~
-I -J
o
-+-'
05
o :;::;
oro
... '"-
~Q)
Ec..
00
'"- "+-
'+- 0
~c
~o
-- en
Uro
$Q)
u~
-- ~
[SetS
-- -c
c.. en _
- '"- '"-
_~ Q) rn
uenO,)
'"-~~
O,)ocn
Eo ~
E co rn
oo-c
U-+-'O
rn ~o
ro ~
O,)-cc
u -- __
~~rn
-cQ)E
0,) en 0,)
o:::~'"-
I' .
Il
, ,
---,
---,
,----,
~
-I
~
Q)
0,)
'"-
u
0,)
..c
-+-'
C)
c
o
-
rn
-+-'
ro
-+-'
--
...c
rn
..c
c
rn c
-c -cu
rn -
c..c..
-- -c
'"-0
-co
c,+=
co'"-
Eco
rn~
0,)1
'"- 0
000
I ~
C
-- Q)
O,)..c
'"- -+-'
oc
-+-' --
en ..c
0,) ~
0:::;:
( "'
-+-'
rn
-+-'
--
...c
rn
..c
-c
c
rn
-
-c
o
o
;:
~
rn
o
-c
c
rn
-
c..
::J
-+-'
C
0,)
U
rn
-~
-c
rn
0,)
u
c
rn
..c
c
W
, r
-
--
rn
'"-
-+-'
'"-
0,)
..c
-+-'
rn
0,)
;:
I
-
-
rn
-+-'
o
.p
o
o
(j)
...
lC)
rn
-+-'
u
::J
'"-
-+-'
en
c
o
()
-c
c
~
o
'"-
I
'"-
ro
Q)
~-
'"- u
o -+-'
'+- 0,)
en ...
O,)C)
:;::;c
- C :.s2
Q)_5:2
En
ro--
~c..
'-- ...
co :-=
c..~
-c-+-'
o ...
oen
..cE
'"- 0
00
...c '"-
-+-'
..cen
C) 0,)
-- '"-
Q)
C -+-' ...
-+-,0
o.
~-+-'
'"- 0
........ -+-'
C "--"
00,)
()~
~ "I I
J
L
'--
0,)
-+-'
C
0,)
U
C
o
--
-+-'
rn
u
::J
-c
Q)
-
rn
-+-'
c
(J.)
E
c
o
'"-
--
>
c
0,)
;:
0,)
c
rn
c..
o
-
Q)
>
Q)
o
.., I
~
I .
,
:1
~ ,:: I
~ .. I
I
I
~ ,I
J3
-
.
.
. -
- . .
-
-
.
, .
- .
.
I I
!'i
I I
~ ca , ~ I ~
- IrA
0>
--- ..., c: en
.- -0
-~ ..........
a> c:
~l a> a> c..:>
-
I 4= E
L. L:.l 0 -
co c: ..c
::!-1 "- a c: Z ::::::s -
0 .-
.- a ~ a. c..:>
..........
co .-
"- en -- a c:
'--, .p .......... en C/) ::::::s
c: ..........
::) a> E - a
-0
-0 en 4= c ()
a ~ E co a ~
--, -c a "- a.
a. 0 ..........
---, a> () --
en ()
::) a. a> "- a>
.......... a> 0> .p "- a
, ----, c .......... c a c
a> .......... .-
._, E c: -0 .......... t:::
:1-, E c a ~ a>
E E co .c ..........
a.
I a a> ()
a a... a. ::::::s
=\ c..:> () ..c - ()
.......... .......... a>
c..:> co c ..........
---, ~ ~ en ..........
-- a> c co
---, ..c a> 0> E 0
'---, .- c en c
::) ::::::s > -c E .:::s::. a. a
a. a> co "- en
a:: a a ..........
::!-1 ~ a> c..:> ~ a> co
co - ..c a:: c..:>
-0 co c..:> c..:> ~ "- '-+=
I .......... .-
~ c - a> t:::
0 - ..c
a> ..c -+-' a>
::) C") ::::::s I- en
E ::::::s a... co ()
I a.
'--, c ~ N ~ <(
<:) 0 <( ~
co ::: 0
:1-, M "-
-- a -0 a> co
~ > W I c: W
I :';:) ns c: 0 ::::::s c: ()
W () .-
---, :E C") -,
-1 :';:) I I I I en I
. -+-'
-=1 COo c <:)
:1-, <:) M <:) <:) a>
:1-, ~z ~ N M M E N
:1-, -i:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E (1)
---, c. -- ns ns ns ns s::
- ---, ::) <C~ :E :E :E :E 0 ~
:1-, c..:> ...,
~
~;:) ~ aD (jf) GD Gf) @ CID
~;:)
-11
---,
---,
,--,
-=1
---,
---,
,--,
""L~
Q)
o
:::l
"'C
Q)
'-
'-
o
"'C
--
o
>
co
o
..-
en
Q)
'-
:::l
en
co
Q)
E
0>
C
--
3:
o
.p
Q)
...c
..-
en
c
--
co --
..- en
c ..-
00
OQ)
:1 ·
o Q) · -
Z ..- ..
~c -
...c 0>000
J- -en
,
. I I
~
~.
-)1
III
000
o
z
~ "'C -
__Q)en
Cf)enQ)
Q)o>
,.... c.. Q)
-,-0-
..- '- ..-
cc..c
Q)co
"'C ...c - 0
Q)..-~
"'CEc
:::l 0>
- 0--
o '- en
c'+-C
-- en--
en ..- 0
Q)o..-
,-co"'C
:::l c.. Q)
en E 0
co-- :::l
Q)..-"'C
E C Q)
co'-
c 0
0-- '-
__ ~ 0
-ro 5, "'C
0>-- Q)
:.;::Jen"'C
-E co -~
o-roco
c...c Q)
0"-..0
:.;::JQ)"'C
co'--
..-:::l:::l
c en 0
Q)c3:
EQ)..-
Q) "'C 0
Cl. :::l - ~
E 0 e
-3:Cl.
"..
II
-=1
:1..')
'-1
1... ')
:1..')
'--'
'--'
----.
