CC 05-19-2020 Item No. 25 Regnart Creek Trail Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration_Written CommunicationsCC 05-19-20
Item #25
MND Regnart Creek
Trail, Joint Use
Agreement SCVWD
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:M.S. Sathya <mssn@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 16, 2020 5:56 PM
To:City Council
Cc:mssn@yahoo.com; mssathya@gmail.com
Subject:Regnart trail project.....
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Respected council members,
Hope all is well with all your family amidst this calamity of carona virus situation.
This has changed every walks of life and we need to focus on positive steps ahead to make our lives better.
I am writing this email to express my concern regarding the Regnart trail project converting a peaceful neighborhood
that was very quiet and reflected the beauty of the city of Cupertino = that is known for its safety and family friendly
environment to a possible area with theft, robbery, vandalism, crime with opening this stretch of the trail as desired by a
section of the community who are non‐residents and putting pressure on the city to open this trail for their possible
brief entertainment.
The concerns of the residents in the area has to be top priority as they have chosen this as their HOME for many years.
I live adjacent to this trail for the last 25 years and brought up 2 kids going to the excellent school districts in the country
and even today enjoy living in this prestigious neighborhood.
I would like to bring up the following points to reinforce my appeal not to proceed with the project.
1. This section of the trail has multiple turns on the way ‐ this is susceptible for crime against kids who may be present
on the trail on certain times of the day ‐ there is not much visibility from the road side for any one to see the trail.
2. There are properties on the trail whose front doors are adjacent to the trail ‐ makes it unsafe for residents and offers
zero privacy.
3. There are some small wild life who live on certain sections of this creek ‐ frogs, lizards, squirrels and birds. This used
to be the nesting and breeding place for the ducks and they are long gone with all the noise and pollution. Please
preserve this ecology and environment. There are few places in the valley with such areas.
4. It can not be used for school kids as it is unsafe.
5. Accidents are bound to happen as kids falling into the creek and injuring themselves as certain sections of the trail
is very narrow and by nature kids will venture into getting down to the creek.
6. Vandalism is another thing the neighbors need to worry about and could become the camping ground for the
homeless people. This is very unsafe to both the residents as well as the walkers by.
7. It will give room for theft and burglary as currently this is well fenced off by the water board and taking care of the
maintenance very well.
8. THE WORLD HAS CHANGED in the last 2‐3 months ‐ having seen the deadliest virus and calamity of our lives people
2
are coping and surviving with job loses and loss of their nearest and dearest and this is the time THE HIGLY EDUCATED
community elected folks need to look into what is the need of the hour and NOT WASTING ON A FANTASY PROJECT
like this one which offers ZERO value to anyone! PLEASE DO NOT VENTURE INTO THIS and use MONEY WISE FOR THE
BENEFIT of the residents who have worked hard and paid PREMIUM MONEY TO THE development and the growth of
CITY OF
CUPERTINO!!!
9. Please don't jump into the decision and freely discuss with the residents and well wishers of this beautiful city.
10. The utilization of the trail will be minimum by all those stake holders who are pushing on this and PLEASE HAVE
CONCERN
FOR THE LONG TIME RESIDENTS.
I summarize by saying that is a UNWORTHY project to put the residents and community at large into an undesirable
risk.
Thanking you and hopefully you will make a decision not to pursue this project.
Best Regards,
Sathya
M.S. Sathyanarayana
(408) 887‐0473
mssn@yahoo.com
Celebrating 25 years of residency in beautiful CUPERTINO!!!
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Gloria Ezerski <gloryez@att.net>
Sent:Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:06 PM
To:City Council
Subject:creekside trail
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
I do not understand as to why you, the city, is determined to open and have the public use the
Creekside trail. It is unbelievable that you are asking for uninvited problems. We the public are told
to wear mask, wash our hands many times because of the virus 19 and yet those who pitch a tent,
live on our streets, sidewalks, don't wear masks nor do they have running water to wash their hands.
Please tell me, how can we, those of us who live by the rules, protect ourselves from a sickness,
disease, that can and could be passed on to us from them living as they do? A clean environment
such as the creek trail is, will it not be inviting to them? Wolfe road near a newly built hotel certainly
was inviting for their living quarters.
The state, cities, all are having a homeless problem and yet you the city of Cupertino is inviting
it. Money wasted for widening a path to cross the streets to enter the creek, it could have been better
spent.
Trees on Farallone Drive need pruning, people have to duck when walking, and a few sidewalks have
sunken in and one can easily trip on them. Now this is a project that needs attention.
Our city hall has a nice open space around the library, city hall, where people congregate to visit, a
possible place for homeless to pitch their tents. You think not, but it is very possible. They will come
when you least expect it.
CRIME, SMELL, DIRTYNESS, is what opening the creek to the public will bring. Tell me, will our
homeowners insurance go up because of this ??? Will the children who walk, ride their bikes,
unsupervised, be safe?
You have much on your plate to think about before you open the gates to the creek. Please think,
think hard and long, for all the headaches you will encounter when the creek opens. When this
comes about, you surely will hear YOU WERE WARNED OF PROBLEMS AND YET YOU IGNORED
IT.
Thank you for allowing me to speak up. If our Governor can't control the tent city he has, nor will you
be able to do so.
I am a concerned resident. Gloria Ezerski
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: Protecting the privacy and security of the residents impacted by the City project
From: benaifer dastoor <bddastoor@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2020 10:56 PM
To: Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>; Roger Lee <RogerL@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Subject: Protecting the privacy and security of the residents impacted by the City project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Deb and Roger,
I hope things are well with you and your families.
I wanted to follow up on the privacy and security barrier and closure of gates sought by the residents abutting the
creek. As you are well aware the path will be built within 1.5- 2 feet of our homes and we need a solid barrier protecting
our homes especially with the epidemic of homeless encampments in bay area on trails and sidewalks, which has now
reached our city too.
As mentioned earlier, substituting one wooden fence with another is not a solution to the privacy and security issues for
the residents that will arise as result of the homes being within just 1.5-2 feet close proximity of the path.
Deb, a few of the residents met you and Darcy in early January 2020 and requested you all to look into the issue of
providing a concrete solution to the residents' legitimate concerns.
To refresh you memory:
Residents requested for gate closures at night. Both Darcy and you said that was a reasonable request and it
would be seriously considered.
