CC 9-20-2022
Oral Communications
Written Communications
From: E. Poon
To: City Clerk
Cc: Xiangchen (Minna) Xu; Sashi Begur; Gopal Kumarappan; Seema Swamy; Carol Stanek; Ilango Ganga; Vignesh Swaminathan; Steve Poon; Susan Michael AIA
Subject: Future of Blackberry Farm Golf Course (Written communication for 9/20/22 City Council Meeting, non agenda item)
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 10:58:32 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 City Clerk,
I am a resident of Cupertino and have been following the Special Joint Meeting on 9/8/22 to go over the results of the survey that ended on 7/15/2022.
Among the public speakers, there were two Audubon Society members who spoke in favor of natural trails, and also Audubon Society members who spoke in favor of keeping the Golf Course. I am not an Audubon Society member, but my interest in golf courses and the role they have to play in the community has been piqued by the survey.
I would like to submit a photo that I took while I was at the Tilden Park Golf Course in Berkeley. Note the Audubon sign on the upper left of the photo. Tilden Park Golf Course has won the seal of approval from the Audubon Society. We should not fall under the impression that to further the environmental goals of the Audubon Society, we have to do away with golf courses. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Please present this photo to the City Council members on 9/20. I have copied the entire Parks and Recreation Commission and the chairman of the Bicycle Commission as well as the Sustainability Commission, adding Steve Poon, as I recognize he was present at the 9/8 meeting. (We share the same family name, but I am not acquainted with him until 9/8.) On reviewing the Youtube video, I have added Susan M of Capital Improvement Projects, as advised by the Director of Public Works.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Regards,
Emily Poon
Cupertino Resident since 2007
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Blackberry Farm Golf Course Option A Savings to City! Date: Sunday, September 18, 2022 8:38:37 PM
Attachments: Peggys Slides for CC on 9-20-22 r03.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please add this to the Written Communications for Oral Communications for the 9-20-2022 City Council meeting.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Date: September 18, 2022 at 8:19:38 PM PDT
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Halsey <[email protected]>
Subject: Blackberry Farm Golf Course Option A Savings to City! City Clerk: Please include this as part of Written Communication for Oral Communication for the 9-20-2022 City Council meeting this Tuesday night.
Dear Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao and City Council Members, Attached is the City’s analysis of the two options for the BlackBerry Farm Golf Course property. It is from the City’s 25-year cost analysis of the 2 options studied. There are several points I’d like to bring to your attention.
Please take a moment to review these numbers as it impacts the city’s finances.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
Blackberry Farm Golf vs. Natural Habitat25-Year Cost Estimates9/20/22 https://engagecupertino.org/bbfgolfcourse
BUT Golf Course makes a LOT more moneyGolf Course costs the city more!Golf Course is $2 million less expensive 25 Year Outlookfrom
Natural Habitat 25 year revenuefrom Educational Programming $500k = $20k/year * 25 yearsRevision #1: Educational Programming Revenue Educational Programming consisting of avariety of ranger programs in classroom or on the trail:•How different plants and animals interact in an ecosystem•How ancient people lived off the land•How geologic processes have shaped the landscape•Ranger walks and interpretive programs•Animals and plants on the trail, the creeks, etc.
•Q: Are the $500K of courses duplicative to courses already being offered? Perhaps.•Q: Is plowing up the fairways/greens required to give these courses? NoRevision #1: Offer these new courses whether or not there is golf.•Add $500K to Option A side of the table, too Current Educational ProgrammingExamples of courses and venues (Parks and Recreation brochure, Fall 2022) Revision #2: Irrigation water cost
From the NGF Report•Replace irrigation system = $682,308 (p 12)•Water waste (per NGF report) is fromoPipe and head leaksoLess efficient targeted watering and times•Reduction in water cost “difficult to quantify potential savings from a new system” ( p 17)All these improvements must help reduce usage so instead of zero reduction, use conservative 10%•Reduce cost by $157,500 (10% reduction) Irrigation water cost calculated from average cost over past 5 years.$1,575,000 = $63,000 * 25 yearsNOTE: Does NOT include reduction in wastedwater cost after the repairs! Summary of Revisionsto 25-year Outlook
Rev1 - Increase by $500K to $9,878,624Rev2 - Decrease by $157.5k to $1,417,500$1,417,500--------------$9,878,624--------------$17,468,750----------------$7,590,126--------------$9,560,126-------------With no changes to 25-year estimatesGolf Course saved our City $1,886,000With revised estimatesGolf Course SAVES our City $2,543,293! Some additional notes•Golf fees are known to be too low. Increasing fees, even $1, would add significantly to revenue.•Parks & Rec beginning golf classes are waitlisted –so demand is high.•A beginning short course provides a unique activity for young and old. •Golf course serves a function to the community that is not provided anywhere else in Cupertino parks!•Grant funding potential may be availableGolf Course (OPTION A) SAVES our City $2,543,293 + PLUS CC 9-20-2022
Study Session #1
SB 9 Study Session
Review of Objective
Standards
Written
Communications
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fw: :SB 9 Splits and Issues for Home Owners and Neighborhoods. City Council Stdsy Session (9/20/22) Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 1:51:42 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.