-.,
:::-,
---,
---,
~-1
T--'
'-1
---,
--,
:1..')
'-1
::)
::L,
~;:)
~
::)
'-1
1... ')
~-1
"1."1.-,
---,
~-~
'-1
---,
--,
:1..')
---,
--,
--,
---,
--,
::)
".,
T--'
:=,
---,
--,
"I. "\. 1
.....
u .....
o ~
'~ ~
l-oc
0. ,_
en C
-;:: .~
-;::C/)
>-.~
..0 a
"'C..c
o .....
..... CI)
u CI)
,0 0
:t:......J
d 0
>-......
= CI1
d U
..... d
~ 0.
..... E
o ,-
c..o
o u
..0 :;j
"'C]
- l-o
::J l-o
o 0
~"'C
?; '0
o >
U d
..0::2
"'C ::J
o 0
~ ?;
U
~"'C
~ 0
'oJ CI)
CI) 0
l-o Co
.8 E
u Co
~ CI)
_ 0
d l-o
...., ~
~ CI)
o d
~ 0
S a
-
o ~
,:: 0
> ..;::
= d
o on
,-
o .....
~ ,-
~~
.e
-
~
=
0'
...
.-
<
D
~
r.. ~
= ~
.... CJ
- r..
= =
CJ 0
-:: ~
t=.L~
<c::::
D
~
-
.-
...
r71
-
~
t=.L
o
-
o
:J
c.;
D
~
~
t:
-
-
o
:r.
~
c::::
-
~
.
-
=
....
-
=
u
II
t=.L
=
,-
=
=
~
::
-
~
:r.
-
~
=
~
..J
II
.
-
~
....
~
,
,
-
;0....
t=.L
-
- .
- ~.
- .....
':'" .-
- -
~ ~
~. =
=0'
II
~
=
.-
~
=
o
:c
-
=
o
.-
....
~
-
=
~
o
c..
D
<..I
~
'0
z
D
CJ
E
~
r..
E-
-
=
o
.-
....
~
....
...
-
C.
tI:l
=
~
r..
E-
=
...
-
.-
....
~
:J
r..
CJ
~
c::::
D
~
CJ
=
~
CJ
t::
.-
=
t=.L
~
..
-
-
~
OJ)
=
.-
~
=
~
c
-
-
....
~
~
=
~
~
D
D
(IJ
Cool
.-
....
~
.c:
....
~
~
<
D
~
~
Cool
r...
=
-
-
~
~
c::::
-
:=
CJ
'5i3
o
-
-
-
.-
=
II
~
=
...
-
"2
~
!'..;
-
...
-
-
,..:,J
~ :I';
~-
~ :=
r... .~
- ~
N ....
~~
=~
II
tI:l
~
CJ
...
=
...
-
~
~
c::::
-
=
.
-
~
=
.-
::;
D
rn
~
CJ
,-
E:
~
~
Cool
,-
:E
=
".
-
D
~
CJ
.-
f:
:oJ
rJ)
-
~ ~
,:= e
.':: ~
--;;
'.c ~
::J~
D
---,
---,
,----,
---,
- ---,
.-1
,~
=:-,
-I
~;:)
:1-,
,----,
l-,
:1..,
~
J;:)
~;:)
----,
-1
- "'---1
---,
-.-1
--1
'J;:)
I
---,
-.-1
,----,
l-,
:1-,
~
J;:)
co
0)
"-
CO
~
U
0)
-~
o
"-
C-
O)
..c
~
c
~
=1
-=1
,----,
~
~
=1
::!-1
:1-,
---,
- ---,
-"'---1
-c
c
~
~
en
0)
--
U
0)
c..
en
en
-
CO
E
--
CL.()
COO
enO
~N
~ '"C
~ C
en CO
ro~
-- 0
Uo
~N
U) C
--
L'
dr
en
~
0)
2:
~
en
u
--
~
o
--
..c
o
~
,)
,
. ~ . ~ I
:-1 ~~
4 ~~
~J
i ·
ODD
I ~
~~
~ ~I-
- -I
- -
~;:) I~-
: ~ . ~
:1-, ~
:L,
i~ j~l~
~
----, :f
-1
=1
~;:)
l, - 41 ~
~--, ~4I J
--,
I ~J
---,
-.-1
:L, C
,----, ~ 41 0
-11 ~I --
........- ........-
u CO
=1 CO C)
I c... ........-
=1 E ~
, ----, ..... ..
'='=1 r { I I
J I
~
~;:)
:1-, ~
2..,
; i
~
----,
-1
=1
:';:) i
:1-,
~--,
--,
I
---,
-.-1
2.., . . ~ . .
,----, C'-I c
-11 -+-J ~ 0
U --
=1 -+-J
CO CO
I c.. ~ 0>
=1 E --
-+-J
--
,----, ~
~=l ...
I . }.
~
~;:)
:1-,
l... ,
~
----,
-1
=1
];:)
:1-,
~--,
--,
I
-.-{
l... ,
,----,
-11
=1
I
=1
,---,
-='=1
I=-
~
t
. .
('I')
.......
U _
~~
E
, '
L
. .
c
o
--
.......
CO
C')
.......
~
~
i
II
~,
~
c
i
I
~
II~
~;:) .
I~
:1-, ~
::L, ~
~
----, ~
-1
=1 I
~;:)
:1-, I
~--, ~
--,
I I
---,
-.-1
::L, . . ~ . .
,--, ~ C .~
-11 ~ I 0
(.) . -- III
=1 .........
CO 41 CO
I c.. 0)
=1 E --
~
--
, ----, ~
'='=1 ."Pt
7'
""' I. J ~ i r I
~
~;:) 14
:1-, I
:LJ
~ i
--,
-1
=1 ~
~;:)
:1-, -I
~--,
--,
I
---, ~
-.-1
:L, - -
,----, l.C) c
-11 ........ 0
U --
=1 ........
CO CO
I c... en
=1 E --
........
--
,--, ~
'='=1 ~ I
" I "11- J
.
~
~
~;:) I
:1-, ri!J
2..,
~.