Providing a 8 feet wall similar to the one that protects the residents on the creekside park portion of the
trail. Darcy and you mentioned the concrete wall cost would be high and was not currently approved in the trail
budget. There was some brainstorming on the alternatives to a concrete wall which would provide the same level
of protection. You assured the residents you would direct the staff to look for alternatives which may not be as
expensive as a concrete wall and still offer the same level of protection. You and Darcy also agreed that 8 feet tall
could also be permitted for the residents.
I sent you two follow up emails after that meeting, one on Jan 15 and another on March 3. It's been five months since the
meeting and the residents have waited patiently for the staff to come up with an alternative that will ensure their
protection.
I also would like to mention here that city council's previous approval ($2.2 M with 365,000 for residents) or
budget crisis should not be an excuse to avoid giving protections to the residents whose safety and privacy are
jeopardized by the city building the path. There are substantial unassigned funds under the Capital Improvements
funds to take care of the legitimate needs of the residents. The options requested by the residents would cost a few
more hundred thousands and not millions since the entire path (84 homes) are not going to require a wall. The
general plan too has strong provisions requiring the city to ensure that residents' privacy and security are
protected at all costs whenever a project is built by the city (sections quoted below).
2
If the $2.2 million non-essential trail path can be built during the budget crisis (the final cost though is going to be
way beyond the amount approved by the city council for construction, since the ramp switching and building cost,
un-appraised Wilson park land swap (prime 5000 sq feet of open land in the front of the park) were not included in the
original cost estimate ); if the consultant (who after almost two years is still unable to come up with 100% design
because of the inherent engineering challenges in this 0.8 miles path and the water district strictures) can be given a
whopping $813,000, compared to the $365,000 cost for the protection of 84 homes; the city has and can surely
provide funding for the legitimate protection sought by the impacted residents. Providing a concrete barrier for the
residents will also save the city in the long run from additional work, cost, liability arising out of complaints of vandalism,
day time burglaries, & possible homeless encampments at nights on the path.
I am hoping that our tax payer funded City Manager, Public Work's Director and the city councilors will have the strength
to follow their conscience and provide security and protection for the tax paying residents adversely impacted by the city's
project.
Stay safe and healthy,
Warm regards,
Benaifer Dastoor
....................................................................................................................................................................................
......
POLICY HS‐8.5: NEIGHBORHOODS
Review residents’ needs for convenience and safety and prioritize them over the convenient movement of commute or
through traffic where practical.
STRATEGY:
HS‐8.6.1: Local Improvement.
Modify street design to minimize noise impact to neighbors.
LOOKING FORWARD
As Cupertino’s resident and employee population grows, the City must identify ways to ensure public safety and support the
community’s high quality of life. Innovative site design and construction techniques are needed to reduce noise in developments
near major corridors and where uses are mixed to ensure compatibility. Fire protection and public safety should be enhanced in a
manner that provides a high quality of service while continuing to be scally responsible. The following are ways the City will
address key challenges and opportunities facing Cupertino:
NOISE.
As State, regional and local policies encourage mixed‐use development near corridors, the City should look to ways to reduce noise
impacts on residences near and in such developments through site design, landscaping and construction techniques. Additionally,
the City should review locations and site design for sensitive uses including schools, childcare facilities and hospitals to ensure that
they are not negatively impacted by noise.
HS‐8.2.3: Sound Wall Requirements.
Exercise discretion in requiring sound walls to be sure that all other measures of noise control have been explored and that the
sound wall blends with the neighborhood. Sound walls should be designed and landscaped into the environment.
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:garywong@ix.netcom.com
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 11:50 AM
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Comments for Cupertino City Council Meeting - Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Attachments:Public Comment Land Swap_MGWong 20_0518.pptx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
This matter pertains to Item 25, Regnart Creek Trail, Items I, J and K, the proposed land swap between Cupertino and
Valley Water. Given the late order in the Agenda, if I am not available to make verbal remarks, I would like the City Clerk
to read the attached powerpoint comments so that it can be a part of the record.
Approving the land swap is a serious matter and as stewards for the community, we should assure the residents that this
transaction is fair, given the disproportionate square footage and locations to be exchanged.
Gary Wong
20 year Cupertino resident
5/19/2020
1
Public Comment
Agenda Item 25 ‐ Regnart Creek Trail Project
Land Swap – Wilson Park Land/Valley Water
City Council Meeting
May 19, 2020
Submitted by Gary Wong, Cupertino Resident
Proposed Cupertino – Valley Water Land Swap
1. Why is Cupertino giving more
land to Valley Water than it is
encroaching? 1.74x more
2. Is park land less valuable than an
access road?
3. Why is there no appraisal?
4. Why is there no consent or
concurrence from Parks & Rec,
Accounting Department?
5. Why is there no Fairness Opinion
that the Swap is fair to the City of
Cupertino?
2,710
4,715
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Square FeetBlue = Cupertino Encroachment
Brown = Cupertino land to Valley Water
Cupertino ‐ Valley Water Land Swap
1
2
5/19/2020
2
Stewardship of Community Assets
1. City Council and staff have a fiduciary responsibility to care for the assets
of the community.
2. What is the value of this land swap?
3. Though no cash is exchanged, any value differential should be included in
the Regnart Creek capital budget.
4. How do maintenance and operating costs change with this land swap?
5. How does the City proceed without knowing the value of the land?
6. Why is this land swap “buried” in Item 25, Section K? Shouldn’t this be a
separate item and not part of the environmental review?
7. City accounting and finance policy seems to be silent on procedures for
such transactions and should be updated for due diligence, disclosure and
approval.
Recommended Action
•City Council should not approve the land swap until an appraisal is
completed
•Council should not approve the land swap until there is a satisfactory
answer as to why the City is not swapping a like amount of square
footage but offering 74% more land
•The City should not approve the land swap without the concurrence
of Parks & Recreation Commission and an analysis by the accounting
department
3
4
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:benaifer dastoor <bddastoor@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 7:31 PM
To:Steven Scharf; Liang Chao; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey
Subject:City Council Meeting - Tuesday, May 19 - Wilson Park land swap and Protections for residents
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Resident Friendly City Councilors,
I am addressing you to remind you of the platform you ran on. You led us to believe that you would truly
represent the residents and not special interests or advocacy groups funded by money. I am not sure if we were
mistaken and that 'resident friendly’ referred solely to your position on the Vallco project.
Vallco is very important for our city, and any development that takes place there will directly impact many of us
who live close to Vallco. However, it is not more important than maintaining good ethics, principles and facts
on issues across the board for many of us.
