Loading...
103-Responses to Public Comments.pdfResponses to Public Comments Received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park (Project No. 9136) Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates for the City of Cupertino The Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), dated November 1, 2010, circulated for public review November 5 — December 6, 2010. No state agencies submitted comments to the City or State Clearinghouse during the review period (see Attachment F). The City received a total of 15 comments on the IS/MND from members of the public. The following individuals submitted comments in support of the conclusions made in the IS/MND (and of the project in general), or did not raise questions. These comments do not require responses. 1. Hugh Chen (December 3) 2. Paul Oleas (December 3) 3. Carol Lim (December 3) 4. Steve and Darlene Mix (December 3) 5. Jean Misko (December 3) 6. Anne Ng (December 3) 7. Ross S. Heitkamp, President of Friends of Stevens Creek Trail (December 6) 8. Rune H. Jensen (December 6) 9. Carol Stanek (December 6) 10. Kenneth C. and Sandra Q. Joe (December 8) The remaining five comment letters contained questions or concerns about the project and/or IS/MND. Responses to each comment within the letters are provided below, followed by the letters themselves (Attachments A-E). Response Paae # A. Letter from Gail Bower.......................................................................................................... 2 B. Letter from Rhoda Fry........................................................................................................... 4 C. Letter from Deborah Jamison.............................................................................................. 10 D. Letter from Shani Kleinhaus (Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society) ................................. 18 E. Letter from Susan Sievert.................................................................................................... 21 F: Letter to the City of Cupertino from the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (December 7, 2010). No response to this letter is required. A. Letter from Gail Bower (Oranue Avenue, Cupertino), November 8, 2010 Comment Al: Here are my comments: I do hope that everyone does everything possible and as at least as outlined to minimize the manmade look/effects of yet more manmade elements in this park. It's already jam packed with them. Response Al: The comment is noted. The project design and the selected materials are intended to be compatible with the natural setting of the area. The design uses natural crushed or decomposed granite for trail surfacing, wood planks for a retaining wall, wood ramps and stairs for bridge access, expanded native plantings, and boulders. The materials were carefully chosen to fit with the natural character of the site. Comment A2: I'm concerned about trash in the creek. Have you seen the parking lot at Monta Vista High? It's dreadful. Please have staff monitor/have cleaned each day. Response A2: The comment is noted. As described in Section 3.2.5 of the IS/MND, the City proposes to install wildlife -resistant trash and recycling receptacles on the project site, and park rangers would be responsible for daily pick up of trash/recyclables in vicinity of the gate. This element of the proposed project is intended to minimize the potential for littering and trash to enter the creek. Given that trail users would pass through the site, the potential for trash generation is expected to be lower than what occurs at group gathering areas (such as a high school). In addition, the project would improve access for creek clean-up efforts (refer to Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality). For the reasons described above, the project is not anticipated to increase the amount of trash entering the creek. Comment A3: • What is a wooden approach ramp and why is it needed? Response A3: Approach ramps are needed to provide access from the existing pedestrian bridge to the existing and proposed trails (located on the east and west sides of the creek, respectively). The proposed ramps would replace the existing stairs, which do not meet the accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed approach ramps would be ADA- compliant and would provide access for persons using wheelchairs or walkers, as well as facilitate trail access by bicyclists. Wooden ramps are proposed, rather than concrete or another material, to be consistent with the natural character of the project area. Comment A4: I hope the retaining wall is not a standard ugly wall but is made with some creative influence to make it less obtrusive — some plantings that spill over the wall and/or native shrubbery/grasses in front of the wall. Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 2 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 Response A4: As described in Section 3.2.1 of the IS/MND, the proposed retaining wall will be constructed with wood planks. By using wood and emphasizing natural materials, the project design is intended to blend with the visual character of the project site (refer to Section 4.1 Aesthetics). Comment A5: • It is most unfortunate that there will be tree removal — the new ones should be of same (7) or bigger size. The 3 saplings should be replaced as well. I trust that watering them regularly for at least a few years is part of the installation plan. Response A5: As described in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the project proposes to replace the two mature oak trees to be removed with two native container -size replacement trees. The final design includes two new oak trees of 36" or larger box size. The project also proposes to replace the saplings removed and provide additional native plantings on the site. The proposed planting and replacement trees would be maintained by the City for a five-year period (refer to MM BIO-4.1). During the five-year maintenance period, appropriate irrigation would be applied to the plantings, consistent with the restoration activities that are currently ongoing in the project area. Comment A6: + I am very happy that there will be no night lighting etc. — our wildlife very much needs that. • Please avoid bird nesting season for this project! Response A6: The comment is noted. As proposed, construction is anticipated to occur over approximately six months, beginning February 2011 and ending in July 2011. Under the proposed schedule, the project would be completed prior to the start of the 2011 school year, as desired by the City Council; however, construction would occur during the nesting season. If construction were to begin in July (near the end of the nesting season), it is expected that the project would be completed in November. The City Council could choose to defer construction until summer 2011 at the time it considers award of a construction contract, currently expected to occur in early February. Comment A7: Additional question -- When will all the chicken wiring around the other plantings be removed? • Additional comment — please — where the walnut was chopped down and a large stump left in the picnic area — please allow it to grow back as it was doing — prune as needed but let it grow back (instead of hacking it back to stump only) and let it provide all the great things that trees provide. Response A7: The chicken wire will be removed consistent with the goals for successful restoration planting establishment for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project. Many cages have already been Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 3 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 removed. Others remain to provide additional protection to the plantings during establishment and will be removed as the plants mature. The walnut tree described in this comment is not affected by the proposed project. City staff generally allows trees along the creek to resprout as consistent with safety considerations. B. Letter from Rhoda Fry (San Fernando Avenue, Cupertino), December 6, 2010 Comment B1: I was disappointed that the public was given only one business -day notice of the council meeting on November 29 which discussed this project. By failing to provide adequate notice, the council and this very important project missed out on public input. Furthermore, I was dismayed to learn that the project bid set would be assembled (and disseminated) prior to closure of the environmental review comment period. This further reduces the possibility of a collaborative process with the voting community as it would take quite a bit of inertia and cost to amend the bid set. I applaud council for supporting the highest environmental standards before, during, and after this project, most notably to be respectful of the bird nesting season. Response B1: During the Council meeting on November 29, 2010, City Staff provided a progress update on the Scenic Circle project and requested that the Council authorize bidding in December. Members of the public were given the opportunity to provide input on the project and IS/MND which was out for public circulation at the time of the meeting (the 30-day comment period ended on December 6, 2010). All legally required notice was provided. The City Council's action at the November 29�h meeting did not commit to construction of the current bid set or of the project in general. Award of a construction contract and subsequent implementation of the project will not occur prior to adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. No further response is required as the comment does not raise any environmental issues or questions about the adequacy of the Initial Study. Comment B2: I have 2 main concerns about this document. 1. Section 3.2.4 Monta Vista High School parking lot is referred to as the "existing overflow parking lot." Nowhere in Phase I MND is an external parking lot mentioned. Prior to reconstruction, an external parking lot had been used no more than 3 predictable times per season. Use of an external parking option for the completely new and significantly different operational structure at Blackberry Farm has never been studied (e.g. 90% non-resident to greater residential use, fee to free, etc...). Moreover, when the trail opens at Stevens Creek, any shuttles and buses must drop off either at Stevens Creek Blvd. or on McClellan Road. Monta Vista High School must not enter into the equation as an overflow parking lot. Response B2: This comment mainly refers to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND, prepared by the City of Cupertino in 2006. The practice of using Monta Vista High School as an overflow lot during infrequent high attendance events was in place prior to implementation of Phase I of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project, as noted in the comment. The maximum size of group picnic Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 4 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 events at the park has been reduced from 800 to 525 persons, as a further measure to reduce parking demand and the potential for overflow events. The proposed trail access project is not anticipated to generate a substantial amount of vehicle trips and would not increase the need for an overflow parking lot. The statement about Monta Vista High School in Section 3.2.4 of the Scenic Circle IS/MND was included to demonstrate that additional parking options are available during high attendance special events at Blackberry Farm Park. In response to neighbor requests, various parking control measures will be implemented (see Section 3.2.4 of the IS/MND). If it is determined that the Tier 1 parking control measure is inadequate, the City will consider putting out portable signs in the Scenic Circle neighborhood on event days and implementation of the further parking control measures discussed in the MND. Comment B3: 2. Many parts of the MND are so terribly flawed that it puts this project at risk; even the simplest CEQA requirements are overlooked as shown below. These flaws should be corrected. Wouldn't this all have been easier if the pendulum had not been swinging back and forth on this issue and this project had been in Phase I all along? Response B3: Specific questions on the content of the IS/MND are not included in this comment. The Scenic Circle access project was conceived by the City Council in response to requests by residents to allow pedestrian and bicycle access from the west side of the creek to the newly renovated Blackberry Farm Park, including the trails within the park. This access was also requested to allow for a safer way for students to access schools located on the east side of the creek (refer to Section 3.1.1 Background. Comment B4: Section 1.0: The phrase "existing pedestrian bridge" — is an incorrect statement and should be amended. Prior to Phase I, there had been a bridge near that location. The Phase I MND stipulated that the bridge would be removed and it was. During the Phase I project, without public review, another bridge along with additional creek work was installed. It is incorrect to say that Phase I was completed — because if it was, there would be no bridge there now. Note that the Phase I MND also said that CEQA would be required to install a bridge (and future access), but the bridge was installed without CEQA, public review, etc... etc... Response B4: The bridge that exists on the project site replaced a previous bridge at that location. Subsequent to approval of the Phase I project, the City determined that placing the bridge at its current location was categorically exempt under CEQA. The bridge replacement was done to allow access to the area on the west side of the creek for maintenance and restoration purposes. CEQA requires that the IS/MND describe the physical conditions on the site at the time the environmental analysis commences. This existing environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions against which the impacts of a project are to be evaluated. Therefore, for purposes of this IS/MND, the bridge currently located on the site is considered as "existing" because it was present on the site at the time the environmental analysis commenced (summer 2010). Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 5 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 Comment B5: 3.1.1 a) Mentions that Phase I of the project has been completed. As mentioned above, there should be no existing bridge there now, had the project been executed according to plan. Phase I included redoing the cistern for watering, which did not occur. Also, our naturalized wetland habitat, the ponds at the golf course, was destroyed without public input or notification to the California Department of Fish and Game. How will we ensure that all the rules are adhered to this time? Response B5: Section 3.1.1 Background of the Scenic IS/MND should be revised to clarify that most elements of Phase I of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project have been implemented. The Stevens Creek Corridor IS/MND included "possibly connecting the existing well to an existing... cistern near the old tank". The existing well is being evaluated as part of a separate capital project that has been funded. The current condition of the ponds predates the Phase I project. The ponds require repairs and a capital project that includes pond evaluation has been included in the adopted Capital Improvement Program. Please refer to Response B4. CDFG would be notified in the event that special -status or protected species are encountered during the pre -construction surveys to be completed by a qualified biologist, as described in Section 4.4 Biological Resources. A qualified biologist would implement these mitigation measures, with oversight by the Project Manager. Comment B6: b) A significant error in document is claiming "restoring public access" from Scenic Circle. Actually, this project "creates public access," it does not restore it. When Blackberry Farm was privately owned, there was some fencing in there but it was possible for people to cut through the private property — thus what was going on was trespassing. When the City acquired the land, people continued to cut through. Residents in the Scenic Circle area got upset and requested to restrict access. This was granted with additional fencing and a combination lock which was known mostly only to residents on the Scenic Circle side of the creek. At a later time, residents started to put up more fencing on their own. The story is much longer than that. So what is happening in this project is migrating from trespass, to restricted access, to public access. It is definitely not "restoring public access." I think it is important to get the history right on these things. Also, the document fails to mention that Phase I planning did include access but a vocal group of residents vehemently opposed it and 3 council members agreed, thus access was not included in the final Phase I plan. Another group of residents, which are mentioned in the document did not agree with the decision and then pushed for access, which is how this new plan came about. Had council approved the original phase I plan, a huge amount of time and expense could be spared; instead the pendulum has been swinging back and forth for years. Response B6: Limited access for local residents to cut through the park has occurred at various times; however, this access has been closed in recent years. The proposed project could therefore be construed as the restoration of the access from the Scenic Circle neighborhood that used to be allowed from Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 6 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 the west side of the creek to Blackberry Farm Park. However, the access point was not operated as a formal unrestricted public access. The IS/MND correctly characterizes the existing condition, since public access to Blackberry Farm Park from Scenic Circle is not currently provided. As this comment points out, the proposed project would provide a new formal public access point to the park, when compared to both existing and past conditions. Please refer to Response B3 and Section 3.1 Overview of the Proposed Project for background on how the proposed project came about. Comment B7: c) To my knowledge, greater community, such as those who could be affected by additional pedestrian traffic along Byrne Avenue, was not apprised of the "community meetings." The document acknowledges this in that the residents involved were primarily from the Scenic side of the creek. The process should have been more inclusive to include other residents affected by the plan. Response B7: The comment is noted. All legally required notice has been provided. The meetings were posted on the City website._-Given the scope and nature of the proposed project, the City anticipated that construction -related and operational impacts resulting from the trail access would have the most potential to affect the Scenic Circle neighborhood and notified those residents by mail.— —There was also an existing mechanism for input from Byrne/San Fernando neighbors to the City via the ongoing meetings of the Blackberry Farm Advisory Committee. Comment B8: d) Another item on Phase I that needs completion as per agreement is no signage to Stevens Creek Trail directing users to the Byrne entrance, this is not complete. Response B8: As with Comment B2, this comment refers to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND. The comment is noted. Comment B9: 3.1.2 The project is described as providing a "safer route to school" however it has not been studied either in this "initial study" or elsewhere. Response B9: The hazards associated with existing and potential routes between Scenic Circle and the tri- school area are addressed in Section 4.16.2.2 of the IS/MND. It was concluded that the proposed project would allow a more direct and safer route because the alternatives (McClellan Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) are busy streets that currently expose pedestrians and cyclists to more traffic -related hazards due to factors such as higher traffic volumes, higher speeds, absence of bike lanes, and/or narrow shoulders (McClellan Road). Comment B10: 3.2.3 Suggests extending park hours. This is a change from Phase I and the yet -to -be - designed and built Phase II. I can tell you that we are hearing quite a number of coyotes Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 7 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 in the vicinity after hours and neighbors have seen the remains of good-sized animals (with the approximate stature of a small child). I would urge you to not extend the hours. Response B10: The comment is noted. Comment Bll: 3.2.4 More CEQA comments.... a) The document mentions only over -capacity events at Blackberry Farm — the Phase I MND never mentioned over -capacity events. BBF should never be at over -capacity. Further, there currently is insufficient parking at the Blue Pheasant. The opening of the trail to Stevens Creek Blvd and the expanded use of the trail, the Stocklmeir Property, the tank house, and any future uses of the area will put additional pressure on an overburdened parking area. No mitigations are provided for this. Under CEQA, you need to mention the future connections. In fact, you are adding an access point to an even greater Bay Area trail, and in fact the National De Anza Trail. You need to address these cumulative impacts; you just can't at the tiny little piece under CEQA. It is kind of like building a highway interchange and not mentioning plans to connect a freeway to it. Given that you're already talking about making changes to the golf course in Phase II (something that we had been asking for in phase I, a missed opportunity), I would urge you to seek options to extend the parking beyond the planned 9 spaces. We know now that the parking is insufficient. Adding uses will make it worse. This needs to be mentioned and addressed. Response Bll: This comment mainly refers to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND and the commentor's observations on the parking situation. The proposed Scenic Circle project is not considered a "land use" that would generate new vehicle traffic, as the trail is a non -motorized transportation facility intended to serve local residents. While the project would add an access point to Blackberry Farm Park, the Stevens Creek Trail, and other recreational facilities, it would not induce additional development, as most elements of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Phase I project have already been constructed. Furthermore, CEQA no longer identifies insufficient parking as an environmental impact in and of itself. The Scenic Circle project would not result in indirect environmental effects related to parking because the project is not expected to generate a substantial amount of vehicle trips to the project area or increase demand for parking facilities. The project is actually intended to reduce vehicle traffic by expanding opportunities for walking and biking. Increasing non - motorized access to the park and trail is a community goal (refer to Section 3.1.2 Purpose of the Project). Making pedestrian/bicycle access more convenient to neighbors could influence long- term travel behaviors and reduce demand for parking. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative environmental effects related to the availability of parking at Stevens Creek Corridor Park. Comment B12: b) As I mentioned before, to mention that the overflow parking at Morita Vista will be maintained is false. Phase I does not stipulate overflow parking at Morita Vista. We had Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 8 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 been told that using that lot was a temporary solution — you cannot suddenly incorporate it into Phase I. Response B12: Please refer to Response 132. Comment B13: 4.2.3.11 have not seen any studies to confirm that this project is consistent with TCM and CAP goals. Response B13: This comment refers to the question in the CEQA checklist for Air Quality impacts: "Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?" The proj ect's consistency with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) and transportation control measures (TCMs), which are strategies included in the CAP to reduce emissions from vehicle use, was evaluated in Section 4.3 Air Quality of the IS/MND. It was concluded that the project would support implementation of the CAP because the project itself is a TCM (refer to Section 4.3.2.1). A primary goal of both the CAP and the proposed project is to reduce vehicle use. Therefore, the project would not contribute to long-term air quality impacts, and no additional air quality studies are needed to confirm consistency with the CAP. Comment B14: 4.3.2.2 In Phase 1 we found that construction hours were not adhered to and we endured a noisy dust bowl for a very long time, particularly when there were convoys. Countless calls to authorities produced no results. What will be the construction management plan this time? How will residents be able to alert the city to violations and get a timely response? Response B14: The total duration of active project construction is expected to be about four months (refer to Section 3.2.8). As concluded in Sections 4.3 Air Quality and 4.12 Noise, project construction would not expose residential uses to substantial dust or noise impacts, given the scope of the project and temporary nature of construction activities. To further reduce the potential for disturbances to residents, avoidance measures, as described on page 25 and 72 of the IS/MND would be implemented during construction, in accordance with BAAQMD and City code requirements. The construction documents for this project also include special requirements relating to construction traffic and noise, with a financial penalty for violations. This is a change from the Phase I project, which contained no penalty for violations. City staff believes that this change will help ensure compliance and reduce impacts on neighbors during construction. A sign will be posted at the project site that includes aphone number to contact the Citys' project management team. Comment B15: 4.4.2 Also vicinity of 4.12 (the document jumps from 4.12.2.1 to 4.13.2.2, this is very confusing, what is missing?) The effects on residents near Byrne Avenue (or Scenic Circle) are not addressed as to the number of trips per day or noise. Will there be someone near Byrne assigned to picking up additional trash if there is any? CEQA: We know that when there was restricted access to Scenic Circle we had more noise and trash. Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 9 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 We have had much less noise and trash since the restricted access has been removed. What operational measures will be taken when there is public access? Response B15: The numbering of the subsections in Sections 4.12 Noise, 4.13 Population and Housing, 4.14 Public Services, and 4.15 Recreation will be corrected in the IS/MND. No sections are missing from the document. The effects on residents near Byrne Avenue (or other streets east of the creek) were not specifically discussed in the IS/MND because the proposed addition of an access point from the west side of the creek would not attract vehicle trips from the east side of the creek. Furthermore, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate significant vehicle trips in general, as previously described. For these reasons, the project would not increase vehicle trips or traffic -generated noise along Byrne Avenue. The effects on residents in the Scenic Circle neighborhood related to traffic and noise are addressed in Sections 4.13 Noise and 4.16 Transportation of the IS/MND. As described in Response A2 and Section 3.2.5 of the IS/MND, the project includes litter control measures to reduce the potential for trash to accumulate on the project site or in the creek. City maintenance staff and rangers are available so that litter, if it occurs, would be picked up in the park and on the San Fernando driveway. The proposed project is not expected to increase litter on streets located on the east side of Stevens Creek. C. Letter from Deborah Jamison (Rumford Drive, Cupertino), December 6, 2010 Comment Cl: Please accept for review my comments re: Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park project, No. 9136. I have a masters degree and work experience in the field of ecology, and have participated as an interested member of the public in numerous stream and riparian development project issues, including those along Stevens Creek in Cupertino since 1990. I am pleased to offer my questions and suggestions for improvement of this project regarding protection of natural resources in the project area. I would appreciate responses to each of my questions, as well as your thoughtful consideration of the suggestions. Let me begin by saying that as a former professional and current volunteer environmental educator, I encourage people to spend time in natural environments, and to learn about and appreciate our local ecosystems. Adults as well as children in our society suffer from "nature deficit disorder," "screen addiction," and obesity. Providing access and outdoor experiences, especially in local parks near residential areas, may help to reduce these societal trends. However, in natural areas that have been so drastically reduced as local and regional freshwater aquatic and riparian habitats have been in the last several decades, care must be taken to make sure that the very nature whose understanding and appreciation we hope to instill through providing access is not further degraded or destroyed by human presence and activity. All construction work and infrastructure installed in native plant communities and wildlife habitat will have some negative impacts in the short term. My comments concern minimizing the short term impacts and eliminating long term impacts that potentially can arise if more mitigation than is currently proposed is not implemented. Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 10 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 Response Cl: Specific project elements or mitigation measures are not questioned in this comment. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts are included in Section 4.0 of the IS/MND. Comment C2: Section 4.1.1 Aesthetics The proposed project includes construction of a trail consisting of crushed or decomposed granite or another similar material. What is meant by "similar"? Does "similar material" include hard -surfacing (e.g. asphalt, concrete). Does "similar material" include impervious surfacing? Are you requiring that the trail material be "all weather?" Is crushed or decomposed granite or another similar material considered an all-weather material? My opinion is that a hard, impervious trail surfacing is a detriment to the aesthetic qualities of this area of the creekside environment. It might also contribute to water run-off into the creek carrying soil/silt material and thus erosion of the soil on this slope. Siltation of creek waters degrades the habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish. Response C2: The trail surface would be "all weather." The final trail design uses crushed/decomposed granite, with a soil stabilizer incorporated. The trail surface would be semi -impervious, as described in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. The proposed design is intended to reduce the potential for runoff from the trail and erosion of the trail surface itself, while complementing the natural character of the project area. Concrete and asphalt are not considered "similar materials" in this context. Avoidance measures are included in the project (pages 32 and 33) to minimize potential impacts to aquatic habitat and water quality. Comment C3: The project includes trash and recycling receptacles located out of sight of the residences. For aesthetic reasons, I think that the receptacles should be constructed of a material and be a color that blends in to the rustic and natural environmental and be visually non - obtrusive. Consideration should be given to placing them in a location that is visible to nearby trail users but not visible to persons on the east side of the creek. Additional planting may be required to shield the receptacles from high visibility. The receptacles should also be the kind that wildlife cannot access. Response C3: The recommendations are noted. As described in Section 3.2.5 of the IS/MND, the City proposes to install wildlife -resistant trash and recycling receptacles on the project site. Receptacles are to be located such that they are as visually unobtrusive as possible, and/or screened. They will be of a design and color as to blend with the environment to the extent feasible. The proposed container style is a simple receptacle, wildlife -resistant, available in appropriate colors to help blend in with the setting and be compatible with existing trailside amenities elsewhere at Blackberry Farm. Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail City of Cupertino 11 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND January 2011 Comment C4: Section 4.4 Biological Resources The redesign of Blackberry Farm planned for the project area to be inaccessible to people, and thus not subject to the negative impacts on habitat that human and dog presence and activity produce. The adopted 2006 SCCP Master Plan/Restoration Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration proposed that the "Pedestrian bridge from the east bank of Stevens Creek to Fallen Oak picnic areas .... would be demolished and removed." The removal of people and the reintroduction of native plants would have made the project area the highest quality woodland habitat in Blackberry Farm. Response C4: The comment is noted. The Stevens Creek Corridor Park project included the removal of park and picnicking facilities from the former Fallen Oak picnic area and the installation of upland habitat through the planting of native vegetation, which has been completed. The proposed project has been designed so that it would not result in a net loss of vegetated woodland habitat (page 33 and 34 of the IS/MND). New additional native plantings are also included in the project, as described on page 31 of the IS/MND. While the proposed trail connection would incrementally increase human activity on the site, the project is consistent with the overall goals for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project to enhance recreational opportunities while preserving open space and protecting natural resources (refer to Sections 3.1.2 Purpose of the Project and 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance of the IS/MND). Comment C5: Section 4.4.1.2 Existing Biotic Habitats I urge the city to take the opportunity provided by tree removal activity for this project to remove Tree of Heaven/ Ailanthus specimens. This species is invasive, fast-growing, and often takes over areas, outcompeting native plants causing their decline and disappearance. Response C5: The proposed project only includes the removal of five trees, including two oaks and three saplings. As described in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, these trees will be replaced on the site. However, this comment is noted for future consideration. Comment C6: Section 4.4.1.2. Wildlife I maintain a database of birds observed in McClellan Ranch and Blackberry Farm based on my own observations and those of other reputable bird observers. All of the raptors listed as "may nest and/or forage in the riparian corridor and adjacent habitats" have been seen and/or heard in recent years. Other raptor species that have been observed and may use the habitat in or near the project site are Sharp -shinned Hawk and Great Horned Owl. The following raptors have also been observed near the project area: Turkey Vulture, Golden Eagle, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, Merlin and American Kestrel. Section 4.4.1.3 Special -Status Species Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 12 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 The following bird species with special status have been observed to be present within the corridor between 2005 and 2010: Sharp -shinned Hawk, Peregrine Falcon and Merlin. Some of the bird species that are known to nest in the riparian woodland along this section of Stevens Creek are also on the Audubon Watchlist. These are Nuttall's Woodpecker and Oak Titmouse. Also feared declining is Warbling Vireo. Response C6: The comment is noted. The project includes pre -construction surveys to identify on -site nests of all protected birds and raptors, including those identified in this comment. Please refer to Section 4.4.2.3 and MM BIO-2.1 for additional information. Comment C7: 4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion oflmpacts The construction of the Stevens Creek Trail in McClellan Ranch, which has a concrete surface, resulted in the soil scrapping and vegetation removal of far more than the 8 foot width of the trail. Why will this trail be constructed "by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width and installation of proposed improvements"? How is the construction method used in this Scenic Circle access trail different from the methods used in the Stevens Creek Trail and how does the difference in methods explain the difference in width of vegetation removal? Response C7: As discussed in Section 4.4.2 of the IS/MND, existing native vegetation shall be retained by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width and installation of proposed improvements. This access trail is made of stabilized decomposed/crushed granite ("DG"), a different material than the primary trail alignment. It will be installed with different equipment and methods than were used for the primary trail. Due to both the type of material and to site constraints, it is expected that smaller and more maneuverable equipment will be used for construction of the proposed access path, which will help limit the work footprint. The pervious concrete used for the primary trail was delivered in concrete trucks and installed with a `spreader box' type assembly. The DG paving may be mixed in batches and installed with smaller equipment. Comment C8: Should reseeding be done in the impacted area, will those seeds be from plants native to the area or the Stevens Creek watershed? Response C8: The project proposes to reseed or replant disturbed areas on the site with native vegetation. Species indigenous to the Stevens Creek watershed are preferred, as was emphasized for the Phase I plantings (refer to page 31 of the IS/MND). Comment C9: 4.4.2.1 Impacts to Sensitive Habitats Section 4.3.2.2 Construction -Related Impacts and under Aquatic Habitat Avoidance Measures to Aquatic Habitat the IS/MND states: Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 13 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 "Construction equipment will be staged in upland and/or currently developed or disturbed areas to avoid disturbance to sensitive habitat areas and reduce the potential for sediment and materials to enter the creek." Please be more specific. Where will construction materials (wood, fill base rock, surface material, etc.) and machinery be stored/parked when not in use? Does "upland" mean in areas upslope from the creek not in the immediate trail alignment? lent? Storage of these items should not cover or negatively impact in any way areas adjacent to but not in the immediate trail construction alignment area. Doing so increases the footprint of the area to be negatively impacted by vegetation removal, soil compaction and habitat degradation, and increases the potential of negatively impacting soil stability and creek water quality. Response C9: The developed or disturbed areas on the site that would be used for construction access and staging include: paved areas, parking lots, or io�developed surfaces within Blackberry Farm Park, possible shared use of existing park maintenance and storage areas, and portions of the Scenic Circle roadway and right-of-way (refer to Section 3.2.8 of the IS/MND). Construction - related activity including use of machinery and materials handling will occur within the designated project site. The contractor's work footprint will be limited to the extent feasible which allows efficient completion of the work while providing protection of the creek and of existing trees, vegetation and undisturbed areas. In Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, it is noted that temporary impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by staging construction equipment in upland and/or currently developed areas. In this statement, "upland" refers to areas away from the creek. To reduce the potential for soil compaction and habitat degradation, construction staging would occur on paved surfaces whenever possible and would not occur within mature woodland habitat or the recently planted restoration areas outside the work zone. Comment C10: Impacts to Riparian and Aquatic Habitat The proposed plan is to construct a ramp on the east side of the creek from the bridge and extending to the north, in an alignment very close to the edge of the creek bank where it descends to the creekbed. The proximity of the ramp to the creek bank may cause destabilization of the soil and siltation. It also prevents the establishment of vegetation that would stabilize the top of the bank. However, because of the proximity of the main trail, the ramp cannot be oriented in the same direction as the bridge. On the other hand, the steps could be. The trail at that location is very wide, and the presence of the steps would not reduce the width to an unacceptable dimension for regular trail use. On the other hand, the creek bank in the south direction falls away from the bridge quite near to where the steps would be. Orienting the stairs in a direct line with the bridge is safer and has less potential to damage the top of the bank. Please consider or reconsider this alternative. What is the width of vehicles who need access on this section of the trail? Could they could manage with a reduced width at the location of the bridge? Response C10: The existing trail width at this location is about 13-1/2 feet or less. This portion of the trail provides the only route for garbage trucks to access the nearby trash enclosure building. It is also an access route for emergency vehicles. The fire department requires twelve foot minimum Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 14 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 pavement width for drive routes. Garbage truck access involves a thirteen foot paved width. Stair treads and handrails would protrude at least 2-1/2 feet into the paved trail/access route, not including the required landing area. There is not enough space available to orient a stairway into this portion of the pavement that serves not only as a trail, but also as vehicle access. Narrowing the Stevens Creek Trail at this location is not feasible from an emergency and service vehicle access perspective. According to the project's design consultant, the proposed ramps and stairs are designed in a manner that would not cause destabilization of the creek bank. Comment C11: Indirect Impacts from Increased Recreation Use Please provide references to the assertion that "the proposed project is not expected to substantially affect the existing ability of wildlife to use the site. The visual and acoustic disturbance to wildlife associated with the proposed, trail use is not expected to be significantly higher than currently exists, and the wildlife along the channel is expected to adapt to the new levels of disturbance. Providing a formal, accessible trail connection and a controlled access point to Blackberry Farm Park could decrease the possible creation of new foot trails through the sensitive habitats within the corridor." Response C11: In addition to the reasons stated in this comment, the IS/MND also states that "the project site was previously used as a group picnic area, the existing pedestrian bridge is currently used by park staff to access the project site for maintenance activities, and the proposed trail connection would provide access to an existing primary trail alignment and is not the primary trail itself." The number of trail users expected to use the proposed access would be much lower than the main Stevens Creek Trail, so the potential for wildlife disturbance would also be lower. For these reasons, the project would not substantially affect the ability of wildlife to use the project site in a manner that would rise to a level of significance under CEQA. Comment C12: As a long-time frequent user of trails of all kinds, I have noticed without exception that formal trails, particularly those that allow bicycle use, inevitably widen and allow the creation of new "rogue" trails when there is no fencing to stop the behavior that causes these impacts. Please see photographs attached. Photo 1 demonstrates the widening of a trail where the fence is further away, and the lack of widening on the side where there is a split rail fence close to the trail. Photo 2 is of the Mary Ave. bridge trail completed not long ago in Cupertino. Native plants were installed along the sides of this trail, but on both sides the trail has increased in width, sometimes substantially, and the new native plantings destroyed. Photo 3 is the Stevens Creek Trail in the old orchard area of McClellan Ranch. Less than two years old, the trail has widened until the wire around the planted native grasses and shrubs stops further encroachment into the habitat area. Photo 4 is an example of formal trails providing a launching point- for rogue trails to be established into habitat areas. Photo 5 was taken in a natural area where the trail slope required a switchback. Park managers used barbed wire and a stern sign in an attempt to stop people from cutting the switchback. Attachment A2 shows in the colored hatched areas where I believe people, particularly children on BMX and mountain