~ I
----,
-1
=1
~;:) I
:1-,
~--,
--, J ~.,;
I
---, Ii
.-1
2..,
- .
,-, CD c
-11 -+-J ! 0
u --
=1 -+-J
CO CO
I C- O>
=1 E --
-+-J
--
,----, - ~
:'=1 r" I 1
I L'
I'
:';:)
:1-,
:!.... ,
~
----,
-1
=1
~;:)
:1-,
~--,
--,
I
---,
-.-1
:!.... ,
,----,
-11
=1
I
=1
,-,
'='=1
- -
I"-
ii-
E
''1 '
......
i
II
~i
~I
'~
-
~
I
~
I ~
Ii
c ~ ·
.~ J : ~
C'> - - 41
__ 41
........,
~ 0 0
~r
\"
:1
-I
~)
;~
-
.-1
.--,
---,
:1-,
.--,
---,
'--,
:1-,
2-,
---,
.-1
I
:=1,
:1-,
~
~
I
---,
.-1
::::-,
=1
--,
---,
'---,
:1-,
~
:1-,
l,
~
~
.
- 1"1 -~ -
- r-'I -~ ::: I' 1 - "-
r- I - :Ie
-
-
-
:;.,
..
~ =
:::: :;.,
:;., .- -
- ".J - -;- - I". - - -,
:.. - -
- '.1'.
.r.
:;.,
t
:..
..
- r- 1 'r, J.. -
- - r- 1 - I",
/... - -' -,
-
"""':
..... ;...
".J :-.
:... :-
,. ;,; . J :... :-
t: ::::: ..:... ,- :.;
::::: 'f.
..... ~. -.;
- ~I
- ' J ". - .... ::'J
'.J - -..J = .-
..L. ...,
- - - ...,
-J ~ - ~ :... ~ ...t:: -
'.J ....J ~ ;.) ~ -=
- ,,- ;.; ; ; ....J
./, ....... ..--
'..J -.; -.; -.; .::; ,,-
:f '.J
~
~;:) ~ 41
:1-,
2..,
~ . .
----, en
-1 Q)
=1 '-
::J
~;:) en
:1-, co
Q)
~--, E
--,
I - - C
---, co 0
.... -1 wf-" --
~ wf-"
U co
==l co ~ 0)
c.. --
--1 wf-"
I E ~
--, -
-1 ....
::!-1 , 11 \
~.~
~ - ~ :, ~
D D D
~ ~
~
I & r:J
~il
0 1~6 i
0
~
I
~
i
I!i)
:1-, :. I i
t~
--1 I ~ I
~;:)
---,
-.-1 t
=-.
-I
:W;:)
--,
-1
=1
I
-1 Ii
~ ~i
---,
-.-1
7'1 .t;
---,
-.-1 1 ii ~
I
--,
-=l i
---, ~ .
--, ~ -
---,
-.-1
~;:) . . C
0) 0
-=l .-
~ '+-'
0 CO ~
~ CO 0>
---, c.. .........
-.-1 E
7'1 ~
---, -
-.-1 ... ,....
I I, II....
,- -,
~
---1
,----,
I
---,
-.-1
---,
-1
=:'1
,
~
:1-,
-"--1
---,
-.-1
-
-.
-I
~
~
-11
=1
I
=1
~
-=1
~
- I
I
~
~
;1
~I
41
j~
-
~
~t
f#3t
~~ -I~
Iffil 4' ~ ~ ~
J3 I~~
~ il c : ~ I
-+--II 0
(.) :;J ~ -
~..Ig~'~
E .- ~ ~
~
I ·
I
.
I
I
-11
---,
--,
,----,
---,
--,
---,
---,
---,
-.-1
I
~
~
:1-,
1~'
.. /- /
::::)
-=l
--,
--,
---,
-.-1
-1
~
imt
~ ~ 4
il.
E
f .fl
. ~
c
o
--
+-J
CO
C')
--
+-J
--
~
, ,
.1 ....
~~
~~~
114
~
~
~c[;
~
~
Of} (]) rn
o rn .~
.~ ~ 0
~~~fr~
o ~ ~ ~.~
(]).~ b1 ~ ~
S~ (]) (]) ~
dJ:;J~,..o~
~~~~.s
o ~ 0 0
() (]).~ . (])
]~~~S
~d~OO
~ ~ .00 0
o 0 ~.~ ~
~ ~ .~ ~'>
O~>~O
cd (]) (]) (])
~ ~ 0 (])
~.2: (]) Of} ~
(]) ,..0 · 00 ~
()~(])~
~ ~ 0
~ .
o 0
Of}
rn .~
~ rn
() (])
~~
S (])
. ~ ,..0
~
(]) Of}
~ 0
.~
E~
cd (])
..e s
cd (])
>~
(]) ~
o S
~ .~
en
(]) (])
-- -C
'+- (])
-- ......
~
co c C -0
- -- -- co
U -0 "'C E
en (]) en (])
...... ...... -- ...... c
~;:) c - en -
(]) ::::J ~ ::J (])
.-1 E en - en (])
--, 0 (]) co (]) ..c
---, E z ~ c ~
:1-, en co en (])
0 ~ >
---, ...... - ......
---, () --- C co c co
'---, en (]) ...... (]) ..c
---, 0 - E c E
--, ...... (]) en
'---, en Q) E E E Q)
=1 ..c ......
(]) ...... 0 c 0 u 0)
::!-1 en c u 0 u (]) c
c -~ co
-- ~ 0
=1 0-0 U -- U ...c::
-- > -- ~ U
c..c - - c..
.-1 ..c c ..c
en ::J ......
::::J (]) ::J (]) X
~;:) (]) 0 c.. ~ c.. ..c (])
:1-, O:::'+- ...... ......
<( c (]) (]) (]) 0 ~
~;:) 0 -C C ..c ...... 0
0 ...... ......