You have a responsibility toward all residents, including those who may not belong to any powerful advocacy
groups led by city commissioners, but still need to be heard since they are directly impacted by decisions taken
by you. The trail decision was taken divorced from facts and under pressure from advocacy groups, backed by
the Mayor who was personally vested in this project and encouraged vilifying his own neighbors.
I am not to going to litigate the trail decision. That's done. However, even now, it's not too late to do right by
the city and the residents who will be severely impacted by your decision on the trail. I encourage you to
do your own research beyond what the staff says. Here are some important points to ponder :
1. The path is going to be constructed within 1.5 - 2 feet of the homes. There are no protections offered to the
residents whose homes are going to be in such close proximity to the path. The only thing offered to the
residents is a new wooden fence. How does swapping existing wooden fence for a new one protect the privacy
and security of the residents? Privacy and security is a protected right for residents in the city's general plan and
especially for the residents impacted by a project developed by the city.
2. The residents have approached the staff and you all multiple times requesting for :
Gate closures at night
Concrete wall or an alternative offering strong protection to the impacted homes in close proximity of
the path, similar to the one offered to the homes on the path extension leading to creekside park. It
could be offered as a choice to the residents who seek it along the path.
These two protections are absolutely needed especially given the spate of home burglaries in the
neighborhood where miscreants have scaled the wooden fences to escape and also the current homeless
encampment situation that cities are powerless to take action against. Please do not turn a blind eye to
the possibility of homeless encampments cropping up on the trail. We already have expanding
encampments at 280 S ramp on Wolfe. This problem is not going away anytime soon in the bay area.
3. The consultant, who has yet to complete 100% design, has been allocated $813,000 as compared to the
meagre $365,000 for the protection of 84 homes of tax paying residents.
2
4. Whenever we approach any of you or the staff to request that residents are afforded adequate protections, we
are informed that the 'council' has made the decision of allocating $2.2 million for the trail construction and no
other money is available for the residents protection. However, you were well aware that the trail construction
cost is going to go way beyond the approved $2.2 m. Darcy, I assume that you read the staff report thoroughly
before you made the motion to allocate money to the project (though the motion for budgetary allocation of
money for the trail was not on the agenda that night - - possibly a Brown Act violation). The $2.2 m budget
reflected in the staff table of options did not include several key costs that would be needed to complete the
project. These additional costs were in the footnotes of the staff report:
Cost of moving existing ramp in the creek ( Staff presentation (Item #9 - slide 18 ) footnote)
If Council approves continuing with the design of any of the options for this project, $1,600,000 to
$5,000,000 in additional dollars will be requested and required in the future to complete construction"
- Staff report (page 14)
No mention in the staff report of the swap of prime parkland being demanded by the water district
So to summarize my understanding of the situation – council members will approve all the additional/hidden
costs (beyond the $2.2 m already approved) to complete a wasteful, unpaved, non ADA compliant 0.8 miles of
path but will not approve any additional amounts to protect the privacy and security of the residents directly
impacted by this project. Is there a rationale for this ?
5. And that's not all - in the staff report for the upcoming meeting this Tuesday, you have been asked to
approve a Land swap in Wilson park - 4715 sq ft of prime parkland in the front of the park against 2715
sq feet of Valley Water owned land at the back of the baseball field in Wilson Park. Was a land appraisal
done? Besides doubling the square footage of land swap, what is the value of the land in the front of the park
we are parting ownership of ? Was the public informed ? Was there a public hearing ? Has there been any
oversight on the staff?
I want to ask: how much of the tax payer funds and property are you willing to squander away for a 0.8 miles of
a non-contiguous, non essential, non ADA path (no longer a class one bike route) in one of the safest
neighborhoods in Cupertino ? Especially at a time when people are hurting and the city is proposing cutting of
vital services like library hours, recreational services, and community grants, while also increasing sales tax –
all of these proposed actions impact the vulnerable in our city.
I request that you ensure the taxpayer money is used wisely and the privacy and safety of the impacted
residents should be prioritized in the cost structure when you go ahead with the trail project.
Stay safe and healthy,
Thank you,
Benaifer
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: 05-19-2020 Council Meeting – Agenda Item 25, Regnart Creek Trail
From: Fari Aberg <abergfari@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 8:55 PM
To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>
Subject: 05‐19‐2020 Council Meeting – Agenda Item 25, Regnart Creek Trail
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor Scharf, Honorable Vice Mayor Paul, and councilmembers,
I have spent hours going over the recent Regnart Creek Trail documentations, public comments, and response of the City
Staff to public comments and still have not seen the residents’ basic issues, such as fencing, safety, security, privacy, and
noise, addressed in an acceptable manner.
At the top of my list is safety and security for which I would like you to entertain these options, please, for the proposed
Regnart Creek Trial:
1) Gate Closure between dusk and dawn.
City Manager’s Community Letter Regarding COVID-19 Fiscal Impacts dated May 6, 2020 partially reads:
“With declining revenues for the next several years, difficult but necessary decisions must be made to bring
expenditures into line.
…
Such difficult but necessary actions may lead to:
…
Longer planning, code enforcement, and public safety response times”
The above is yet another reason to make sure our safety is intact by closing all the gates to the trail at night.
2) Installation of a concrete wall, similar to the existing wall between E. Estates Dr. and Creekside Park, in place
of the wooden fence.
With all due respect, all of us already have a wooden fence, however, with the construction of the trail, we are in
need of better fencing to provide each resident with additional security and reduction of noise due to trail traffic.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Fari Aberg
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: Land Swap in Wilson Park -Important
From: viji.ilango@yahoo.com <viji.ilango@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 9:41 PM
To: Roger Lee <RogerL@cupertino.org>
Cc: Gopal Kumarappan <gkumarappan@cupertino.org>; Sashi Begur <SBegur@cupertino.org>; Randy Schwartz
<RandyS@cupertino.org>; Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk
<CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fw: Land Swap in Wilson Park ‐Important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Thank You for your reply Roger.
I am surprised that this is not important enough for the Park and Rec commissioners to be
even made aware of this important land swap or weigh in on this issue before it comes to
the council.
When the City sends notices even for temporary dog park, I am concerned that a land swap
does not deserve the same notice.
I believe the parking will be affected by this land swap at the north west corner. Please let
the council of the facts.