bikes, will cut the trail switchback. Between trail widening, switchback cutting, and using the slope as a quicker and more exciting Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 15 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 way to get to the bridge, the entire area from the entry gate to the bridge will not be able to maintain vegetation or soil stability. Photo 6 is an area between the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and the creek bank where people have illegally constructed a BMX bicycle playground. I have observed many children and even some adults, using slopes and hills that they have easy access to via a formal trail as a BMX and off -trail practice area. Patrolling and enforcing park rules is not sufficient behavior management unless a park ranger is posted at this trail connection the entire time the park is open. Short of this, preventing the destruction of vegetation on the sides of and branching off from a trail will only be accomplished by a physical barrier in the form of fencing or continuous dense, woody vegetation lining the trail. Even if new trail users are on their best behavior when the trail is first opened for use, in the long-term the trail will widen and areas near the trail denuded of vegetation. Again, many years of trail use and observation leads me to this conclusion. Not only new native plants and the wildlife habitat they provide will be wasted, but the city funds spent in installing them will be wasted as well. One technique that works well in sensitive habitat is to create the trail as a boardwalk. At the Elfin Forest in Los Osos, CA, both a boardwalk with a lip, and a strung out cord next to the boardwalk, seems to keep trail users on the trail effectively. See Photos 7 & 8. What behavior management techniques will the city deploy to prevent destruction of vegetation and subsequent destabilization of the soil in the area of the trail? Will the city install some sort of wildlife friendly and safe fencing, or dense, woody plantings to prevent degradation of habitat value and potential erosion and siltation reaching the creek? I disagree with the prediction that an "increase in visitor and dog use [in] the project site would not have a significant long-term effect on sensitive habitats or wildlife" — without employing physical methods of keeping people on the trail and preventing widening, cutting of the switchback, and making additional trails. Response C12: The comments and recommendations are noted. By providing a formal trail, the project is intended to reduce informal trails through sensitive habitats and the creek. The DG access trail has been designed with header board edges on both sides; the edges of the boards are expected to help reduce inadvertent "widening" of the trail. The proposed retaining wall plus the fence on top of it would discourage bicyclists from cutting the first switchback leading down from Scenic Circle. If substantial off -trail degradation begins to occur after project completion, the City will consider additional measures to discourage trail misuse, such as planting denser vegetation at appropriate locations, or installing plant species that discourage misuse (for example, thorny plants). An adaptive management strategy would be implemented for the proposed project, as is already used for the existing primary trail. Additional Park Ranger patrols are available if the trails are misused as described in this comment. Comment C13: Special Status Bird Species Impact BIO-2: In addition to removal or trimming of shrubs and trees on the site possibly impacting nesting birds, the loud noises and vibrations of heavy machinery could also cause a bird to abandon a nest, or prevent it from incubating eggs or feeding young for long enough periods to endanger the successful rearing of offspring. Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 16 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 Response C13: As discussed on page 38 of the Initial Study, activities associated with trail construction could potentially result in disturbance to protected birds. Mitigation measures are included in the project to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. If an active nest(s) is identified on the project site during the pre -construction survey, a buffer(s) would be established around the nest, as determined by a qualified biologist pursuant to CDFG requirements (MM BIO-2.1). No equipment disturbance will be permitted within the buffers. Comment C14: MM BIO-2.1 This project should be constructed outside of the breeding season starting from January for some species (e.g. Great Horned Owl) through June. The project should begin in July, which would allow it to be completed before the rainy season. This access to Blackberry Farm has been closed for five years and a couple of extra months of closure is not significant. Construction during the nesting season is not unavoidable. Response C14: The comment is noted. Please refer to Response A6. Mitigation measures are included in the project (pages 38 and 39 of the IS/MND) to reduce impacts to nesting birds, including raptors, during construction as well as pre -construction surveys for such bird species. Comment C15: 4.9.2.1 Flooding and Drainage Impacts from the Project What is the nature and composition of the stabilizer to be used on the trail surface? Does this stabilizer have any toxic properties and could toxic material or chemicals contaminate the soil or waters of the creek? Response C15: The City would use a non -toxic stabilizer to bind the decomposed granite or similar material. The use of a stabilizer would not contaminate soil or water. One of two types of stabilizer would be used for the project. One type is an organic natural binder that has been widely used by the National Parks Service. The product is nontoxic, appropriate for creekside settings and is based on crushed psyllium seed hulls. The other is a natural product that includes cement binder and mineral colorant; it has been used for State Park beach access pathways and is equally appropriate for this setting. Comment C16: 4.1.8 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1) The project does have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. Some trail users, over time, like some trail users everywhere, will walk and ride bicycles on the land adjacent to the trail. Some bicyclists will cut the switchback and use the slope as an alternative way down to the bridge. Bicyclists will also go around slower pedestrians by going off -trail. Pedestrians will also engage in these off trail activities. This trail is intended to be used by children going to and from school. Children are the most likely people to behave in off -trail activities. Kids on wide -tired bikes especially enjoy using slopes to practice their maneuvers. Vegetation is destroyed, exposed soil is both loosened and compacted (depending on the type of activity) as a result of these behaviors. Over time all vegetation is removed exposing bare soil that is subject to erosion and Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 17 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 sedimentation of the creek water. Proposed mitigation measures are not adequate to prevent this impact. Like agencies in many other jurisdictions, other measures should be employed such as fencing, boardwalk with adjacent fencing, and/ or dense, woody shrubs next to the trail as a physical barrier and visual cue for people to remain on the trail while descending to the bridge. Response C16: Please refer to Response C12. Comment C17: What is the mitigation monitoring plan for evaluation of the success of the planted and transplanted plants associated with this project? What is the plan for weed control and replacement of plants that fail? Is there an adaptive management plan for responding to levels of habitat degradation and species impacts not anticipated? Where will mitigation monitoring reports be located for public inspection? Thank you for answering my questions and giving serious consideration to the additional impacts and mitigation measures that I believe are necessary to fully protect the habitat values of the project area riparian woodland. Response C17: The proposed planting and replacement trees would be maintained by the City for a five year period (refer to MM BIO-4.1 and Response A5 above). The Stevens Creek Corridor Phase I project is currently monitored per an approved Monitoring Plan. One of the monitored vegetation transects is already located at the Scenic Circle Access project site. The three years of monitoring that still remain can provide information as to the success of plantings at the site. The City's intent is to replace failed plants at the project site, including the plantings installed for the proposed Scenic Circle Access project, at the conclusion of the third remaining year of Phase I project monitoring in a manner that would be consistent with the criteria of that Monitoring Plan. Weed control is constrained by the goal to avoid use of herbicides on weeds and allow recruitment of natives. To date weed control has been performed manually. The Parks and Recreation Department, which operates the site, plans to expand a trained/supervised volunteer program to assist in this task. As described in Response C12 above and on page 34 of the IS/MND, the City will continue to use adaptive management strategy and implement additional measures as needed to reduce unanticipated habitat degradation and species impacts. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) will be on file at the City of Cupertino, and available during normal business hours. D. Letter from Shani Kleinhaus (Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society), December 6, 2010 Comment D1: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 18 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 Park (Project No. 9136) in the City of Cupertino. The project would construct an approximately 270-foot long trail to connect Scenic Circle to the existing trail in Blackberry Farm Park via an existing bridge over Stevens Creek. The proposed project also includes the construction of approach ramps, stairway, retaining wall, and access point at Scenic Circle. The project is designed to accommodate nonmotorized modes of travel, including biking, hiking, jogging, and walking. The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) has over 4000 members in the county, many of which reside in Cupertino. Our mission is to preserve, to enjoy, to restore and to foster public awareness of native birds and their ecosystems, mainly in Santa Clara County. SCVAS has inherent interest in development along the Stevens Creek riparian corridor: our offices are located in McClellan Ranch, and we are partners with the City of Cupertino in the application for the funding of Phase II of the Stevens Creek Park Project. We have previously commented on the proposed Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail, and we appreciate the efforts taken by the City to select a short route from Scenic Circle to the bridge, as suggested in our letter of February 16th, 2010. 1. Trail Design 1.1. Trail design should include barriers to control use and prevent environmental damage; barriers may include fences, vegetation, stiles, and/or fallen trees or branches as appropriate. 1.2. Non -motorized travel on the trail should specifically prohibit skateboarding. Response D1: The comment comments and recommendations are noted. Please refer to Response C12 above regarding trail design and operational measures intended to prevent environmental damage. Skateboarding is already prohibited on Stevens Creek Trail in Cupertino per the adopted rules and regulations. Comment D2: 2. Project construction, vegetation removal and trimming The proposed project is of relatively short duration and can be constructed entirely outside of the nesting season, thereby avoiding harm to nesting birds and breach of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We ask that Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1 specify that construction, and especially vegetation removal and trimming, occur outside of the nesting season. Response D2: The comment is noted. Please refer to Responses A6 and C14. Comment D3: 3. Dog and human access The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies Indirect Impacts from Increased Recreational Use (page 34) that include impacts due to increased human and dog access. The MND correctly proposes that implementation of measures included in the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project to protect sensitive wildlife and habitat from Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 19 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 impacts due to visitor and dog use would help minimize potential impacts of the proposed trail connection. We ask that the MND and its associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the Scenic Circle project reiterate and incorporate Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan (SCCPMP) Mitigation Measure BIO-5 (SCCPMP, Appendix I) as approved by the City for the in April 2006. This mitigation measure includes signage, patrols and citations, cleanup of dog waste, and a "volunteer patrols and education" program. In addition, SCCPMP Mitigation Measure BIO-5 has an adaptive management component, and it proposes that if it is determined at any time that the impacts to native flora and fauna and to restored habitats are not sufficiently minimized, then the City shall discontinue permitting dogs within the project area. Response D3: The measures cited in the IS/MND for Stevens Creek Corridor Park referred to in this comment are in use at Blackberry Farm Park and Stevens Creek Trail, including signage, cleanup of dog waste, creek use limitations, and adaptive management. Rangers patrol the site daily and can call on County Sheriff and/or City Code Enforcement staff for citation support as needed. The informal volunteer patrol and education effort is planned to be formalized this year by the Parks and Recreation Department. Please also refer to Response C12 above. The new Scenic Circle Access project is part of the overall Blackberry Farm Park and is subject to the same rules and regulations. The rules and policies are posted on the City website at httlaa// au a�r� r�a�oa� / r� o� la - -pjL —265'. Rules are also posted at the project site. The Scenic Circle Access and the new pathway will be operated in the same manner as the rest of Blackberry Farm Park and utilize the same operational measures and principles. Comment D4: 4. Mitigation monitoring Please specify where, in the future, all documents related to mitigation compliance will be located, so that the public may inspect them. All documentation, not just summary reports, should be considered public records. Response D4: As described in Response C17 above, the MMRP will be on file at the City of Cupertino, and available during normal business hours. Comment D5: Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. We hope to continue to be involved in the review process for the proposed project with the aim of providing access while protecting the riparian corridor, its wildlife and its ecological function. Response D5: The comment is noted. Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 20 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 E. Letter from Susan Sievert (Byrne Avenue, Cupertino), December 6, 2010 Comment E1: Some did not want the inconvenience of this CEQA review process, and now, rather than mitigate the avoidable environmental impacts, some residents would have it that the trail construction commence during bird nesting season. Please recall that respecting the nesting season during Phase I was universally accepted without debate and that this area has been a year round, undisturbed safe haven for wildlife since 2005. For further information, please contact the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and the City Naturalist. Response E1: The comment is noted. Please refer to Responses A6 and C14. Comment E2: SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: "The City of Cupertino is proposing to construct an approximately 270 foot long trail that would connect Scenic Circle to the existing trail in Blackberry Farm Park via an existing pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek. " QUESTION: Is the bridge an "existing pedestrian bridge," or a replacement maintenance bridge that is presently closed to the public? Or, please provide the CEQA statute allowing its status to be interchangeable. The existing wooden pedestrian bridge that was installed by the City without a permit was removed as directed by the City Council, and a recycled metal bridge was installed without a public hearing, or CEQA review. However, the 2006 IS/MND Project Description states, "Should any new bridges be considered in the future other than what is proposed in the Master Plan, they would need to go through the permitting and CEQA process separately." The City, including the City Attorney's Office, later argued it was a "maintenance bridge," not needing a CEQA review because it was a "replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and / or facilities, under CEQA section 15302 (b)." Response E2: Please refer to Response B4 above. The existing metal bridge was placed in the location of the previous wooden bridge and is currently used only for maintenance purposes. "Pedestrian" is used in this context to emphasize that it does not accommodate motorized travel. Comment E3: 3.1.1 BACKGROUND: "After the Blackberry Farm Park renovations were completed in 2009, some residents raised the issue of restoring public access from Scenic Circle to provide a route to walk and bike to the tri-school area east of the creek and to increase community access to the renovated public park. " QUESTION: Does trespassing and special favors qualify as public access? Public access was not legitimized until a 2010 City Council action. From 1953 until 2009, Blackberry Farm was a seasonal resort requiring an entrance fee, but "some Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 21 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 residents" committed acts of vandalism to gain entry (fence cutting). In 2001, City staff gave special favor to some residents by providing them with the combination to a padlocked gate, while the public continued to pay the entrance fee. Therefore, it should read granting public access, not "restoring." Response E3: The comment is noted. Please refer to Response B6 above. Comment E4: 3.2.4 PARKING CONTROL MEASURES: "Tier 2: The existing overflow parking lot at Monta Vista High School for the park will be maintained for high attendance events as needed. " QUESTIONS: After people park at MVHS, please explain exactly what they are to do next? Also, when was the MVHS solution studied for its feasibility and environmental impacts? The 2006 IS/MND that this November 2010 Initial Study states it "utilized" failed to include any scenario for "overflow" parking. It is therefore irresponsible to casually toss in unstudied mitigation measures. Further, the use of the word "maintained" suggests a status quo operation, when the change in use was significant: the entrance fee was removed; the days of use went from 100 to 365-days per year; and, last but not least, the onsite parking was reduced from 1200 to 167 without a public hearing or CEQA review. The glaring problem resulting from the Phase One parking error is that once the trail is extended to Stevens Creek Blvd., it will be unlawful (per the terms of a legal agreement) for shuttles and busses to use the San Fernando Avenue Blackberry Farm driveway. Further, since the City is on the record saying the entrance is a "safety issue," the negligence of inviting pedestrians to walk from MVHS is a significant taxpayer liability. In short, the parking program is a broken mess, and MVHS is more of a problem than a solution. Response E4: This comment mainly refers to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project and associated IS/MND. The commentor's observations on the parking situation at Blackberry Farm Park are noted. Please refer to Response B2 above. The use of Monte Vista High School as an overflow parking lot during the infrequent high attendance events at Blackberry Farm Park is not identified as a "mitigation measure" in the IS/MND. The above referenced statement in Section 3.2.4 was included in the Project Description to emphasize that additional parking options are available, and Blackberry Farm visitors are not expected to park their cars on Scenic Circle, even during high attendance events. As described in Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose, some of the information contained within the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND (2006) was referenced in the Scenic Circle IS/MND, as allowed under Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Scenic Circle IS/MND, however, is not a subsequent MND or addendum to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND, as defined in Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. This IS/MND is not tiered off of the Stevens Creek Corridor IS/MND. Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 22 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 Pursuant to a settlement agreement and an associated addendum to the Stevens Creek Corridor Park IS/MND, shuttles and buses will not be permitted to use the San Fernando entrance to Blackberry Farm Park after the trail is completed and connects to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Comment E5: 3.2.8 CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION QUESTION: What is the construction activity schedule (hours/days)? QUESTION: What measures will be taken to prevent construction personnel from using the surrounding neighborhoods as a staging area prior to the designated start time? QUESTION: What are the construction vehicle traffic routes, and what measures will be taken to ensure the construction vehicles stay on those designated routes? Response E5: In response to neighbor concerns regarding construction noise and activities, the City has prepared project -specific construction requirements for contractors. In brief, construction workers may not arrive at the construction site prior to 7:00 AM, and if they drive a large vehicle (over 8,000 lbs) they may not arrive until 8:00 a.m. Work hours are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays, unless otherwise approved in advance. No work may take place that generates 50 dBA within 25 feet of the source before 8:00 AM or after 5:00 PM. Equipment and material delivery and ofthaul activities may only occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Equipment with safety backup beepers may only be operated between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Construction workers are only allowed to park in the Blackberry Farm Park parking lot and are encouraged to carpool. Construction equipment parking on Scenic Circle may be allowed on a limited basis with City's prior approval. Violations of these requirements will result in a financial penalty to the Contractor. Early arrival construction personnel may park on public streets where parking is legally permitted. However staff will work with the contractor to encourage that such early -arrival parking, if needed, will occur in non-residential areas. Construction vehicles are permitted to use roadways in accordance with Section 11.32 of the City's Municipal Code. Oversize or overweight vehicles are subject to restrictions of a special permit in accordance with Section 11.37 of the Municipal Code. Comment E6: 4.1 AESTHETICS: "The proposed project includes the construction of an approximately 270-foot long trail consisting of crushed or decomposed granite or another similar material;" QUESTION: Please define "another similar material." Specifically, does it include concrete or asphalt? Response E6: Please refer to Response C2. Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail 23 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND City of Cupertino January 2011 Comment E7: QUESTION: What preventive measures will be used to ensure the public stays on the designated trail (e.g., fencing)? Unfortunately, the forewarned trail widening and habitat destruction has occurred along parts of the Phase I trail. Response E7: Please refer to Response C12. Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail City of Cupertino 24 Responses to Comments on the ISAIND January 2011 ATTACHMENT A Letter from Gail Bower Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration From: Gail Bower [gail@voltage.corn] Sent: Monday, November 08, 201 Oi 6:08 P'M To: CapitalProjects i Subject, Scenic Circle bridge comments 1-lere are my comments: 1 do hope that everyone does everything possible and as at least as outlined to minimize the manmade look/effects of yet more marrmade elements in this park. It's already jam packed with them.. I'm concerned about trash in the creek. Haveyou seen the parking lot at Monta Vista High ? It's dreadful Please have staff monitor/have cleaned each day. 0 What is a wooden approach rarnip andwhy is it needed? I hope the retaining wall is not, a standard ugly wall brut is made with some creative in flUence to make it less obtrusive - some plantings that spill over the wall and/or native shrubbery/grasses in ftont, ofthe wall. It is most unfortunate that there will be tree removal — the new ones should be of same (T) or bigger size. 1'he 3 saplings should be replaced as well. I trust that watering them NgUlarly for at least a few years is part of the installation plan. 0 1 am very happy that there will be no night lighting etc -,-, our wildlitb very much needs that. a Please avoid bird nesting season for this project! Additional question -- When will all the chicken wiring around the other plantings be removed'? Additional comment — please — where the walnut was chopped down and a large sturnp left in the picnic area -- please allow it to grow back as it was doing prune as needed but let it grow back (instead of hacking it back to stump only) and let it provide all the great things that trees provide. 'Mantis, Gail Bower Orange Ave Cupertino ATTACHMENT B Letter from Rhoda Fry Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration From: Rhoda Fry [fryhouse@earthlink.niet]� Sent: Monday,, December 06, 20101 1:04 PM To: CapitalP,rojects; City Clerk Cc: Kris Wang; Mark Santoro; Gilbert Wong; Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang Subject: Corninent on InRiali Study/Mitigated! Negative Declaration Scenic Urcle Access to Stevens, Creek Trail Comments on CEQA Document re Scenic Circle Project Word copy to be delivered to city hall, F roar: Rhoda Fry 10351 San Fernando Avenue Cuperitno, CA 95014 -Fryhouse,@earthlinil<.net 3 pages To: Gail Seeds, Department of Public Works, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 951014 CC: Cupertino City Council, City Clerk, capitalprojeCtS@CLIpertino.org Subject: Comment on, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail I was disappointed that the public was given only one business -day notice of the council meeting on November 29 which discussed this project. By failing to provide adequate notice, the council and this very important project missed Out on public input. Furthermore, I was disrmmayedl to learn that the project bid set would be assembled'! (and disseminated) prior to closure of the environmental review comment period. This further reduces the possibility of a collaborative process with the voting community as it would take quite a bit of inertia and cost to amend the bid set. I applaud council for supporting the highest environmental standards before, during, and after this project, most notably to be respectful of tile bird nesting season. I have 2'main, concerns about this document. 1. Section 3.2.4 Monta Vista High School parking lot is referred to as the "existing, overflow parking lot," Nowhere in Phase I MND is an external parking lot mentioned,. Prior to reconstruction, ain external parking lot had been used no more than 3 predictaible times pier season. Use of an external parking option for the completely news and significantly different operational structure at Blackberry Farm has never been studied (e.g. 90% non-resident to greater residential use, fee to free, etc...). Moreover,, when the trail opens at Stevens Creek, any shuttles and buses must drop off either at Stevens Creek Blvd. or on McClellan Road. Monta Vista, High School must not enter into the equation as an overflow parking, lot. 2. Many parts of the MINI] are so terribly flawed that it puts this project at risk; even the simplest CEQA requirements are overlooked as shown below., These flaws should be corrected. Wouldn't this all have been easier if the pendulum had not been swinging back and forth on this issue and this project had been in Phase I all along? Section 1.0: The phrase "existing pedestrian bridge" - is an incorrect statement and should be amended. Prior to Phase I, there head been a bridge near that location, The Phase I INN stipulated that the bridge would be removed and it was,. iDuring the Phase I project, without public review, I another bridge along with additional creek work was installed. It is incorrect to say that Phase I was completed - because if it was, there would be no bridge there now. Note that the Phase I MND ,also said that CEQA would be required to install a bridge (and futuire access), but the bridge were installed without CEQA, public review, etc .. etc... 3.,1.1 a) Mentions that Phase I of the project has been completed. As mentioned above, there should be no existing bridge there now, had the project been executed according to plan. Phase I included redoing the cistern for watering, which did not occur. Also, our, naturalized wetland habitat, the ponds at the golf course, was destroyed without public input or notification to the California Department of Fish and Game., How will we ensure that all the rules are adhered to this time? b) A significant error in document is claiming "restoring public access" from Sceinic Circle. Actually, this project "creates public access," it does not restore it. When Blackberry Farm wais privately owned, there was some fencing in there but it was, possible for people to cut 'through the private property - thus what was going on was trespassing. When the City acquired the land, people continued to cut through, Residents in the Scenic Circle area got upset and requested to restrict access. This was grantedwith additional fencing and a combination lock which was, known mostly only to residents on the Scenic Circle side of the creek. At a later time, residents started to put up more fencing on their own.. The story is much longer than that. So what is, happening in this project is, migrating from trespass, to,restricted access, to, public access. It is definitely not "restoring public access." I think it is important to get the history right on these things. Also, the document fails to mention, that Phase I planning did include access but a vocal group of residents, vehemently opposed' it ainid 3 council members agreed, thus access was not included in the final Phase I plan. Another group of residents, which, are mentioned in the document did not agree with the decision and then pushed for access, which, is how this new plan came about. Had council approved the original phase I plan, a huge amount of time and expense could be spared; instead the pendulum has, been swinging back ain:d forth for years. c) To my knowledge, greater commiu:n:ity, such as those who could be affected by additional pedestrian traffic along Byrne Avenue, was not apprised of the "community meetings." The document acknowledges this in that the residents involved'! were primarily from the Sceinic side of the creek, The process should have been more inclusive to include other residents, affected by the plan. d) Another item on Phase I that needs completion as per agreement is no signage to Stevens Creek Trail directing users to the Byrne entrance, this is not complete. 