---, -- ~ en c
...... '+- '+-
--, LU co .p --
0 0 (]) E
=1 () E 0)
(]) (])
=\ ~ C -0 C C ~
(]) .p (]) co -
~;:) -C 0 (]) 0 ..c c
:1-, ~ c Z c Z u 0
--
" ". ~ ~
, ." ~
~--, I J " I I I
--, Il,.I ~
~;:)
~11
--,
---,
,--,
-=1
--,
---,
,----,
""LL...-,
en
c
--
cu --
~ en
c~
8~ i4
~ ~ ": I : - ~ I
~~Iiiiii
~ _~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q)
U
::J
"'C
Q)
L...
L...
o
"'C
--
o
>
cu
o
~
en
Q)
L...
::J
en
cu
Q)
E
0)
c
--
~
o
.p
Q)
...c:
~
,('"
o
z
~ "'C -
""'-.Q)en
~enQ)
Q)o>
...c: g- ~
~ L... ~
cc..c
Q) CU
"'C ...c: . u
Q)~~
"'CEc
::J 0)
- 0--
U L... en
c'+-C
-- en--
en ~ 0
Q)u~
L...cu"'C
::J c.. Q)
enEu
cu-- ::J
Q)~"'C
E c Q)
cu L...
C U
0-- L...
__ ~ 0
-roc"'C
0)-0) Q)
:+::ien"'C
-E cu -~
o-rocu
c..c: Q)
o~..c
:+::iQ)"'C
cuL...-
~::J::J
c en 0
Q)c~
EQ)+-J
Q) "'C U
- - Q)
c.. ::J - ---
EOo
-3:0..
~"
I
0)
c
--
-+oJ
en
--
><
Q)
o
-+oJ
en
Q)
0)
c ...--...
cut)
..c Q)
t.) -~
~e
- Cl..
C
0-0
en (J.)
Q) en
-+oJ 0
cu Cl..
:::l 0
- s.-
cu a.
> Q)
Q)..c
o e.,
Z en
~ c
___ 0
U) :;:::;
Q)-g
..c 0
I- (.)
~;:)
--11
--,
---,
,---,
-=1
--,
---,
, ----,
""L""--,
...
\ 11.1
-0
Q)
t+=
--
.........
C
Q) c
-0
-- 0
--
en -+oJ
......... cu
(.)0)
cu:;:::;
c.. --
E E
..c
Q) -+oJ
:5 ~
......... .........
cu c
..c cu
......... t.)
entt=
Q) c
.........0)
cu __
en en
o C
Z~
~-+oJ
___ en
U) en
- Q)
-
Q) Q)
..c s.-
~ cu
~
I I: J
-
-0
Q)
-+oJ
cu
s.-
o
a. s.-
O
t.)
C
--
en
Q)
s.-
:::l
, en
cu
Q)
,E
t
It.
. <<..~.. \. >A ... ~~
" ~",. " I . ~
;'..'~" ') ')~
~ .\ ,"', < r
, , t
, \ lffl ' I .' /
'1' \ 1~~ ~ l .
, I', '/' . ~ ,l, ~.,
I ~ .~~ , ~ ~';" l' J-l..
" I . I " J. . , II r ,i I
",' ; \ .... ,'J
, ,. . I 1 I .... ... 4
r ~~~)f ~~.
i,.J,1 ;/';.1
~. i, ... . I
I r -,'1 t ,
'. .\ 0 ',h'&
11 ) I ' ,.1 1\ . -. ... f
, ' , " , (, ~, too.f f(
~.'!: ' .(j.~' \ I \ r 1
\ \ .{~ , I.!:". 'AI \,. (, I
. ,J',1~ ' V I , '...!~~
f"li. I Ilt.a. #'!," :. '
. /\ I .If ~\~ (;1 '~L~ &, "1
\~tJ..... 'Jo ...~ . Jf,iaJ~iJ ~ .I~
.,~ . ,", ~. _ . '. \ I~ J
if' If I 1',:r~1 or}'; IJ~'~' .;111
t' \,~.\ ~~' '},," rw 1'..
~ ' I.. \( fit 1-' (
, ,. i .. (' } i ~ . r,).
.. 'f~~~; l' ~.'p't~~
. ' w \ ',) rr ~..L ~ f
~--=- \ r I ~.. [J
· ''''ri ~ ~~ ( , I \J \. .,.
~ tf~ l ' I') I" \~ t~ j~1
~ ~ \ 1 ~ \ .' t If',; ~
;' ,I. ~~" 1',,1'~t?; ~ 'l ~
~I' J'J.,' \,,~ ,t. i#. ; I~ ~I 'AI
]A.;;' ~,' "91\ · .i.' _.; ","':': 111'\. . \
) t \... J. 'it, ~ ,l L,t' 1" .., ~\
---I ~Uf..4.. "L it. _l,'.J _ . _ ._1.... ~''''. _ ...J
1
,I
:, ,
I
" \
\, >-"" '\
. . \ ..
1 \ ~l " . ,
\'\ ' ). ... .
t~~II'...-..~ ',\...\
~ ~~~ ~
11';; ,.~ ~ . ~ J
", ", . ~. j
.,.., \.. "....'~
l
It ~I;
,. ':
. '"~\. '1
..,....~. ,
t~ ...,~,:
.,'" ,
., lit<
: \l ~ ...
j '\ "'1'
~ .
. I. ,', "-
' - '. ' j, '!fI:/ .' "
' - ~ -Jl",,- .~ """ ~~
,,..., " , · - · '.;os
...~... ,~/~I -- I" ',01:< . , _ >-;". , ,~
4 '_. _'~. _ _, " " ...",.... .
· · '1, ',:-~. #j.....t~. '.. \ " .
r - ~ .' ,...,... ..........\
'*=f", -.. 'It ';- .' "1 ~~ ~
~'.... .....- ': -.-...10.. ,.~~"
' - ~ ;> ...... ..
l '1"1'-; ""\ .... '"... - . '" l' _).~ ~ '.
I I ... _.. ~ . \ ,,~ . _ ,
- - ~', .. ,... '\. \,.
' - -(. , "'t 't -:., t ~ .,' iii:I . . \
. ~!::.~-,'t~'...~, "~' '~fj~.~ 'r..... .\. ~,'~" ~'r
,. , ..: ..... ~ .. ~ > .. ..t' ,... , " 'l '''t. '1 . . ,'.