Thanks,
Viji
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Roger Lee <rogerl@cupertino.org>
To: viji.ilango@yahoo.com <viji.ilango@yahoo.com>
Cc: Gopal Kumarappan <gkumarappan@cupertino.org>; Sashi Begur <sbegur@cupertino.org>; Randy Schwartz
<randys@cupertino.org>; Deborah L. Feng <debf@cupertino.org>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020, 08:42:15 PM PDT
Subject: Land Swap in Wilson Park -Important
Viji,
Tomorrow evening the City Council will consider various actions relating to the implementation of
Regnart Creek Trail. One action is a proposed land exchange between Valley Water and the City.
Valley Water owns a long strip of land, roughly 15 feet wide, which borders the south edge of Wilson
Park. The existing baseball fields at Wilson Park encroach onto Valley Water’s ownership by a little
over 2,700 square feet. The recent coordination with Valley Water to develop a Joint Use Agreement
for the trail, offered a good opportunity to also rectify this encroachment.
Staff is recommending an exchange involving ~4,715 sq feet of land with Valley Water, which would
result in the City’s acquisition of the area of the baseball field encroachment plus the rest of the Valley
2
Water "strip" that extends eastward from the ball fields. This area of land already has a Valley Water
easement within it with an effective area of about 2,000 square feet. This acquisition will allow the
parts of Valley Water’s current ownership that are in active use as park and recreation space, to
become City-owned property. In exchange, Valley Water will acquire an equal size property (when
adjusted for the existing effective easement area) at the southwest corner of the site that in not in
active use, and that is not programmed for recreation activities. The exchange will facilitate Valley
Water’s maintenance and stewardship activities for Regnart Creek. The action is proposed as a
mutually agreeable land exchange which is covered by code, as cited in the draft resolution
provided. An appraisal is not required for this transaction.
The exchange involves a swap of less than 5,000 square feet, of adjacent and contiguous property
and the City Council has the authority to consider and approve this exchange. The zoning and land
use designations remain the same. The proposed action will ensure that Wilson Park’s active use
areas will be protected by City ownership, and can continue to offer their current recreational uses
and community benefits. As there is no change to the existing area of the park that is programmed,
there is no requirement that this item be first considered by the Parks & Recreation Commission.
The agenda posting is the only required notice, however an e-notification to everybody on the
Regnart Creek trail notification list went out last week.
Roger Lee
Director of Public Works
Public Works
RogerL@cupertino.org
(408) 777-3354/3350
_____________________________________________________________________________________
From: "viji.ilango@yahoo.com" <viji.ilango@yahoo.com>
Date: May 17, 2020 at 11:54:48 PM PDT
To: Sashi Begur <SBegur@cupertino.org>, Gopal Kumarappan <gkumarappan@cupertino.org>
Subject: Fw: Land Swap in Wilson Park -Important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Re sending this email because Commissioner Begur's email ID is misspelled in City Website.
Thanks,
Viji
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: viji.ilango@yahoo.com <viji.ilango@yahoo.com>
3
To: gkumarappan@cupertino.org <gkumarappan@cupertino.org>; sbergur@cupertino.org <sbergur@cupertino.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2020, 11:50:22 PM PDT
Subject: Land Swap in Wilson Park -Important
Dear Parks and Rec Commission Chair Kumarappan and Commissioner Begur.
Land swap agreement between Valley Water and City of Cupertino along with IS/MND of Regnart Creek Trail is
on the City Council agenda on Tuesday May 19th, 2020.
The City's Wilson Park baseball field is encroaching 2715 sqft of land that belongs to Valley Water(see
Proposed resolution K). The City Staff is recommending to swap 4715 sqft of land with Valley Water that is
adjacent to the baseball field to another plot of land in southwest corner which is adjacent to the parking lot (
see attached supplement J)
I do not understand why the City has to swap 4715 sqft of prime land when we are just encroaching 2715 sqft
for baseball field. Also there is no land appraisal of both plots. There must be a difference in value between
the plots because one of the plot that the City is giving away is closer to the parking lot( some parking spots
may be removed) and must have a higher land value than the strip of land that is closer to the creek. (see
supplement j )
I also do not see a record of the land swap issue coming to the parks and rec commission for your input. It
looks like the public works that is initiating the land swap did not bring this issue to the commission for your
review.
The land swap should not be done without appraisal and proper oversight. This item should be reviewed by
your commission before it goes to the council.
Thanks,
Viji
Agenda for City Council May19th below
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=732520&GUID=B8BBF48D‐6254‐4F72‐ACE2‐
ABA93F15FE00
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: Why there is No Regnart Trail Design Update at the council meeting next Tuesday?
From: viji.ilango@yahoo.com <viji.ilango@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 9:51 PM
To: Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: Why there is No Regnart Trail Design Update at the council meeting next Tuesday?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks for your reply Deb.
My request was to bring couple of slides as design update and show the plans as it stands
today. This could have been an excellent opportunity for the staff to explain where they are
in design process and how far along they are in mitigating important challenges in this
design. The City keeps insisting that they have solved the problems and the residents feel
otherwise.
I can see the staff does not want to be transparent to the council/public.
Thanks,
Viji
On Monday, May 18, 2020, 08:58:02 AM PDT, Deborah L. Feng <debf@cupertino.org> wrote:
Good Morning Viji,
Thank you for your email. I have blind copied the City Council. All of the items in front of the City Council below; the
MND, the Joint Use Agreement, and the Land Swap Agreement are certainly related to the project, however, they don’t
really drive the design. The City Council will be considering the design of Regnart Creek Trail in the future, using
information in these documents to inform the design is how it is done.
Deb
Deborah L. Feng
City Manager
City Manager's Office
DebF@Cupertino.org
(408) 777-3250
From: viji.ilango@yahoo.com <viji.ilango@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:08 AM
To: Deborah L. Feng <DebF@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>
Subject: Why there is No Regnart Trail Design Update at the council meeting next Tuesday?
2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Deb and Council Members,
Regnart Trail IS/MND , Joint Use Agreement, Land Swap Agreement with Valley Water(VW) is an agenda item
next Tuesday, May 19th.
Its been 8 months since the Council had approved an unpaved Non ADA complaint trail. The council approved
a new unpaved path with one bridge and relocating the ramp. We have not heard anything about the status of
the new design and how far the City is in mitigating residents concerns. Just a subjective statement from staff
report is not good enough. Please give concrete data along with design plans. This council is approving to swap
important City lands and entering into JUA with VW, but have not seen even a preliminary design of this new
unpaved trail and the staff has no intention to even show it to the council and public. Let us know why the
staff decided not to bring the design update along with all agreement approvals. It just a matter of adding few
more slides and providing the current plans so public and the council knows what is going on with the design
and mitigating solutions.