3.1.2 The project is described as providing a "safer route to school," however it has not been studied either in this "initial study" or elsewhere. 3.2.3 Suggests extending phrk hours, This is a change from Phase I and the yet-to-be-designied and built Phase II. I can tell YOU -that we are hearing quite a number of coyotes in thie vicinity after hours and neighbors have seen the remains of good-sized animals (with thie aipproximaite stature of a I small child). I would urge you to not extend: the hours. 3.2.4 More CEQA comments.... a) The document mentions only over -capacity events at Blackberry Farm - the Phiaise I MND never mentioned over -capacity events. E3BF should never be at over -capacity. Further, there currently is insufficient parking at -the Blue Pheasant. The opening of the trail to Stevens Creek Blvd and the expanded use of the trail, the Stocklmeir Property, -the tank house, ands any future uses of tile area will Put additional pressure on an overburdened parking area. No mitigations are provided for this., Under CEQA, you need to mention the future connections. In fact, you are adding an access point to an even greater Bay Area trail, and in fact the National De Anza Trail, You need to address these Cumulative impacts; you just can't at the tiny little piece, under CEQA, It is kind': of like building a highiway interchange and not mentionioning plans to connect a freeway to it. Given that you're already talking about making changes -to the golf course in Phase II (something that we had been asking for in phase I, a missed opportunity), I would urge you to, seek options to extend the parking beyond the planned 91 spaces. We know now that the parking is insufficient. Adding uses will make it worse. This needs to be mentioned and addressed. b) As I mentioned before, to mention that the overflow parking at Monta Vista will be maintained is false. Phase I does not stipulate overflow parking at Monita Vista. We had been told that using that lot was a temporary solution - you cannot suddenly incorporate it into Phase I. 4.2-3.1 1 have not seen any studies to confirm that this project is consistent with TCM and CAP, goals. 4.3.2.2 In Phase I we found that construction hours were not adhered to and we endured a noisy dust bowl for a very long time, particularly when there were convoys. Countless calls to authorities produced no results. What will be the construction management plan this time? How will residents be able to alert the, city to violations and get a timely response? 4.4.2 Also vicinity of 4.12 (the document jUMPS from 4.12.2.1 to 4.13.2,,2, this is very con -Fusing, what is missing?) The effects on residents near Byrne Avenue (or Scenic Circle) are not addressed as -to the number of trips per day or noise,. Will there be someone near Byrne assigned to picking up additional trash if there is any? CEQA: We know that when there was restricted access to Scenic Circle we had more noise and trash. We have had much, less noise and trash since the restricted access, has been removed. What operational measures will be taken when there is public access? 011C K ATTACHMENT C Letter from Deborah Jamison Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Deborah Jamison 21346 Rumford Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 408-725-0424 ddjamison@comcast.net Gail Seeds, Department of Public Works City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Ms. Seeds, Please accept for review my comments re: Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park project, No. 9136. I have a masters degree and work experience in the field of ecology, and have participated as an interested member of the public in numerous stream and riparian development project issues, including those along Stevens Creek in Cupertino since 1990. I am pleased to offer my questions and suggestions for improvement of this project regarding protection of natural resources in the project area. I would appreciate responses to each of my questions, as well as your thoughtful consideration of the suggestions. Let me begin by saying that as a former professional and current volunteer environmental educator, I encourage people to spend time in natural environments, and to learn about and appreciate our local ecosystems. Adults as well as children in our society suffer from "nature deficit disorder," "screen addiction," and obesity. Providing access and outdoor experiences, especially in local parks near residential areas, may help to reduce these societal trends. However, in natural areas that have been so drastically reduced as local and regional freshwater aquatic and riparian habitats have been in the last several decades, care must be taken to make sure that the very nature whose understanding and appreciation we hope to instill through providing access is not further degraded or destroyed by human presence and activity. All construction work and infrastructure installed in native plant communities and wildlife habitat will have some negative impacts in the short term. My comments concern minimizing the short term impacts and eliminating long term impacts that potentially can arise if more mitigation than is currently proposed is not implemented. Section 4.1.1 Aesthetics The proposed project includes construction of a trail consisting of crushed or decomposed granite or another similar material. What is meant by "similar"? Does "similar material" include hard -surfacing (e.g. asphalt, concrete). Does "similar material" include impervious surfacing? Is crushed or decomposed granite or another similar material considered an all-weather material? My opinion is that a hard, impervious trail surfacing is a detriment to the aesthetic qualities of this area of the creekside environment. It might also contribute to water run-off into the creek carrying soil / silt material and thus erosion of the soil on this slope. Siltation of creek waters Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 1 degrades the habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish. The project includes trash and recycling receptacles located out of sight of the residences. For aesthetic reasons, I think that the receptacles should be constructed of a material and be a color that blends in to the rustic and natural environmental and be visually non -obtrusive. Consideration should be given to placing them in a location that is visible to nearby trail users but not visible to persons on the east side of the creek. Additional planting may be required to shield the receptacles from high visibility. The receptacles should also be the kind that wildlife cannot access. Section 4.4 Biological Resources The redesign of Blackberry Farm planned for the project area to be inaccessible to people, and thus not subject to the negative impacts on habitat that human and dog presence and activity produce. The adopted 2006 SCCP Master Plan/Restoration Plan / Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration proposed that the "Pedestrian bridge from the east bank of Stevens Creek to Fallen Oak picnic areas .... would be demolished and removed." The removal of people and the reintroduction of native plants would have made the project area the highest quality woodland habitat in Blackberry Farm. Section 4.4.1.2 Existing Biotic Habitats I urge the city to take the opportunity provided by tree removal activity for this project to remove Tree of Heaven/Ailanthus specimens. This species is invasive, fast-growing, and often takes over areas, outcompeting native plants causing their decline and disappearance. Section 4.4.1.2. Wildlife I maintain a database of birds observed in McClellan Ranch and Blackberry Farm based on my own observations and those of other reputable bird observers. All of the raptors listed as "may nest and/or forage in the riparian corridor and adjacent habitats" have been seen and/or heard in recent years. Other raptor species that have been observed and may use the habitat in or near the project site are Sharp -shinned Hawk and Great Horned Owl. The following raptors have also been observed near the project area: Turkey Vulture, Golden Eagle, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, Merlin and American Kestrel. Section 4.4.1.3 Special -Status Species The following bird species with special status have been observed to be present within the corridor between 2005 and 2010: Sharp -shinned Hawk, Peregrine Falcon and Merlin. Some of the bird species that are known to nest in the riparian woodland along this section of Stevens Creek are also on the Audubon Watchlist. These are Nuttall's Woodpecker and Oak Titmouse. Also feared declining is Warbling Vireo, Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 2 4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts The construction of the Stevens Creek Trail in McClellan Ranch, which has a concrete surface, resulted in the soil scrapping and vegetation removal of far more than the 8 foot width of the trail. Why will this trail be constructed "by removing only as much vegetation as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width and installation of proposed improvements"? How is the construction method used in this Scenic Circle access trail different from the methods used in the Stevens Creek Trail and how does the difference in methods explain the difference in width of vegetation removal? Should reseeding be done in the impacted area, will those seeds be from plants native to the area or the Stevens Creek watershed? 4.4.2.1 Impacts to Sensitive Habitats Section 4.3.2.2 Construction -Related Impacts and under Aquatic Habitat Avoidance Measures to Aquatic Habitat the IS/MND states: "Construction equipment will be staged in upland and/or currently developed or disturbed areas to avoid disturbance to sensitive habitat areas and reduce the potential for sediment and materials to enter the creek." Please be more specific. Where will construction materials (wood, fill, base rock, surface material, etc.) and machinery be stored / parked when not in use? Does "upland" mean in areas upslope from the creek not in the immediate trail alignment? Storage of these items should not cover or negatively impact in any way areas adjacent to but not in the immediate trail construction alignment area. Doing so increases the footprint of the area to be negatively impacted by vegetation removal, soil compaction and habitat degradation, and increases the potential of negatively impacting soil stability and creek water quality. Impacts to Riparian and Aquatic Habitat The proposed plan is to construct a ramp on the east side of the creek from the bridge and extending to the north, in an alignment very close to the edge of the creek bank where it descends to the creekbed. The proximity of the ramp to the creek bank may cause destabilization of the soil and siltation. It also prevents the establishment of vegetation that would stabilize the top of the bank. However, because of the proximity of the main trail, the ramp cannot be oriented in the same direction as the bridge. On the other hand, the steps could be. The trail at that location is very wide, and the presence of the steps would not reduce the width to an unacceptable dimension for regular trail use. On the other hand, the creek bank in the south direction falls away from the bridge quite near to where the steps would be. Orienting the stairs in a direct line with the bridge is safer and has less potential to damage the top of the bank. Please consider this alternative. What is the width of vehicles who need access on this section of the trail? Could they could manage with a reduced width at the location of the bridge? Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 3 Indirect Impacts from Increased Recreation Use Please provide references to the assertion that "the proposed project is not expected to substantially affect the existing ability of wildlife to use the site. The visual and acoustic disturbance to wildlife associated with the proposed trail use is not expected to be significantly higher than currently exists, and the wildlife along the channel is expected to adapt to the new levels of disturbance. Providing a formal, accessible trail connection and a controlled access point to Blackberry Farm Park could decrease the possible creation of new foot trails through the sensitive habitats within the corridor." As a long-time frequent user of trails of all kinds, I have noticed without exception that formal trails, particularly those that allow bicycle use, inevitably widen and allow the creation of new "rogue" trails when there is no fencing to stop the behavior that causes these impacts. Please see photographs attached. Photo 1 demonstrates the widening of a trail where the fence is further away, and the lack of widening on the side where there is a split rail fence close to the trail. Photo 2 is of the Mary Ave. bridge trail completed not long ago in Cupertino. Native plants were installed along the sides of this trail, but on both sides the trail has increased in width, sometimes substantially, and the new native plantings destroyed. Photo 3 is the Stevens Creek Trail in the old orchard area of McClellan Ranch. Less than two years old, the trail has widened until the wire around the planted native grasses and shrubs stops further encroachment into the habitat area. Photo 4 is an example of formal trails providing a launching point for rogue trails to be established into habitat areas. Photo 5 was taken in a natural area where the trail slope required a switchback. Park managers used barbed wire and a stern sign in an attempt to stop people from cutting the switchback. Attachment A2 shows in the colored hatched areas where I believe people, particularly children on BMX and mountain bikes, will cut the trail switchback. Between trail widening, switchback cutting, and using the slope as a quicker and more exciting way to get to the bridge, the entire area from the entry gate to the bridge will not be able to maintain vegetation or soil stability. Photo 6 is an area between the Stevens Creek Trail in Mountain View and the creek bank where people have illegally constructed a BMX bicycle playground. I have observed many children, and even some adults, using slopes and hills that they have easy access to via a formal trail as a BMX and off -trail practice area. Patrolling and enforcing park rules is not sufficient behavior management unless a park ranger is posted at this trail connection the entire time the park is open. Short of this, preventing the destruction of vegetation on the sides of and branching off from a trail will only be accomplished by a physical barrier in the form of fencing or continuous dense, woody vegetation lining the trail. Even if new trail users are on their best behavior when the trail is first opened for use, in the long-term the trail will widen and areas near the trail denuded of vegetation. Again, many years of trail use and observation leads me to this conclusion. Not only new native plants and the wildlife habitat they provide will be wasted, but the city funds spent in installing them will be wasted as well. One technique that works well in sensitive habitat is to create the trail as a boardwalk. Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 4 At the Elfin Forest in Los Osos, CA, both a boardwalk with a lip, and a strung out cord next to the boardwalk, seems to keep trail users on the trail effectively. See Photos 7 & 8. What behavior management techniques will the city deploy to prevent destruction of vegetation and subsequent destabilization of the soil in the area of the trail? Will the city install some sort of wildlife friendly and safe fencing, or dense, woody plantings to prevent degradation of habitat value and potential erosion and siltation reaching the creek? I disagree with the prediction that an "increase in visitor and dog use [in] the project site would not have a significant long-term effect on sensitive habitats or wildlife" — without employing physical methods of keeping people on the trail and preventing widening, cutting of the switchback, and making additional trails. Special Status Bird Species Impact BI0-2: In addition to removal or trimming of shrubs and trees on the site possibly impacting nesting birds, the loud noises and vibrations of heavy machinery could also cause a bird to abandon a nest, or prevent it from incubating eggs or feeding young for long enough periods to endanger the successful rearing of offspring. MM BIO-2.1 This project should be constructed outside of the breeding season starting from January for some species (e.g. Great Horned Owl) through June. The project should begin in July, which would allow it to be completed before the rainy season. This access to Blackberry Farm has been closed for five years and a couple of extra months of closure is not significant. Construction during the nesting season is not unavoidable. 4.9.2.1 Flooding and Drainage Impacts from the Project What is the nature and composition of the stabilizer to be used on the trail surface? Does this stabilizer have any toxic properties and could toxic material or chemicals contaminate the soil or waters of the creek? 4.1.8 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1) The project does have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. Some trail users, over time, like some trail users everywhere, will walk and ride bicycles on the land adjacent to the trail. Some bicyclists will cut the switchback and use the slope as an alternative way down to the bridge. Bicyclists will also go around slower pedestrians by going off -trail. Pedestrians will also engage in these off trail activities. This trail is intended to be used by children going to and from school. Children are the most likely people to behave in off -trail activities. Vegetation is destroyed, exposed soil is both loosened and compacted (depending on the type of activity) as a result of these behaviors. Over time all vegetation is removed exposing bare soil that is subject to erosion and sedimentation of the creek water. Proposed mitigation measures are not adequate to prevent this impact. Like agencies in many other jurisdictions, other measures should be employed such as fencing, boardwalk with adjacent fencing, and/or dense, woody shrubs next to the trail as a physical barrier and visual cue for people to remain on the trail while descending to the bridge. Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 5 What is the mitigation monitoring plan for evaluation of the success of the planted and transplanted plants associated with this project? What is the plan for weed control and replacement of plants that fail? Is there an adaptive management plan for responding to levels of habitat degradation and species impacts not anticipated? Thank you for answering my questions and giving serious consideration to the additional impacts and mitigation measures that I believe are necessary to fully protect the habitat values of the project area riparian woodland. Sincerely, Deborah Jamison Deborah Jamison, comments to Cupertino Project No. 9136 page 6 )1110-1�.� I . .� /\�� � \ � }. >z \� 7 � `� ��� � ���¥. §� \������\ � 2\° ,2 .\� �� \\�\ � \ ,. � %� .�: /\ ' \ �:� /\ ( `: ©� ) \%\ . w,, , � \ � y�� .� � a � �\ ��« � : � 0, . 0 01 �0Lu �. - 3, Oct gr ,P �.P,�r�" f 04 JZF �.� LLJ ca LU ,,4 b te°Y �f r r0 r* 4 ! w•ry(roe � I" C ca c 1 Pu r 4r�mw�� llj .p w ry�I r W N :, w C) CO mi C 1, „ „! i ... a ii//1l rm�iTlkl/ 4ZA 1 rtx,�wtmrvr»,v�wwm - rid r ATTACHMENT D Letter from Shani Kleinhaus for Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Founded1926 December 61h, 2010 Gail Seeds, Project Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Ms. Seeds, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park (Project No. 9136) in the City of Cupertino. The project would construct an approximately 270-foot long trail to connect Scenic Circle to the existing trail in Blackberry Farm Park via an existing bridge over Stevens Creek. The proposed project also includes the construction of approach ramps, stairway, retaining wall, and access point at Scenic Circle. The project is designed to accommodate non - motorized modes of travel, including biking, hiking, jogging, and walking. The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (SCVAS) has over 4000 members in the county, many of which reside in Cupertino. Our mission is to preserve, to enjoy, to restore and to foster public awareness of native birds and their ecosystems, mainly in Santa Clara County. SCVAS has inherent interest in development along the Stevens Creek riparian corridor: our offices are located in McClellan Ranch, and we are partners with the City of Cupertino in the application for the funding of Phase II of the Stevens Creek Park Project. We have previously commented on the proposed Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail, and we appreciate the efforts taken by the City to select a short route from Scenic Circle to the bridge, as suggested in our letter of February 161h, 2010. 1. Trail Design 1.1. Trail design should include barriers to control use and prevent environmental damage; barriers may include fences, vegetation, stiles, and/or fallen trees or branches as appropriate. 1.2. Non -motorized travel on the trail should specifically prohibit skateboarding. 2. Project construction, vegetation removal and trimming The proposed project is of relatively short duration and can be constructed entirely outside of the nesting season, thereby avoiding harm to nesting birds and breach of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We ask that Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1 specify that construction, and especially vegetation removal and trimming, occur outside of the nesting season. p. 1 of 2 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850 email: scva..@2 cvas,1212 * www.scvas.org .......... ...... ....... ............... .............. ....... ....... ........................> 3. Dog and human access The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies Indirect Impacts from Increased Recreational Use (page 34) that include impacts due to increased human and dog access. The MND correctly proposes that implementation of measures included in the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project to protect sensitive wildlife and habitat from impacts due to visitor and dog use would help minimize potential impacts of the proposed trail connection. We ask that the MND and its associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the Scenic Circle project reiterate and incorporate Stevens Creek Corridor Park Master Plan and Restoration Plan (SCCPMP) Mitigation Measure BIO-5 (SCCPMP, Appendix I) as approved by the City for the in April 2006. This mitigation measure includes signage, patrols and citations, cleanup of dog waste, and a "volunteer patrols and education" program. In addition, SCCPMP Mitigation Measure BIO-5 has an adaptive management component, and it proposes that if it is determined at any time that the impacts to native flora and fauna and to restored habitats are not sufficiently minimized, then the City shall discontinue permitting dogs within the project area. 4. Mitigation monitoring Please specify where, in the future, all documents related to mitigation compliance will be located, so that the public may inspect them. All documentation, not just summary reports, should be considered public records. Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. We hope to continue to be involved in the review process for the proposed project with the aim of providing access while protecting the riparian corridor, its wildlife and its ecological function. Respectfully, Shani Kleinhaus Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society 22221 McClellan Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 shann.(�scvasnor� p. 2 of 2 22221 McClellan Road, Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: (408) 252-3748 * Fax: (408) 252-2850 email: scva..@2 cvas.or21 * www.scvas.org .......... ...... ....... ............... .............. ....... ....... ........................> ATTACHMENT E Letter from Susan Sievert Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments and Questions for the November 2010 Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Initial Study/MND Some did not want the inconvenience of this CEQA review process, and now, rather than mitigate the avoidable environmental impacts, some residents would have it that the trail construction commence during bird nesting season. Please recall that respecting the nesting season during Phase I was universally accepted without debate and that this area has been a year round, undisturbed safe haven for wildlife since 2005. For further information, please contact the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and the City Naturalist. SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE: "The City of Cupertino is proposing to construct an approximately 270 foot long trail that would connect Scenic Circle to the existing trail in Blackberry Farm Park via an existing pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek. " QUESTION: Is the bridge an "existing pedestrian bridge," or a replacement maintenance bridge that is presently closed to the public? Or, please provide the CEQA statute allowing its status to be interchangeable. The existing wooden pedestrian bridge that was installed by the City without a permit was removed as directed by the City Council, and a recycled metal bridge was installed without a public hearing, or CEQA review. However, the 2006 IS/MND Project Description states, "Should any new bridges be considered in the future other than what is proposed in the Master Plan, they would need to go through the permitting and CEQA process separately." The City, including the City Attorney's Office, later argued it was a "maintenance bridge," not needing a CEQA review because it was a "replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and / or facilities, under CEQA section 15302 (b)." 3.1.1 BACKGROUND: "After the Blackberry Farm Park renovations were completed in 2009, some residents raised the issue of restoring public access from Scenic Circle to provide a route to walk and bike to the tri-school area east of the creek and to increase community access to the renovated public park. " QUESTION: Does trespassing and special favors qualify as public access? Public access was not legitimized until a 2010 City Council action. From 1953 until 2009, Blackberry Farm was a seasonal resort requiring an entrance fee, but "some residents" committed acts of vandalism to gain entry (fence cutting). In 2001, City staff gave special favor to some residents by providing them with the combination to a padlocked gate, while the public continued to pay the entrance fee. Therefore, it should read granting public access, not "restoring." 3.2.4 PARKING CONTROL MEASURES: "Tier 2: The existing overflow parking lot at Monta Vista High School for the park will be maintained for high attendance events as needed. " QUESTIONS: After people park at MVHS, please explain exactly what they are to do next? Also, when was the MVHS solution studied for its feasibility and environmental impacts? The 2006 IS/MND that this November 2010 Initial Study states it "utilized" failed to include any scenario for "overflow" parking. It is therefore irresponsible to casually toss in unstudied mitigation measures. Further, the use of the word "maintained" suggests a status quo operation, when the change in use was significant: the entrance fee was removed; the days of use went from 100 to 365-days per year; and, last but not least, the onsite parking was reduced from 1200 to 167 without a public hearing or CEQA review. The glaring problem resulting from the Phase One parking error is that once the trail is extended to Stevens Creek Blvd., it will be unlawful (per the terms of a legal agreement) for shuttles and busses to use the San Fernando Avenue Blackberry Farm driveway. Further, since the City is on the record saying the entrance is a "safety issue," the negligence of inviting pedestrians to walk from MVHS is a significant taxpayer liability. In short, the parking program is a broken mess, and MVHS is more of a problem than a solution. 3.2.8 CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION QUESTION: What is the construction activity schedule (hours/days)? QUESTION: What measures will be taken to prevent construction personnel from using the surrounding neighborhoods as a staging area prior to the designated start time? QUESTION: What are the construction vehicle traffic routes, and what measures will be taken to ensure the construction vehicles stay on those designated routes? 