,. ,'... ....~ . ..' , '. , ",> "" 'I~\"''' '....... ...'
' .- " '.'1\...,;;,. '. ... ',_, . '~ ' " '.' .>,
"- ~'~'-'-'.' - " , .
.' .~-..., -.... -, · "'.. J. ",
r~ ".... ~ ! '''''''~'t' . ...... '~ ~ " . '<l..........~~...,\t ..~~ '''\', " , .. ",\_
'. "" "'. . .. ",' '" 1\ , , ,
. " . ~ .. ,.i~'- - 't, ....... 'S.' #"".i" c '"', ~ ,
",' ..~ . ~ ~.'a..:,.. '.'. ",....If' ~' ~'~ ~'\
.. 1;.:::.;.if!. ~I"~"" . '-: '... ~~ ' : ~~ I'..., "
I\. "'~ l!,:,~..:'" '''.:, 1..,..,~. ,"\"'''' i, ,~ '. \. ,
'~"-. .' ,7;..., '.... .~~ "';1; \.' ~.. ~ . ,
"\ , .. ~ "": ~"," . r "'" ~ ~~~~lJ " d~"'C 'J ~,..\ ~ .
l"'''' . ~~l;o;...."'lI ,.'.....:: \., .....1..,. \\0. , \;J
~ · · ,.','..- ,~ . ~ /,
\ " :: I....:. ~' '" ;...~l,j. .~,....: ~~, ~. ('~~.... .. , "
. l\ . .~, ". ~'~l"-. ~ "'iI'~~' ~ ,-1- 'oJ'
. i ~ '/'fer ~ 't ..,.:'.. ...,..,,'.... "; " iii ,~
" .' '\" , " · V ".... '... " " .
r.~,~.... .' "~L\. li~'~I~ ~,~ \'04~" . ,
. .~, '" '", ~~ ~'" >..., I
~ r, I' ~..Alti. '11!\ . l/.::...."':I....'" , .
r' :"'_'.1:,,"':1'': ~....~ ' , .....: '~~t'1o,'''' ~
'. ..... .-9'*....., , ,t\.''\ . '" \
.:.; ~~~ 't....: ~,~. ~:\' '~ I '
. , . ",... ", "'~.." ". "" ~ "I " , .' "
~ ~~:~ :;. ..' ;~ ~~ l"~ ' ;.~. ~V..\ ~ . (
,i.\:~..._ ~
' - , , ~"'~~ ...~''l
.1 ~
r ~ ~.'II~}',IJ? ~ , .
t_.~ ~,~~I l~,
, ~\ti" ~~,~~ "A . i"'~,~ ;"
~, ~.li. 'I.. ,'.lJ..'J .. I
.~~'~}:_.".:'1~~:' S !I
~~-41\~II~I'A~)I'~~Y~~#j;M, :,'1:i~,~ ~. · ~
t .......' ...' "', \ ~"'''1 ..i:l ~. Ii l' "1ii:S."',,"Jl~ ( ..'. '''', ,.. .
')~, ~')~~ ~~, ~'''!i~ ~f.,"1~ '. "i':;J'I'l} 't ')' .'?1t!?:-....--. _
-, '" · '.,1\ I:"~ l ~ ~ ~" . .,....,.. , ,/ ,"" _.-# _ ':'.F::!! ,
". ,:;0 L~, #, _, ~,I,. ....<< / .., ~ ~ _
1\'." 1.'.}\..~1.'.~.\11~. ,1.~~,~ ,":i/~~~i. ":J';;~'~::'''. . ,",. ,~~~~..~:;::;:
['1'1 " r". ~~ (/"'''/ ,~(. ; t - . 1., ~ ." \, ~,Jf..., ~,......::.-:::::..._
Jf' ..' ,~. 'ilol~., ',.' , "fj' '/. ... J ~
· t"-l.I t,.<l.........",....
.
"~
'. ,
..
,
1
"\.
/1.
~
,., '"""'-
-...,- -
. " ,)~~"" f. ~
..... ; 1 .4"4....
=- - '.-. ~
~, fl. ~
r;;;4:::J - . .... ..--:
l
I
I
,...... '..I
....
:;.~ I
,..
-\
" \.
'.. A
V~ ..
.
.. J
'"
l
'~t
"
JO
,....
--
~ -
rt
I~
ir: I. J
+--i I. I~
. .B
if
CI)
o
c::
CO
0-0
-- c::
5 CI)
- - .....
n.:(
E c::
.... 0
co --
u..1U
~~
.... CI)
CI) fn
.c CI)
~ct::
~ CI)
in ~
....
CI)
>
.(
co
C'I
Q (Q
C'I ~
C'I
~
~
co
~
C'I
.....
o
~ tJ)
Q) >.
.c co
Eo
:::s
z
+
g 0 ~
o
CV)
'0
~o
00
I.{) __
-- CV)
C'\I
.
~o
00
o I.{)__
--C'\I
C'\I
'0
~o
00
I.{) __
--C'\I
~
'0
~o
01.{)
o __
--~
~
.0
~o
00
I.{) ~--
o
o
I.{)
.
o
Q
o ~
~ C'\I
C'\I t--...
~ Q:)
C'\I CV)
C'\I ~
I.{) CV)
C'\I ~
~"'O
co c:
~ ~
Q) Q)
~ ~
. Ed
... s
r; ~
-~ ~ ~ ~ 1I
" ;t ;: ~,
fl E t~ ,~ ~ ~
~ II <c .- "
. l 2 .. '" .-
.~ ~ "
";> " .~: "- { 1 .. n .-
~ ~ ~ ~ t
~ ~ ~ Po
,", 'f' 0
... f " ... b , 'J .., " ~
..::- .i! .;; ~ ~
.. " ... ~ B ..
-: ,. ... '" ..;
\, '. u ~
0 E Ii!
if.
fII
c..
:i.
"
~.~
'l.
~
r,
'-'
~
:-::
="
"
.]
..J
..J
~
.,
? .~
~ ~;:.