By not providing design update,it shows that the City is not being transparent and has no intention in solving
residents problems.
Thanks,
Viji
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Ilango <ilangog@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:50 AM
To:City Council
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk
Subject:Written Communication CC agenda item #25 - Regnart Creek Trail
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council members,
I would like to bring to your attention for the record that certain processes were circumvented or violated
during the proposed Regnart Creek trail approval.
1. The City Council Agenda item #9 on Sep 17, 2019 was to consider various trail improvements options and
alternative trail alignments and if the design continues to consider an increase to the design and environment
budget from $538K to $813K. However, in addition the item on the agenda, the City Council decided to do a
budget allocation of $2.2M for construction of the trail which was not in the Council agenda.
As per the Brown Act, the public's business is conducted openly are the requirements that legislative bodies
post agendas prior to their meetings (Sections 54954.2, 54955 and 54956) and that no action or discussion
may occur on items or subjects not listed on the posted agenda (Section 54954.2(a)(2)).”
However, the Council did a budget allocation of $2.2M for construction of the trail that was not part of the
agenda item #9 (or the proposed resolution), a violation of Brown act. The Council brought this budget
adjustment for discussion and allocated millions of dollars, after the public hearing was closed for this agenda
item, and the members of the public (including me) were denied of their right to speak/comment on this item.
I was surprised that this happened under the watch of the new Council that was elected to ensure proper
processes are followed in the City of Cupertino.
(BTW, this is not the first time, the previous Council allocated $100K funds to initiate feasibility study of
Regnart Creek trail that was not on the agenda in Jun 2017).
2. This project was not reviewed by the Planning Commission for consistency with General plan. Per the
Municipal code (2.32.070) “Annually review the capital improvement program of the City and the local public
works projects of other local agencies for their consistency with the General Plan (pursuant to Sections 65400
et seq. of the California Government Code);”
During a CC study session on Aug 20, 2019 to review the process on how the Bicycle and Ped plan projects,
the Council (Current Vice Mayor and then Council member Darcy Paul) pointed to the Municipal code
(2.32.070) and asked the Staff to place greater scrutiny on projects outside of CIP process, and to modify
the flow chart to include Planning commission recommendation of conformance to General plan before it
goes to the Council.
2
However, this process was not followed before allocating budget for the Regnart Creek trail. The same
Council that insisted on following the process looked the other way when the budget was allocated for
construction (even when the design was not ready).
I know the Council decided to look the other way and approved an unpaved pedestrian path that does not
confirm to 2016 Bike plan that specifically calls for Class 1 facility because there was heavy lobbying from
the special interest advocacy groups.
I have spoken many times at the Council meetings regarding the issues with the trail, presented facts that
the standards/guidelines for proper shared use path are not being followed on this unpaved trail design,
including the sight distance issues in S. Blaney that are yet to be addressed, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul raised
this issue during September 2017 meeting and the City has still not performed this analysis and the
analysis has not been included in the IS/MND.
I request the Council to take care of the affected residents first by ensuring proper mitigation measures for
privacy, safety, security and noise are provided to the residents who live along the Creek.
Stay safe and healthy,
Thanks,
Ilango Ganga
Cupertino Resident
Representing myself.
References:
CC: Agenda item #9 Sep 17 2019, “Subject: Receive information report and presentation on Regnart Creek
Trail 65% design and revised estimated costs; consideration of various trail improvement options (some of
which also include on-street bicycle improvements) and alternative trail alignments to the proposed trail (on-
street Alternatives 4 and 5); and, if design of the proposed trail continues, consider an increase to the design
and environmental budget.
Recommended Action: Receive information report and presentation on Regnart Creek Trail 65% design and
revised estimated costs; trail improvement options, and Alternatives 4 and 5 to the proposed trail; and if
Council continues to move forward with design of the proposed trail:
1. Provide direction to staff regarding completion of design with a preferred trail improvement option A, B, C,
D, E, or F; and
2. Adopt draft Resolution 19-115 amending the FY 2019/20 Capital Improvement Program budget to increase
the budget to perform design and environmental clearance services from $538,000 to $813,000.”
Minutes of CC meeting Aug 20, 2019 SS item #1 “Paul: Place greater scrutiny on projects outside annual
CIP process; modify flow chart to include Planning Commission recommendation of conformance to the
General Plan before goes to Council; Planning Commission agenda item# 4 from 5- 28- 19 meeting includes
text of General Plan conformance and Cupertino Municipal Code ( CMC) that governs review of CIP; our
CMC requires only annual review but Government Code could possibly include additional review; maybe
amend CMC to cover certain projects and have City Attorney's Office look into this. (Chao support last item ).”
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Ilango <ilangog@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 8:15 AM
To:City Council
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk
Subject:Comments on IS/MND (Regnart Creek trail). CC agenda item #25, May 19, 2020
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council members,
I would like to summarize my comments submitted on IS/MND for the unpaved pedestrian
path "Regnart Creek Trail" agenda item #25 CC meeting.
I specifically characterize this as an unpaved "pedestrian" path, because that is exactly
what this this, as per the national, state or county guidelines this path cannot be
designated as shared used path or bicycle facility (Class I, II, III or IV: Reference Caltrans
High way design manual chapter 1000 Bicycle transportation design). Though the City may
be allowing people to bike on the proposed unpaved path at their own risk.
1. The City has not done proper noise analysis considering the trail is running less than 2
ft from the residences. As I have raised in my comments (see below), the IS/MND does
not include noise measurements closer to the residential property lines (fences) and did
not consider traffic patterns on the trail. This issue was raised during the ERC committee
discussion and the City did not provide sufficient justification as to why the analysis was
not done at <2ft from residences. (Also refer to additional comments submitted by Council
member Chao to ERC on this issue).
2. Safety issue not addressed on Blaney crossing: The new resident on S. Blaney Ave has
raised a comment that the IS/MND has not addressed the safety issue nor included
detailed analysis on the Blaney crossing (comment 1.1 below included for reference). This
issue was also raised by Vice Mayor Darcy Paul during the Sep 2019 meeting and
specifically directed the staff not to give subjective statement but to provide detailed
analysis. Per IS/MND, the City has not performed the analysis on this safety issue. It is
important that this issue should be analyzed in detail and documented in the IS/MND
before Council approval.
