CC 09-20-2022 Item No. 20_ Written CommunicationsFrom:Christina Yang
To:City Council
Cc:Longkins; Ivan Corneillet; s hong; Vivian Corneillet; Mehdi Kalai (Mehdikalai@sbcglobal.net); Moshe Broudo
(moshe_broudo@hotmail.com); Dan Kau; Min Li; Xingchi He; Lili Kalai; Yong Chen
(yongchentaohai@gmail.com); Gary Wong; City Clerk
Subject:Rodrigues Easement Vacation
Date:Tuesday, September 20, 2022 3:35:06 PM
Attachments:Bicycle Pedestrian Committee meeting on June 15.eml.msg
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 continue to request the city council to grant vacation to the Rodrigues easement for the
following reasons:
1. There have been consistent observations of high mis-use of the easement where bikers, even
when confronted and informed of the easement purpose verbally, were NOT willing to
dismount bikes and insisted on biking on the easement. The confrontation has made us
extremely exhausted.
2. The walk-bike-association has aggressively expressed they "wanted" the easement to be
open when the real question here is whether we "need" easement. The vacation of public
easement is not unprecedented as walk-bike-association members described.
In Cupertino, we have had many past resolutions for vacating easements where the staff
reports clearly made recommendations on FACTs and evaluated the easement necessity. There
have been so many easements in Cupertino that had been superseded by relocation by law,
why is it extremely hard for Rodrigues easement to be vacated for the same reason?
23500 Cristo Rey Drive (Resolution No. 19-037)
23500 CRISTO REY DRIVE (Resolution No. 19-142)
3. I have also noticed that we were not fairly treated and the easement vacation request is not
being handled with just and fairness. See the email below for my formal complaint on the
Bicycle Pedestrian Committee meeting on June 15 where highly biased comment were made
by Commissioners and I believe the biased judgement is hindering the easement vacation case
to be examined fairly.
Lastly, for the sign to be put on Rodrigues easement, please consider simply putting "No
Bikes" sign and refrain from using "trail access" or "trailhead" since purpose of Rodrigues
easement is NOT a trailhead.
Thank you!
--
Christina Qinxin Yang, CFA, CPA
Statistics & Economics | UC Berkeley
Email: christinay.berkeley@gmail.com | Cell: (510) 604-2953
From:s hong
To:City Council; Longkins; City Clerk
Cc:Christina Yang; Ivan Corneillet; Vivian Corneillet; Mehdi Kalai (Mehdikalai@sbcglobal.net); Moshe Broudo
(moshe_broudo@hotmail.com); Dan Kau; Min Li; Xingchi He; Lili Kalai; Yong Chen
(yongchentaohai@gmail.com); Gary Wong
Subject:Re: Easement sign and usage
Date:Tuesday, September 20, 2022 1:44:11 PM
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 and City Clerks,
1. Maintenance and liability are major concerns from our 8 home community. We can
not afford increasingly heavy usage of this path nor even one accident. It was not the
original intention to build this easement as a public recreation trail head, nor as
documented so in history. Now that the City is forcing us to change the nature of its
usage, the first question is if this change initiated by one party is legal. The second
consideration is that at least the City should take over all maintenances and liabilities
of this path if forcing a small HOA to do so.
2. Additional comment about the sign --- The proposed sign with a bike in it is rarely
seen in public and very misleading, which seems to encourage bike riding. We often
see the following signs on pedestrian sidewalks. Better to use any of these. Maybe
also need to mention "No Skateboard".
"Trail Rules" needs to be replaced by "Easement Rules" or "Private Path Rules" as
this is not a part of trail, nor a trial head, but a private property within a private
community.
Thank you!
Stella
On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 12:05:48 PM PDT, Longkins <kevinjlu1@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear city council members,
I came across the recent notice for tonight' meeting regarding the cross walk for the easement path in our
community and the signs proposed. Since I will not be able to attend the meeting, I would like to drop you
a few comments here.
To be frank, the city council is pretty much hijacked by certain interest groups and some of the cross walk
proposals are just nonsense without checking the potential hazards.
Also the signs proposed by the city staff are not acceptable. Who walks on the easement? Pedestrians.
How pedestrians are defined? Please google it. I provide a link here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian
Why did you have a bike sign (despite the request to ask them not to ride). Easement should be for
people walking on FOOT, not with a bicycle.
We are a small community, and we cannot afford the potential liability due to the city's change of the
easement purpose (please refer to the original document, definitely not for public trail purpose). The city
can take the easement area and put a fence along it. The city can be in charge of the area.
The city council has been very political and lacking of conscience and common senses, not caring about
the neighbors and communities.
Regards,
Kevin
From:s hong
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Re tonight"s meeting -- Signage on Lozano easement and adjacent proposed crosswalk
Date:Tuesday, September 20, 2022 11:16:16 AM
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 and City Clerk,
A. The language of proposed sign on Lozano HOA's easement is VERY WRONG!!!
1) This path is a part of Lozano HOA's private property, not a public trail head and
never officially planned to be. The sign should not contain any word like "TRAIL" But
should contain " Private Property" instead.
2) In all documents from the Lozano HOA development stage till now, this easement
has been documented as " for pedestrian only" and never for bike use. The sign
should not contain a bike symbol, but a "crossed out bike symbol" instead. No bike
riding on this path!
.
Please respect our ownership of this path and all historical documents. Now you have
treated it as if it is a City's property.
B. Please personally come to the place where you plan a crosswalk. Stand on the
south and north sides of the proposed crosswalk. Can you clearly see incoming traffic
along this curved street? People's lives especially children's lives are in your hands!
There are lots of children residing in the condos and apartments along Rodrigues.
Thank you for your careful considerations!
Stella Hong