II ..J~
b ... ~....-
~1i~
,... 'W" 0-: t:
') '. I,
_ P:.1 ~. r"
;;;=r; -:; ':
.
r
.,.
"i
t-:- ,..r .', '
\ Ci,..-)', 0
r.~, "I;~
~-- . ()
,,-' z
:'. >1<
~.,z
. L..-. ~
_~. i
--,~ .,
I(UJ - ~
Q<!l
t .Il~
,0
, ~..-J
//'1)::;
-?" (~co
lr
~
,...
-,
"
"'
'"
{:
~
i:
I.:-
..
... ..~.
~ if! ~ ~'
:-.:...",'~.;j"
,.:' -. eo 0 ~, ~~
~. " v ...... tH "
[~~~:5~
.....~ ~- ~ ~ ~
_ .::.. . _. 0
.: ~...: '\.~...... '-
:;; e ~ i~ u ~
;l .x .~ '': -e ('.
:; ~ t;...., t,1'i
"'~ ~~ ~-;:
..u -..J 'OJ' c., it
':' ~ ,:~ i ~ i!
-~"_'S"k;.t:
: l' ~ ~ 1i :::
~ C .: '~ ~8
i:' I !~ E t1 ,.1
~ .E'.t ~ ~ ~
,~. ~ :: ::. . '-
i]]]~~
t: ...- '1)" .0: ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
H~~~r)':;
.. E ;, -: i' r;
... r. - ..... u.r!
~ E~ rl.-;:
... 1.1 :..: t: .'
iC j::. ~ 11 ~
-r::~.I_ 5~
d
c .~
~ ~
: ~ E
:-e: ol,.: '.~.
- ~ I."
; :-. .L-
-, ...
;' ~.~
i.: p (.
-;: ~ ~
... E P-
i-.: .- ~
" <. S
<.z:"
;._7-
~' ~'~
'~~:r ~
.!. ~ 0
.,... 0 t.,
,~,i ~
..... ;:lo .
~ 'T'" '[....
~ ~p
,,-: " ~
.....+.::i~
.~ (., Co.
~ ~ ~~~
~g .
"":q ~
:r.c '':;>
/--
I
\
,
~
;;
..,
'"
"
"
-'
~ ~;
~ 0;:,
~ __""? -1..-
(_ ~,_ I .... :r '
.... ,,' '",",_, :l. I
........ .~ ",'" I i
::a~ -.... ,1< j ,
(T~';'-- ''5'.;
-r-i'", LJ..' ~.~
cr.' '. C ~,,~
- -~...,- . ."";...
.~
~
~
c
..
!
<.:
~.
y
"
r.
.:J
t,
-',
;;j
1J
-=
r
:>
~
]
"
"
;;;
~
...
'j
~
~
c
c
c ~
1~
i
~
o
~15
'(3 ;;
III 0.
0.0
Ill-o
Ua>
EIIlM
",1'CIe(
.5 ~,~
><a>-
III u. I'CI
:;; ~ E
o_.!!
Oc:-
COwe(
I
~g
'0 ~
~o
I'CI-o
Ua>
EIIlN
",Ille(
Em a>
,- Q) ~
>< Q) '"
III U. c:
:;; >....
o.b,S
oc:-
It>we(
00000
000 0
000 0
r-- LOa N
CO'<tN 10
C") ...... 10
000
000
..... 10 0
<X:l '<t N
C") ......
,g
E
E
~
e
~ ~
W ,~~ ~ 5i
=> III Ill:>
Z:;;;lDO()Q)
W u ~.~ a::
> 'E U .l!! ~ (ij
W ,2 ~ III "'-
a:: a.. U>C.) ~ ~
00000
000 0
000 0
COL() L()
.......M....... ,......
N C")
,~
E
E
~
~
~ ~
W ~ C
=> g ro ,~ ro !lI
Z:;;;lD ()al
W U'>< 'C a::
> ,- U al.s:: -
w,~~roS~
a::o..en()~~
00000
00000
00000
I.() <V 0""':<0
E ......NIO~lG
c: 'i
~~ a
~8lil ,~
:;l-o~ E
Q.Q)1Il E
'" III 0. ~~~
O"'E
eml'Cl.....
",a>Ue( a..
E.f;;~ ~~
')( :>0 '" ... W ~ E C
",bo "'=>,~ ro 0 ro!ll
:;;c:>Ez:;;;lDc:()al
ow:; S W U .>< 'C .s:: a::
o 0 0;;; ~ > '5 ~ .l!! S ~
It>z:> ~a:en~~~
=
~g
'0 ~
~o
"'-0
UQ)
o III
0'"
om
~a>
_ a>
c:u.
~~
'" c:
Uw
00000
000 0
000 0
1010(0 (0
0'<tC") <X:l
10 N .....
,~
E
E
ro
Q
e
a..
'" ~
W ~ c:
=> g ro ,~ ro !lI
z:;;;m ()al
W U ~ 'C a::
> '2 U .l!! ~ (ij
W ,2 ~ ro 0 (5
a:: a.. en():>, I-
000 0
000 0
000 0
000 N
C")IOCO .....
NN'<t
o
o
N
10
10
000 0
000 0
ciao N
MlOCO to-
NN'<t
'" '"
- Q)
~~'"
enJlJl~
WO/lO/l~
~lll~Jj
w -c: ......
o..roen(ij
r:J~~~
000
000
000
000
C") N 10
N N '<t
'" '"
~ .~
2?~",
(I)~~~
WO/lO/l91
en '" ll:: ,~
m,~ ~ W
o..roen(ij
r:J~~~
000
000
000
01010
C")C")(O
N N '<t
.!a ~
~~(I)
enJlJl~
WO/l0/l8
en '" ll:: .~
~ .~ J9 W
~~~~
weno..l-
000
000
000
01010
C") 0> N
N C") (0
'" '"
- Q)
"" ,-
Q)~
C '"
al ::> Q)
enlDen~
WO/lO/l91
~lll~tB
w 'C ..-
o...lllen(ij
i'i'lc?l~~
iii'
III
o
~
,.::
o
n.
c:
~
f!
a>
0.
o
0 00
0 00
0 00
'<t 0> on
...... CON
..... '<tN
00 0
00 0
'<t 0> on
...... <X:l N
.....'<t N
'"
~ Q) ~
C ~
~ ~ 0
&Jj n.