3. The City has not yet addressed the solution for privacy and security issue for residents
on Lozano lane. The Valley Water District is willing to work with the City to provide a
solution (VW letter is referenced in ERC written communications). Per that communication,
the City has not reached out to VW regarding this issue even though the Council directed
the City Staff to work on finding a solution to the residents in Sep 2019. The solution
should be fully addressed in coordination with VW and any visual impact (this is an
environmental issue) due to the final solution should be analyzed and documented in the
IS/MND before Council approval.
2
4. Many trees lined on the South side of the library field will be significantly impacted due
the proposed construction of the trail connector between the trail head on Pacifica and
Torre. There is no detailed plan and no Arborist report/analysis noted in the IS/MND.
Detailed analysis with plans for this section with Arborist report should be included in the
IS/MND document before Council approval.
5. I don't see a good reason for bringing the JUA (Joint use agreement with VW) and Land
swap agreement along with IS/MND to the Council on May 19th. According to Valley
Water, "The JUA is a document that assigns operational, maintenance and liability
responsibilities between the respective agencies and is Valley Water’s approval for the use of
its facilities for recreational purposes."
This implies JUA is for operational purposes, which can be done after the design is
complete. The City is still working on the designs to address the above issues among other
design considerations. So it makes logical to bring the JUA and Land swap agreement after
the design is fully complete when all the issues are addressed. (for e.g. refer to point 3
above that requires resolution with VW). I believe the Council should focus the May 19th
discussion on Environmental review and table the JUA and Land Use agreement and ask
the City to bring it back at a later date.
The Council approved to proceed with the design of an unpaved path along Regnart Creek
last September, however, it is also the responsibility of the Council to ensure the safety of
the users and to mitigate the issues for peaceful living of the residents adjacent to the trail.
I believe some of the difficult issues as noted above are yet to be addressed.
The real value of an unpaved pedestrian path (without guard rails on about 50% of the
creek) is dubious or questionable when there exists on-street paved pedestrian facilities on
tree lined streets parallel to this proposed trail. It is not the best use of tax payer funds
when the City is strapped for funding due to the unprecedented economic situation and
financial impact due to Covid-19.
Additional comments attached below.
Stay safe and healthy.
Thanks,
Ilango Ganga
Cupertino Resident
Representing myself.
Comment 1.1 on IS/MND by a resident on S. Blaney: We recently purchased the property at 10301 S.
Blanely Ave Cupertino. Our driveway is few feet from the Regnart creek/bridge. Given the location of the
proposed crosswalk and barrier in the middle of the road any car or passenger van backing out of our driveway
have to go over the pedestrian crossing. In the initial report section 4.17.2, “Impact TRN-3” states that, the
geometric design has “less than significant impact”. We have serious concern about the location of the
crosswalk on the safety of pedestrians, especially children on bicycle. We are concerned about children crossing
in bicycle and vehicles backing out of the cross walk at same time. Safety can be improved significantly by
locating the proposed cross walk away from the driveway entrance. That give enough space between the
3
pedestrian crossing and vehicle backing out of the driveway. We are hoping our concern is addressed for the
safety of all.
From: Ilango <ilangog@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 10:00 AM
To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. <planning@cupertino.org>
Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey
<JWilley@cupertino.org>
Subject: Oral comments ERC committee Agenda item 3 ‐ Regnart Creek Trail ‐ Apr 16, 2020
Dear Chair and Committee members,
I am making these oral comments on IS/MND for Regnart Creek Trail project as a
Cupertino resident. I had earlier sent written comments with more details (see attached
below), I request the ERC committee to consider my comments during the public hearing
before making a determination.
Summary of my key points are:
1. The noise analysis made in the study is not adequate as documented in my comments to
IS/MND. Among other points, the City has not performed operational Noise analysis with
the projected traffic profile models specific to the Regnart Creek trail. The City has
previously implied that many hundreds of users will be using this trail. The aggregate noise
generated by these noise sources should be included in the study and mitigation measures
provided to adjacent residential units before proceeding further on MND.
2. Aesthetic impact study not complete: The City is still working with adjacent residents
and in the process of coming up with solutions for addressing security, safety, privacy,
noise issues. The Valley Water has indicated recently that they are willing to work with the
City in providing solutions to mitigate the adverses effects to residents. The City Council
has given clear direction 6 months ago to work with the residents to find solutions and
provide mitigation measures, however the City has failed to provide complete solution in
designs at the time of posting the IS/MND for public review. The City needs to complete
the designs with proper solutions working with VW and then analyze the environmental
impact before bringing this forward to ERC.
3. Design plans not complete: The City still is working with VW on some of the issues such
as drainage plans at the time of public review of IS/MND, so the designs were incomplete.
Hence I request ERC committee to postpone the determination of MND vs EIR and require
the City to complete the designs in entirety including solutions to adjacent residents and
other outstanding issues like drainage, bridge, maintenance ramp and study the
environmental impact to the channel and adjacent residential properties based on the final
plans and bring back the environmental impact and mitigation measures for public review
and to ERC committee for further determination on MND vs EIR.
On a final note, I do not understand the urgency in bringing this non-emergency unpaved
trail project for public hearing during the pandemic situation where the public is not able
to broadly participate during the shelter in place order. Why can't the City wait to fully
4
complete the designs and bring it back when the shelter in place order is lifted in the next
few weeks. Stay safe.
Thanks,
Ilango Ganga
Cupertino Resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ilango <ilangog@yahoo.com>
To: planning@cupertino.org <planning@cupertino.org>
Cc: Kitty Moore <kmoore@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <liangchao@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert
Willey <jwilley@cupertino.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020, 01:30:30 AM PDT
Subject: Written comments ERC committee Agenda item 3 - Regnart Creek Trail
Dear Chair and Committee members,
I am submitting the following comments on IS/MND as a Cupertino Resident, for
consideration by ERC committee.
1. Inadequacies in Noise analysis:
I have submitted comments on IS/MND that the City has not performed adequate noise
analysis considering various operational noise profiles. The City in its response provides
generic and subjective answers instead of addressing the specific conditions that were
omitted in its noise analysis.
The operational noise analysis (IS/MND, Appendix C) did not include the expected traffic
profile on the trail, this should be based on the projected number of trail users, number of
pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists, bidirectional, peak and average numbers during the day,
among other parameters. This should be specific to Regnart Creek trail path considering
the path is less than 2 feet from the residential property lines on large sections of the trail,
and in sections run in front of properties, side and behind the properties as well.
For example, N number of bicyclists talking and passing on an unpaved decomposed
granite path is different than 1 cyclist; N number of kids shouting while walking is different
than 1 kid shouting or N people talking. Noise profile for residences in front of the property
is different than two feet next to property line and is different when the people are crossing
the bridge.