2 4.1 AESTHETICS: "The proposed project includes the construction of an approximately 270 foot long trail consisting of crushed or decomposed granite or another similar material; " QUESTION: Please define "another similar material." Specifically, does it include concrete or asphalt? QUESTION: What preventive measures will be used to ensure the public stays on the designated trail (e.g., fencing)? Unfortunately, the forewarned trail widening and habitat destruction has occurred along parts of the Phase I trail. Thank you in advance for answering my questions. Susan Sievert ATTACHMENT F Letter to City of Cupertino from the State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Res,earch State Clearinghouse Mtn Planning Unit 0 aOF CA050 Arnold Schwarzonegger Cathleen (Jox Governor Acting Director Dccernber 7, 20101 Gail Seeds City of Cupertino 1 O�3 OtO Torre Avenue: Cupertino, CA 95014 RECE 1VFD PUBLIC W0RX9 DEPARTMENT Subjecc Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Project SCII#: '2010112015, Dear Gail Seeds: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state, agencies for review. The review period closed on December 6, 2010, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-06 13 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-narned project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, ecott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL (916) 445-0613, FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report &I a L11 la-h M SCH# 2010112015 Project Title Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Project Lead Agency Cupertino, City of Type M,IND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The proposed project is the construction of a trail connection on public park lands in the City of Cupertino. The approximately 270-foot long trail would connect Scenic Circle (a residential street to Blackberry Farm Park via an existing pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek, The proposed trail would be approximately eight feet wide and would consist of crushed' or decomposed: granite (or sif-Mar natural tread material). On, the north side of the bridge, a new accessible approach ramp and a stairway would connect the pedestrian bridge to an existing creek trail', that runs through Blackberry Farm Park. Lead Agency Contact Name Gall Seeds Agency City of Cupertino Phone 408 777 3354 Fax email Address 10300 Torre Avenue City Cupertino State CA Zip 95014 Project Location County Santa Clara City Cupertino Region LatlLong 37' 19'02" N / 122' 03' 42" W Cross Streets Scenic Circle and Scenic Court Parcel No. 35,7-10-008, 357-07-029 Township Range, Section Base Proximity to: Highways SIR 85,11-280 Airports Railways Waterways Stevens Creek Schools Monte Vista HS Land Use General Plan Land Ulse Designation. Parks and Open Space; Zoning: FIR - Park and Recreation, R1-7,5, Sin gle- Famity Residential Project Issues AestheticNisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Flood PlaiiIn/Flooiding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologiic/Seismic� Mlnerals� Noise; P'opon/Hoiusinig Ballanc% Public: Service% Recreation/Parks; Sewer Capacity; SoH Erosion/Compactioini/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wetland/Riparian; Landuse; Cumulative Effects, Reviewing Resources AgienicyDepartment of Fish and Game, Region 3; Office of Mistoric Preservation; Agencies Department of Par�s and Recreation;� Department of Water Resources� California Highway Patrol� Caltrans, District 4, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2i; Department of Toxic Substances C 1; 1 ont�rol� Native American Heritage Commission Grate Received 11/05/20,10, Start ofReview 11/05120101 End of Review 12/06/20118 ATTACHMENT 1 Letter from Hugh Chen Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration From: H,ugh Chen [hchen123@yahoo.cornj Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12:16 PM To: Capita[P,roj:ects Cc: City CouncilM saferidescu perti no@ grn ail. com Subject: Environmental study report This is -to e�xpress my support for the positive report about the environmental Study on Scenic Circle access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm. Hugh Chen: 22361 McClellan Rd., Cupertino, CA 95014 408-255-'9718 0 ATTACHMENT 2 Letter from Paul Oleas Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration From: oleas@aol.coni Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 12A2 PM To: Capftal Projects Cc: City Council Subject: Einvjronmentall Study Results for Scenic Circle Access to Blackberry Farm Hello, After looking at the environmental report for this project i ani wrifing to let you know I heartily agree with the findings. I live on the corner of Palrn Ave and Scenic Blvd which the way to get to this access. I have no issues with seeing this project go, through to completion. The neighborhood has had many new families move in with school age children. it only makes sense, to allow these kids, ain easy, safe way to get to school, Those of US on, the west side of Stevens Creek have been denied this access too long. Can't wait to see work start. Paul Oleas 22270 Palm Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 ATTACHMENT 3 Letter from Carol Lim Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration From: Carol Lim [carolli1112OOO@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 0:3, 2010 10:48 AM To: Cap4al Projects Cc- City COUncil; saferidescuipertino@gmaiU.com Subject: Scenic Circle Access Environmental Review I am writing this email to show my strong support for the conclusion of the "Initial Study Draft Mitigated Negativ-., Declaration for Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry �Farm Park"" which has the following findings: RlMffffM47SIMrM-IT; Ma OM 2) The Less Than Significant Impact areas either d�on't warrant any mitigations or minor mitigations can accommodated I 3) The report indicates some Beneficial Impacts of the project but doesn't even cover many of the advantag that the access will provide our community I 21 Z I T TROYIN M. "17be proposed project complements the beneficial effects of the Master Plan elements, by providing trail facilities and briproving non-inotorized access to public park lands." Jill V! i 1 X1141.7;?17 qW.WITWOM. - M III ill EJill 11 E ,, M1 ATTACHMENT 4 Letter from Steve and Darlene Mix Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration From: Steve Mix [stevemix4@att.riet) Sent: Friday, Decernber 03, 2010 3:41 PM To: CapiitalProjects Cc. City COUncil; Safe Rides Subject-. Access MUTWITGTOTMI—TIMMM. s!e.:.v.ei,).,].!J.x.4 Pg att.net ATTACHMENT 5 Letter from Jean Misko Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Frorn: Misko, Jean M flean,misko@ay.abbott,com] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:24, PM To: CapitalProjects CC- City Council; Carol Stanek Subject: Fug. Environmental Report for Scenic Access - Public Comment Hello, 1, have been a resident on Scenic Circle for over 12 years and t appreciate the efforts of opening up the access to public park lands. It was more open when I first purchased the home and since then certain neighbors have lobbied strongly for,putting Up locked fences, etc, trying to keep this area Out of bounds in the, worry that some teenagers will have a smoke or litter near their property or park in front of their house. They, try to make Hie point that this will lower Our property values. I disagree and feel this landis for everyone who pays taxes to enjoy. I appreciate the environmentally friendly way in which the City is implementing this project and support moving forward, I feel this will be a step in the direction which is better for more people to, enjoy the beauty of our area and Should not be fenced off as it has been. This is a very hot topic in my neighborhood and so I am concerned about the backIash of writing this, however, I feel strongly that this area should be enjoyed by the public. Thank -you Jean, Misko R&D Group Lead Abbott Vascular 3200 Lakeside Dr Santa Clara, CA,,95054, USA Tel 408,845.4122 L g1117Vs1(o@@v.abbot1 �,�r� ATTACHMENT 6 Letter from Anne Ng Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration From: AnneNg@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:34 PM To: CapitallProjects Cc: anneng@aol,com Subject: IS/MND comments, scenic access P1111�11111• Thanks for doing a careful)l analysis of the environmental consequences of the worthy project to, provide access to Blackberry Farm from Scenic Circle. The project minimizes the adverse effects on both the immediate neighbors and the environment, for a substantial beneficial impact, providingi low stress public access to, the park and Stevens Creek Trail and a safer route to school for children living west of the creek, thereby potentially reducing motorized traffic on McClellan Road and Stevens, Creek Blvd, I believe the main adverse effects will come from the construction, and I'm happy to see the proposed mifigaflons. Anne Ng 6031 Bollinger Road Cupertino CA 95014 ATTACHMENT 7 Letter from Ross S. Heitkamp, President, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration i From,- Ross Heftkamp� [ross he6tkai-np@stevenscreel<traill,orgi] Seurat: m t: Monday, Deceber (%, 2010 12:04 PM T o: CallpitalProjects Cc: City Council Subject. Inifiall Study/Mlitilgated Negative Declaration - Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park r f , o: Gail Seeds, Public Works Departnient cc: Cupertino City Council SUI)JO&. [nitial S tudy/M iti gated Negative Declaration - Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park As a local organization whose goal is to raise conn-nunity awareriess, and support for the completion of and access to the biteerasCreek Trail, The Friends of Stevens, Creek Trail (the Friends) would like to notify you ofits, support flor the conclusions drawn. in the subject docunientfor Scenic Circle Access to the Stevens Creek Trail, The l7riends would like to see Cupertino, continue with implementation of the project. The Friends is pleased that the City would irriplenlent this project ill the environineritally friendly manner described in the document. As noted in the Study, with the inipletnentation of the few mitigation measures, the project would not result in significant eilv iron rilen t al inipacts. The project is consistent with the goals of providing access to the Trail and sinlLdtaneoLlSly protecting the environirient. In Section l416.11,Transportation, the document describes some of the benefic,ial effects of this project by recognizing that "the project enhances the viability of traits as a travel option and may resLdt in fewer vehicle trips in the community," The Friends, supports 5qfie Routes toSchool and believes that this additional access is consistent with providing h'nproved rOLItCS, for students. ,rhere fore, the, Friends supports the continuation ofthis project as defined, Sincerely, Ross S. I leitkarrip President, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail ross heft ka�iip&q �evq_q§,qLq,2,ktr@Jl_grg l'Ittp,,//www,ste,vens(Ireekti,,,i . 1, 2 rg./ _ -.-I ... --.- - - - - -- —� -1 - .1 ATTACHMENT 8 Letter from Rune H. Jensen Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration From: Rune H, Jensen [rune_hartungjenseril@,yahoo,gym] Sent: (Monday, December 06,, 2010 7:38 AM To: CapitalProjects Cc: City Council; saferidescupertiiiio@grrianl.com Subject: Support for Scenic rd access to blackberry farrin, To Cupertino City Council, I like you to know that our family fully support the conclusion of the "Initial Study Dr,aft Mitigated Negaitive Declaration, for Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park" which hats -the following findings- 1) No significant impacts fromi this project 2) The Less Than Significant Impact areas either, don -It warrant any mitigaitions or minor mitigations can be accommodated 3) Conclusion of the report states the following in: Section 4.18.2: "The proposed project complements the beneficial effects of the Master Plain elements by providing trail facilities ain,d improving non -motorized access to public park lands." There are further benefits for our community (we live on 10180 Carmen Rd) not outlined ini the report. Our family, with our 2 kids, often bike in the neighborhood. To get: -to black berry farm - we need to bike either on Stevens Creek or McClennan. Both options are dangerous to kids - yet we do love the trail from the ranch to the farm and the playground on the farm - so we apt for riding on the road or, taking the caiir to McClellan Ranch, A direct access would be a Bread benefit to our family. Sincerely, Rune H 3ensen 10180 Carmen Rd' Cupertino ATTACHMENT 9 Letter from Carol Stanek Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration From: Carol Stanek [cstanek@echelon.corn] Sent: Monday, Deceiniber 06, 2010 3:01 PM To: Capital Projects Cc: City COUrIGH Subject: I'Liblic Cortirrient: Initial StudyMitigated Negative Declaration - Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Taal( and Blackberry Farm Park Attachments: Dec 2010 crossing.jpg; Dec 2010 crossinq2Jpg To: Gail Seeds, flublic Works Department cc("upertillo City Council Sut),ject: Initial Stuudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Scenic Circle Access to Stevens CreelcTrail and Blackberry Farin park It is clear froni the subject docunient that the City has, t,,,,one to great lengills to study, exalnineand coinply with applicable laws and WgLdatiffl'IS regarding this project. The City staff is to be conluiended for this thorotigh, lhoughtful and environnientally friendly approach to, iniplementing [lie project. 'Fhe cord usiolis of' the subject report are very clear that with the implernentation ol"the fiew unifigation ineasures the project would not result in significant environniental nripacts. Berieficial effects are even identified in nunierous areas ofthe sub�ject report, Given that the seerning intent or these kinds of'studies is to find areas of concern, this, OSitiVC C011CIUSiOn Strongly supports the fixiplenientation ofthe project, One area that the report is nol intended to cover, bUt should not be overlooked, is what the environmental inipact niight be ifffie project is not firipleniented. While no Sigiiiificant Inipacts were identified with moving forward with the project, there is at least crate Significant environmental Impact of not moving ftwwaid. That inipact is to [lie creek and surrounding environment upstreani I'rorri the proposed crossing site. It has previously been identified that a niakeshift crossing had been erected across the creek due, to the lack ofan available access. I believe that at least one previous crossing had been dismantled to restore the creek to the natural flow that it requires. Unfoilunarely, upon review just last week, I found that another niakeshill crossing has again been erected, again inhibiting the flow ofthe creek (see enclosed PiCtUMS fi�oni last week), 'These makeshift crossings no, doubt could be considered as Significant Impact to the environnient of'Trot rnoving forward with this pro ' ject. Once the proJect, is completed, there will no longer be a need for this kind ofcrossing. The protection to file c,reek environment will be enhanced, I I am sure there are those in our inidst who will ask for snore studies. The City has perforrned it's due diligence with respect to it's envirunincrital responsibilities. We should not let those who would try to delay this implenientaiion forever distract us 1, , roul Inoving forward in the respousible way outline(( in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. `]'hank you for your wc)rk to ensure (trial positive outcomes flor the prqject an(] the environnient, Sincerely, Carol Stanek 10382 Mira Vista Rd. ATTACHMENT 10 Letter from Kenneth C. and Sandra Q. Joe Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park Public Comments on Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration Dec- 08 111 0 01 Ma Milcrosoft 40-1881 p2 Kenneth C. and Sandra Q. Joe 10473 Scenic Court Cupertino, Califurnia, 95011 December 6, 2010 As a, concern homeowner in the Scenic Circle area, 11 would like to state for the record that the Cate entrance to the "Stevens CreekTrail" would be fine with me [>roviding thatthere be "No Parking" along Scenic Circle, Scenic Court, or Riveria as it WGI be a danger in case of emergencies with, only one outlet for 36 residents. C 1,