Q)
al al '"
I!? I!? ...
::> ::> '"
o 0 0
()() ()
,." ,." :0::
o 0 0
(9(9 C)
000
000
00 0
'<t 0> .n
......<X:lN
.....'<tN
'"
~~-
C ,.::
w !lI~e
en al><o..
a:: a::Wa>
:;:) alal",
0 I!?I!?'"
0 '" ::> '"
000
u. ()()O
...I ,.",.,,:0::
0 888
C)
000
000
00 0
'<to> on
......CON
.....'<tN
'"
~ al
c~~
~~e
Q)><o..
a::Wa>
Q) Q) r!
I!? I!? '"
'" '" 0
880
,.",.,,:0::
000
(9(9C)
000
000
00 0
'<t0l on
...... co N
.....'<tN
'"
~ al
C ~~
~ ~e
& ><0..
WQ)
al Q) III
I!? I!? ...
::> '" '"
0 00
() ()o
,." ,.,,:0::
8 00
C)C)
o
o
o
on
t::.
iii'
III
o
d-
iE
o
n.
c:
o
...
f!
CD
0.
o
o
o
o
.,;
o
~
iii'
III
o
~
,.::
o
...
a..
c:
o
..
f!
~
o
o
o
q
.....
<D
......
iii'
III
o
d-
iE
o
n.
c:
,2
E
CD
0.
o
00 0
00 0
00 0
(!) 0> ,.:
(0(0 en
NOl N
...... .
00 0
00 0
(!) Ol ,.:
(!) (0 '"
~'" t'l
......
en
iij~
en-
en O~
ww :::!a::
=>en I-W
zz -a..
ww u.o
>0.. 0...1
wx a::...I
a::w o..e(
...I ...J ...I:;;
~~ ~O
00 o a::
1-1- I-u.
00 0
00 0
00 0
en en 0
<X:l C") It>
o en ......
...... .
en en
z
0 iii~
~ en-
e( en O~
a::ww :::!a::
w::len I-W
O-zz -0-
Oww u.o
0>0.. 0...1
~~~ a::...I
O-e(
m...J...I ~~
:;;~~
000 o a::
01-1- I-u.
00 0
00 0
00 0
o 'OJ' <Ii
..... 10 ......
en en .
en
iii~
en-
en O~
ww :::!a::
=>en I-W
zz -0-
WW u.o
>0.. 0...1
~~ a::...I
O-e(
...I ...J ...I:;;
~~ ~O
00 o a::
1-1- I-u.
00 0
00 0
00 0
O'<t cD
0...... co
It> ...... t"
...... ......
en
iii~
en-
en O~
ww :::!a::
::len I-w
zz -0-
WW u.o
>0.. 0...1
wx a::...I
a::w O-e(
...J ...J ...I:;;
~~ ~O
00 o a::
1-1- I-u.
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 lOon
N N
00 0
00 0
010 .n
N N
'"
t:
Q)
E
!lI
0 '"
9 a:;
.f '"
'"
~~ ...I
e(
"g .~ I-
0
u..u.. I-
000
000
00 0
o It> .n
N N
'"
t:
~
!lI
0 '"
9 a:;
.f '"
'"
~ <:(...1
"Oe(
'(} all-
ro ,~o
u.. u.. I-
000
000
00 0
010 on
N N
'"
t:
Q)
E
!lI
0 '"
9 a:;
.f '"
'"
~ <(...J
"Oe(
'(3 all-
ro ,~o
u.. u.. I-
000
000
00 0
010 on
N N
'"
t:
Q)
E
!lI
0 '"
9 a:;
.f '"
'"
~ <(...I
"Oe(
'(3 all-
ro ,~o
u.u..1-
o
o
o
N
.....
N
o
o
N
.....
N
en
-I-
enz
~~<ri
d..w CO')
!::e;CO')
u.a::......
Oa..~
~~ E
~ffi5
I-I-E
o u. III
I-e(~
,!;;
0'0
&&
~~
......, Q)
C
Q)
(9
en a>
_~ :5
enz.9
en w ,!;
0:;; ~
d..w ~
!::e;-
~g:~
g:~g,
...Ia::-5
e(W:e
b t;: ~
I-e(
oj
'"
is
s::
os::
o U
qffi
"'a::
c
J!!
Qj
eno
-I- ~
en z -
~~ ~
d.. W :E
1->11>
u:OE
o a:: E
a:: a.. ,-
a.. ~ en.
...Ia::c
~ ~ ~
ou.a>
1-e(B:
a>
:J
om
qg
.....01=
<D a>
M E
o
o
,!;
-~ S
en z c
U)UJ~
0:;; a>
d.. W -g
1->0
~~~
a.. C
g:~13
...I a:: 0
e(w'O
I- I- ,!II
ou.s::
I-e(r-
'i I,
~I~ '-'
llil ~. '.'
Iii'.. .'~~. t-i
I ~f ,1 .!
· -.:':'-~:-'" .:11: Ell, ~
. ~~" I~\
1~[;1:"
~ -I t
II ~ i~
e . -
~ .
re:!
-I ~,
- j~1
I~I~
~~El
~lle
~;~:
ril-
\ ,
~;:)
--1
--,
---,
:1-,
--,
---,
=1
=\
--,
--,
--,
=1
::!-1
--,
---,
=1
,----,
-"--1
---,
-.-1
~
=1
-"--1
1~
..;-}
:1-,
~--,
--,
--,
---,
---,
---,
-.-1
:1-,
~
--,
J;:)
1
--,
---,
I !
_---..... ...,.~ ...,/1 \.
~:.?:: .':,:~-::.. ~"l"::, cl-<"~:- ,~~~'-f..~t';':,"~0;-.;y.~
. . \ .- '" . ,<(
.!" \ ,'" " , '
<V( \, ~ 'l ,.' "
'L!J;~r';' ,( I j j I J.