The noise analysis should include projected models based on actual conditions this trail
will be subjected to and proper mitigation measures should be provided for residents on
various sections behind the trail and in front of the trail. How can the City (lead agency)
say that there are no impact when the City is still working with residents on solutions to
various sections of the trail even during and after the public review period.
The City should perform proper noise analysis after the design is completed and proper
mitigations measures have to be provided before ERC committee can make a determination
between MND vs EIR
5
2. Aesthetic Impact: The section 4.1 and 4.1.2 of IS/MND says there are no impacts to
existing visual character, quality of public views of the site and surroundings etc., The city
has not yet provided solution and/or is still working on a solution with residents on various
sections of the trail. The Aesthetic impact to these solutions will not be known until the
solution(s) is/are completed and incorporated in the plans. It is misleading for the MND
document to say that there are no aesthetic impacts when the City has not completed the
solutions to adjacent residents. Public (including me) was deprived of making comments on
the Aesthetic impact as the public was not made aware that the solutions are not complete.
The city should complete the solutions and designs for the fencing, safety, security, privacy,
noise issues, and then the City should analyze the environmental impact due to the final
solution(s) and present the mitigation measures to the public for review and to the ERC
committee before making a determination on MND vs EIR.
3. The City as late as Feb 24th was working on drainage issues and inability to drain away
from the channel in all reaches. This means that the drainage plans were not complete and
the City was still working with Valley Water on drainage plans during the IS/MND public
review period. The impact of drainage on the creek channel and/or the adjacent properties
and any mitigation measures cannot be understood until the plans are completed.
The City should complete the drainage plans and do the environmental impact study and
present the mitigation measures to the public for review and to the ERC committee before
making a determination on MND vs EIR.
As per the Cupertino City Municipal code (2.84.080) the Environmental Review committee
makes a determination based on the initial study and environmental impact if the project
should be recommend for Negative Declaration or shall require Environmental Impact
Review.
Since the design plans are not fully complete (and as of public review period was not
complete), I request the ERC committee to require the City (in this case the lead agency) to
complete the design plans, complete the solutions to adjacent residents and then study the
environmental impact based on the completed plans and provide the mitigation measures
for public review and to ERC committee to make a determination on MND vs EIR. It is
premature to approve the MND when the city is still working with the residents and Valley
Water on designs/solutions.
Thanks,
Ilango Ganga
As Cupertino resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ilango <ilangog@yahoo.com>
To: David Stillman <davids@cupertino.org>
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020, 11:52:06 PM PDT
Subject: Comments on IS/MND - Regnart creek trail
6
I am submitting the following comments on the IS/MND as a Cupertino resident.
1. Section: 4.13.1.3: Noise measurement locations and noise levels: Long term noise
measurements were not performed on the sections of the path behind the Lamar Drive from
Blaney to East Estates drive and behind De Palma Lane. Long term noise measurements
should be performed and noise level trends to be plotted for this section of the trail as well.
2. Section 4.13.2.1 Operational noise: The analysis assumes nearest residential property
line would be approximately 6 ft from the center of the trail. However, the trail is a
bidirectional trail with people biking, walking, jogging on both direction that may be as
close as or less than 2ft from the property line. The analysis should include noise sources
2ft or less from the property line and the nose source could be as tall as or taller than 5-6 ft
that is the height of the fences.
3. The analysis shows the noise level of 50-55dBA at 20ft for noise sources (people talking,
etc.,). The noise level at less than 20feet and as close as 2 ft to the residential properties
should be shown as well.
4. At a distance of 6 ft from noise source talking and laughing would generate 61-66 dBA
and shouting, etc., would generate up to 81dBA at the nearest property line. This analysis
does not show the aggregate noise due to the number of people walking, jogging, biking
along the trail and duration of the traffic and peak and average periods during the
day. The analysis/model does not take into account the number of people that will be
generating this noise and the time of the day. The city has projected hundreds of people
walking/biking and using this trail. So the analysis/model should include the projected
number of people using the trail and calculate the aggregate noise generated during various
periods. It makes a subjective assessment that the activities would be "short" along the
trail, however there will volumes of people moving along the trail, projection for current and
future growth of traffic should be estimated and used for the analysis.
5. The analysis shows the wooden fencing would have 5dBA reduction however during to
varying grade levels and the noise source being elevated 5-6 feet from the ground level
would have line of sight or closer to the top fence line, hence the attenuation of 5dBA is not
applicable for all properties along the trail. The analysis should be more specific to show
and illustrate the noise sources, attenuation, distance from property lines and actual or
projected noise level for different residential units along the trail path.
6. The noise analysis does not show the biological impact to habitat, species along the trail.
The biological impact of operational noise and as well as impact due to construction should
be analyzed and documented in the study.
7. The study shows that existing fences will provide 5dBA attenuation during construction,
however this is not applicable to all the residential units. So barriers should be used to
attenuate the noise to the residential units to adequate levels during construction.
Thanks,
Ilango Ganga
Cupertino Resident
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jeonghee Yi <jeonghee.yi@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:26 AM
To:City Clerk; City Council
Cc:Jeonghee Yi
Subject:Comments for Cupertino City Council Meeting (Item 25) - Tuesday, May 19, 2020
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council:
I live on La Mar Dr abutting the Regnart Creek trail. Recently, I was surprised to see a few young strangers casually
walking on the trail behind my backyard. What surprised me further was how much I could hear them from MY ROOM
facing the trail with the window left open ! The noise was high enough to catch my attention while I was working and I
was able to hear their conversations. This was a sober reminder that passerby's could hear us speaking even in our
rooms, not to mention in our backyard.
The MND dismisses noise impact based on a flawed study that measured 6 feet from the property line that is farther
from even the center of the 10‐feet wide trail. Yet my real world experience confirms noise and the loss of
privacy would be real and severe unless mitigated by a sound wall or better noise protection material than a wooden
fence.
Homeless encampment and the consequences are of big concern, too. But the only response from a city official is that
they would not come if people can see them. That argument has been proven to be wrong. They have settled down
near the 280 entrance even with intense public sights and the city has kept on failing to relocate them away. The best
strategy is always a prevention, and we need to close the gates every night and enforce everyone leave before the gates
are closed.
The privacy and security concerns are not out of paranoia, but real.
Through many channels residents have requested for the mitigations, but we have't heard any progress on that yet. I
understand the additional protection requires more budget. I urge the council to allocate additional budget and direct
the city to provide the necessary mitigations. Protecting the citizens is the duty of the city and the council.