FYI. Please add this to the public record for the Cupertino City Council Study Session on SB 9 on 9/20/22. Thank you.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 01:48:56 PM PDT
Subject: :SB 9 Splits and Issues for Home Owners and Neighborhoods. City Council Stdsy Session (9/20/22)
Dear City Council:
The Study Session for the City Council meeting on September 20, 2022 agenda is addressing potential lots splits on single family lots in Cupertino.
SB 9 is an illegal law in the beginning because no one was allowed to vote on the law and it is directly affecting people who were not allowed to vote on it, people who inhabit single family lots in neighborhoods in Cupertino.
It is like we were some one"s captive vassals and we have no rights. This is not how democracy works in this state and under no circumstances in this country.
Again, wasn't the Revolutionary War about local control? Some group who thinks they rule California it trying to take away local control and impose laws upon the public that they were never asked to or allowed to vote on.
This group who thinks they run California was never voted into office by anyone. Yet, they have the audacity to tell the public they have to allow their neighborhoods and lands to be cut up "by right" and "minsiterially" without the public being able to say anything or vote on anything.
This is the biggest farce of the century. This is the biggest scandal since Tea Pot Dome. This is the equivalent to the attempted taking of the Capitol on January 6.
This farce is also being carried out in Oregon and Washington State and other states in the Union.
Will they get to Washington DC to carry out this play of farce across the nation. I sure hope not. The people of California and their cities have been vilified and abused by this group of farce long enough.
Now, this group of farce is coming after our homes.
People who live in the neighborhoods are going to have to incur significant costs if SB 9 and its evil twin, SB 10, are implemented. Residents are going to have to hire companies to survey their lot lines to make sure the lot splits from SB 9 do not take out property that is not theirs to take. These surveys can cost on the minimum 3000 to 4000 dollars.
They can run up to 20,000 dollars in some cases.
Resident's utility lines may be cut by this SB 9 building. The group of people pushing fro SB 9 want to do it fast with no input from the public ie by right and ministerially. No ceqa. No one can do this ministerially or by right.
To think one can do that shows how naive and inexperienced with land use these people are. It shows how selfish these people are. All they think of is the money they will make and not the issues they are forcing the rest of the cities in the state and all of the cities in all of the states to go through.
This is not a walk in the park. SB 9 is a very dangerous insurrection to the rule of law and the concept of local control which seems to go back to the reason this country was founded and on which the current rule of law of this nation rests.
To trivialize the concept of local control and the constitution shows how naive this group of people are who think they are running this state, especially since many of them are not elected.
Hence the push for the Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative. This is what the people of California have been driven to because of the gross abuses from SB 9 and SB 10. It follow directly with the concept of local control and why the people who wound up founding this country fought a revolution to ensure local control.
i am assuming that Oregon and Washington State will form their own Our Neighborhood Voices Initiatives also. And we will have a Federal Our Neighborhood Voices Initiative in due time.
Such are the times we are living in that cities and neighborhoods have to fight for their very existence against such laws as SB 9 and SB 10.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
CC 9-20-2022
#20
Regnart Creek
Trail/Campo de Lozano
Midblock Pedestrian
Crosswalk and Public
Pedestrian Walkway
Easement Signage
Written
Communications
From: Christina Yang
To: City Council
Cc: Longkins; Ivan Corneillet; s hong; Vivian Corneillet; Mehdi Kalai ([email protected]); Moshe Broudo ([email protected]); Dan Kau; Min Li; Xingchi He; Lili Kalai; Yong Chen ([email protected]); 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: [email protected]
| Cell: (510) 604-2953
From: s hong
To: City Council; Longkins; City Clerk
Cc: Christina Yang; Ivan Corneillet; Vivian Corneillet; Mehdi Kalai ([email protected]); Moshe Broudo ([email protected]); Dan Kau; Min Li; Xingchi He; Lili Kalai; Yong Chen ([email protected]); 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 <[email protected]> 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