, '/:/) )' >
" ,,<J::,
\' ,/I.j<'
'/' ;:
,/ /'
J ("~ -/(i \
"..w '
), ~~~,.:;;. ~ \~
I \
,J)) , \. I
:: ,1 ~A'/~ '\ ' ,
}~ ~:E2f~\,\R)j~'/ I .:~~ ) /'" .r
_ ~_ ~v'1 i.1 ;""yJ A" '. \ l
" ",...' 1..)0' 'f'" ---- ",;1
'\ l' - ~~~..;~~'--/" ~/' ':::
'~~~~ ,." ,.~I ,)~ ,:~:-~f:'~jj ~ 00' I't
'I'" ), ~"'f~',.., :;,\ ,\;. ( ,"1:" , , r
J t .1: ._; ("~~' ,~~ <\;,~'t' ,'J, ~' .,
i I, Ii ."i I:' '~" "'^' ,,'0, --' ,"' I
~IJ!.li..' 'J!"" l/(.,' '." (':'!Iif/;) ),;- t",,1 'l_' '1" ~~':.i - I
.' ,'\ I . \ ,'>-{.'" {I \" 1 ','
,. 1...'-.:0' ,'" II, ," I \ ,-'" i "F ~ ,
, )::_""..~'~. c ~\" V \~), ,- ,
" ~~.::-Z.' ~;,J" \ i I . ',) "
I~.; (' 'V~~,,~/nf 'r-,~_I !' t,i
, I' ' ' ) , - -;.f" ~
,.;;! ~ /. ,~", :ih (
In ! :, c ft,: ~ / \ \ I)' :r ).
'I-~'; ./ \ '
,., I ~', 'f" (' '''-",_' ,::.. 0 "
" '" ' ; .\'~ .
:If! ' \ \ ,G."_"."'" \ /,' ~\);\ , ,I,'
vi" .,' \}\"j
" ' ~ ' .; ,_~," I ' " ,~\: ,}/' I
.. J,~ "~\:'" ',. ~~.1j\ '.t;~ ~\ "'~". >\;y:' T -. is
<\, \\~\ " '; ,,-.\;'Vl~'" (,/;::;"'-(\' \ ~
'- \\' \ '. ___ " 1 f ,T""~ : ~ j ,.- .....:.~/~: ... \\
) r'~ ..' c-"< 'c,' / ,'''~ ,'~ "P(:,,~,"
~"<' \'\ -'~' ",p ~ NORTH
,,,.;1' Ld~~'(""t'~
~ '" ::i" 0-" /' ~-;;....---/ ,~'\ \
. : \' . y--:.:"" (.,~
't:-~~ \ "
. ...-'::/"
~a
@ ~ d i
a ~~ l!J !Sill ffi
~ ~~ a~ ~~ ~
i:l1~~ilja~ ~i~
~~ g~ ~~ 910 ~~ ~a ~~
o u'" u"l iil -i;"~ s" ~~
t;~~ ~~ !12 9 ~;;\ ~l2 8"~ \!Ii;
~ t-" Fw '" ",Ill o~ ~ ~;;\
o B~ ~~ ~g ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
z r .. w.. B~;E ~~
~ I ," 1 W..
~ r "i
), I'
o
.J
, .
1 ~::::---..-----."
\
\.
\
't
!
--,'I
,---
" ~
J'
) ,~_.,
(
\ I i',f
t" i: -='.. ;l'{
I - L. I"
,
1 '
': J
-':~7.!:;':;~ ~;~
,/.
';) i-
;1-
..
I
I
]'1
, j I
! I
1
;:;
-
T
T
J
l
1
1\ I,
,I: J
! I
:1,
I'
(, ~.
I
,I II, ~I
1.1 !
I
~:
,^ I
'"
~ '"
.)
'" "
"
".
., ,
'f
:'!
~:'
"'
.
\ ....
,.
i
I
.,
::
, . ",1
:' ~~:\,.'
..
. . . .. . .
. "
-~ . --~-:-",
,...- -~'L." .'~' '.,"'-.
.L,' '. , ,_"
... . ,,~,"
-':- ;....::... ,,;;."':Y'.. '..
' ~:-, ~
.. j' ". :..., /.... . '"
"01 ~~:" '
') .. . ',,:,~(,.;.." '
~"'~~f
I'
1" 1
\
.i " ~
I ,
,. , i
,
\ .
"
_.,~ 1to. .
. . . . . . .-,. '. ..
~:7"___~
.Ii _..-
o. _~7.'''.,..:. >
,.' . '.,.. .'~'...~ . , .l~.~
.:... ~.........::. '.> .'" ~'
~ :#'~~~<~~'~
:~r.'
'/
..~,
1 I,"
;1:
L
j ,
(
\
\ \
\'1 "
, .
\, .
. .
~ ~.
.'
.
"
I,
/':,'~
.' ,
"
, ,
. "
~
C> C> I C> C> I
~ co C> C> co C> C>
--- ("t') C> --- ("t') CD
~ 0 I'- CD 0 I'- I'-
...... I
u l- N CD l- N ..--
ro I
~
ro
U c c
0 0 0 ~
en en
0 <U CO
0 (]) ~ (])
.... en en
~ - - I
en en
I >. I >.
CO ex::> N CO ex::> N
~ 0 I'- N 0 I'- N
ro
"'0 (]) ~
0 0>
CO ~ I
~ L- '.....
(]) I u
~ > ro
'+- CO '+-
r/) 0 ~ 0
~ L- C ro L-
a> en 0 (]) en
..0 L- U ..0 L-
ro 0 C> I 0
E --- C> E ---
~ C> 0 C> C>
::J en l.C) C> ::J en l.C) C>
~ :z :> 0 :z :>
~ ("t') ("t') ("t') ex::>
00
U I
'.....
~ ~
U (]) (]) U (]) (])
,..... en en ~ en en
~ :::::> :::::> '~ :::::> :::::>
>. "'C 0 "'C
,.)~ >.
CO c CO C
"'C (]) ~ "'C (])
~ ~ ~ ~
(]) (]) ~ (]) (])
(]) (]) r/) (]) (])
=s: =s: 0 =s: =s:
~