Lastly, the recent COVID‐19 outbreak has brought great challenges to the city's budget and the city must focus on only
essential projects. RCT is not essential. It should wait until the budget situation improves enough to be able to afford
proper mitigations to the impacted residents, if budget is the limiting them doing so.
In summary, I urge the city council do not approve the flawed MND. Further, the city and council should consider
postponing the RCT construction.
Sincerely,
Jeonghee Yi
Cupertino resident
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 1:18 PM
To:Steven Scharf; Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks; Jon Robert Willey; Cupertino City Manager's Office
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:written communication for Agenda Item 25, "Regnart Creek Trail" for the 5/19/2020 Council meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Paul, Council Members Chao, Sinks, and Willey, and City
Manager Feng:
Please include this letter as part of written communication for Agenda Item 25, "Regnart Creek Trail"
for the 5/19/2020 Council meeting.
With respect, I request Council to consider the following actions:
(1) to suspend and to reconsider the Regnart Creek Trail project because the (a) project does not
mitigate routes with histories of serious collisions, such as Bollinger Rd; (b) the project apparently
grows and changes outside of the public's view; and (c) the project directs city funding to a
controversial and divisive infrastructure change at a time of deep revenue losses and dim economic
prospects for the near and intermediate terms. While the portion of the trail that runs adjacent to the
eastern edge of Library Field and the Civic Center parking lot from Pacifica Dr to Rodrigues Ave
offers enhanced pedestrian and cyclist access to Civic Center Plaza, the balance of the trail stirs
discord among many community members over concerns of cost vs. benefit, safety, privacy, and
security of homes along the proposed route.
(2) to remove the portion of the Regnart Creek Trail project that encroaches on the southern edge of
Library Field. Established shade trees are planted within 7-8 feet of the existing sidewalk on Pacifica
Dr at Library Field. The ground between the sidewalk's edge and the southern row of trees is elevated
relative to the sidewalk's edge, and tree roots are visible more than 3 feet radiating from the tree
trunks. Widening the path is unnecessary for anyone interested in accessing the trail, will stress trees,
and will reduce the amount of available shade available to Library Field visitors.
(3) finally, as a future but prioritized action, to take steps to preserve Library Field as the valued park
and play space that the community appreciates today. Please recognize Library Field as a 3.0 acre or
larger park. As you are aware, access to parkland and shade improves the mental and physical
health of neighborhood residents. Neighborhoods east of De Anza Blvd face both increased pressure
to add residents while also already having more residents share less parkland than neighborhoods
located west of De Anza Blvd.
Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
representing myself only
2
News Items Relevant to Topics Referenced in this Letter
Bollinger Rd Collisions (Cupertino/San Jose)
"Pedestrian Dies After Being Hit by Car in West San Jose (Bollinger Rd at Wunderlich Dr)", Mercury
News, 5/12/2019
"Child on Bike Hit at Corner of Bollinger Road and Wunderlich Dr", Patch, 2/28/2013
"Car Crashes into Cupertino Home, No One Hurt (Bollinger Rd, Rancho Rinconada neighborhood",
KTVU, 11/10/2017
Economy
"In a joint appearance before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday (today, 5/19/2020),
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Fed Chair Jerome H Powell offered a stark assessment of
the fragile state of the economy, warning of more severe job loses in the coming months." New York
Times, online edition, news clipping, 5/19/2020
Parks, Shade, and Community Health
"Proximity to Urban Parks and Mental Health," US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of
Health, March 2014
"How Sacramento's Urban Forest Divides the City, in Health and in Wealth", Sacramento Bee,
10/10/2019
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Karen Poon <karen.poon@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:58 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:RCT comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear city council members,
I would like to bring up some concerns regarding the RCT project.
1) Nightly gate closures for increased security should be implemented. This will deter criminal activities and homeless
tents along the trail.
2) Sound wall and/or better material and higher height of the fences to mitigate noise and privacy concerns
3) With the current Covid‐19 pandemic crisis, the city is expecting substantial revenue loss due to COVID‐19. As a result
the city started implementing budget reduction measures, such as terminating/furloughing part‐time and non‐essential
workers. The RCT is not a urgent or essential project. The money should be spent on more essential businesses.
Thanks,
Karen Poon
19675 La Mar Drive
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:York Poon <ypoon@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 3:09 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Karen Poon
Subject:Concern over RCT Project
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council,
I am very concerned by the pending RCT project.
1) Nightly gate closures for increased security should be implemented. This will deter criminal
activities and homeless tents along the trail. It is a very long trail with only 2 exits, one at each end.
The risk associated with the design is very high.
2) Sound wall and/or better material and higher height of the fences to mitigate noise and privacy
concerns.
3) With the current COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the city is expecting substantial revenue loss. As a
result the city started implementing budget reduction measures, such as terminating/furloughing part-
time and non-essential workers.
The RCT is not a urgent or essential project. The money should be spent on more essential
businesses.
Thanks,
York Poon
19675 La Mar Drive
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Suraj Dalvi <sun.dalvi@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:14 PM
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:RCT comments - Agenda for 05/19/2020
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Respected City Council members and City Clerk,
Please do consider these comments during the city council meeting today:
1. City staff has still not worked with the residents on the security and noise issues (I have talked to them over email and
it was pushed out twice). With the wooden fence, I am not sure how my 2 story house on La Mar will be protected
against the security and noise issues. City was planning to propose a new type of wall for my situation ‐ pushed out due
to Covid rules.
2. Social distancing ‐ How is social distancing planned to be maintained on these trails when they abut our property
fence by 2 ft. Are we supposed to not be in our backyards during social distancing?
3. Is this such an essential project that it needs to continue during this time of economic strain for the city?
Thanks
Suraj Dalvi
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: RCT Concerns
From: Timothy Poon <timothy.poon520@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 3:26 PM
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: RCT Concerns
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear city council members,
I would like to bring up some concerns regarding the RCT project.
1) Nightly gate closures for increased security should be implemented. This will deter criminal activity along the trail.
2) Noise and privacy concerns should be mitigated through better and higher fences.
3) With the current Covid-19 pandemic crisis, the city is expecting substantial revenue loss due to COVID-19. As a result
the city started implementing budget reduction measures, such as terminating/furloughing part-time and non-essential
workers. The RCT is not a urgent or essential project. The money should be spent on more essential businesses.
Thanks,
Timothy Poon
19675 La Mar Drive