CC 10-18-2022
Written
Communications
Oral
Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Lawson Car Counts by Neighbors
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:12:17 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
2022-10-17 Lawson Car Counts by Neighbors.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.
Dear City Council, Planning Commission and Bike Ped Commission, Please look at the attached PDF. It is random car counts from February-October 2022 done by any neighbor who had the time to text me the counts as they drove/walked down Vista Drive.
The Walk-Bike Cupertino group is saying that the Lawson Bike Path that was proposed early this year would remove less than 10 spaces (<10 spaces) on the school side of Vista Drive, in front of Lawson MS. Yet I have data to prove otherwise. As much as 45 cars have squeezed into the school side of Vista Drive. Regularly, it’s in the high teens/low 20’s when school or sports are active.
Their statement is not only false, it’s misleading to the public and appalling! I have passed this onto David Stillman (see email below).
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Stillman <[email protected]>
Date: October 17, 2022 at 7:47:51 PM EDT
To: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Cc: Brooke Ezzat, Christine Jacobs
Subject: RE: Lawson Car Counts by Neighbors
Thanks Peggy, I’ll pass this along to the consultant.
It looks like our first community meeting will be November 10. We just set the date and haven’t advertised this yet (you’re the first to know!) but feel free to pass the word along. You’ll see more formal noticing soon. The meeting will most likely be at 3:30, in person at Lawson.
Thanks!
David
David Stillman
Transportation Manager
Public Works
[email protected]
(408) 777-3249
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2022 4:31 PM
To: David Stillman <[email protected]>
Cc: Brooke Ezzat, Christine Jacobs
Subject: Lawson Car Counts by Neighbors
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 David,
Sorry this took me so long to send. Attached is a PDF of the Lawson car count data I’ve been collecting from neighbors since February 2022. Anytime a neighbor drives or walks by Lawson they count the cars and text me the info. If they cannot do both sides, the priority is to count the school- side.
REQUEST: Please pass this info onto the consultants doing the Lawson analysis so they have this information.
As you can see, there are far more than “just 10 spaces” if the school side Vista Drive parking were removed. I hope this helps provide additional information.
I’ve copied 2 neighbors: Brooke Ezzat and Christine Jacobs on this email. All 3 of us are interested in attending any meetings that are being held. Thank you for your help!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
P.S. If requested, I can provide the Excel spreadsheet with this data.
From: Anne Ezzat
To: Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Jon Robert Willey; Kitty Moore; City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia Subject: Finances of the City
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 5:40:23 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 Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao, Council Member Wiley, and Council Member Moore, I hope the council will continue to look into the finances of the city and get Cupertino on track and bring it into the digital age, regardless of the outcome of the election. It is hard to believe that the city had evergreen contracts that went unexamined and "verbal contracts" without deliverables until the current council did some investigating. Verbal contracts and evergreen contracts are bad on so many levels--things change, and contracts need to be examined and adjusted depending on circumstances and economics. I would argue that this way of doing business is patently absurd.
Some argue that the city no longer has a good relationship with non-profits, including a former mayor. Well, I would probably want to maintain a "good relationship" with the city if I was getting money for no reason. I am happy that the gravy train is coming to an end.
To Mayor Paul and Council member Wiley, I want to express my appreciation for all that you have done over the last years to improve our city. You have been honest when it was painful.
You have spent time away from your children, listened to whining residents, dealt with messy personnel issues, and been pressured by big money interests all for the common good. Thank you.
Best regards,
Brooke Ezzat. .
City of Cupertino:
LED Lighting
Improvement Project
By: Niharika Emani, Intern for Councilmember Wei
Introduction
The LED improvements project is centered around sustainability. ● Goal: transition the city’s induction-based lighting system to entirely LED infrastructure
● Satisfy city’s own provisions for private lighting development:
■ Dark Sky Ordinances
● Overall 2500 lights will be modified across the city in order to be more environmentally-friendly
Background: “Dark Sky” Ordinances Cont.
● Dark Sky lighting works by directing light downwards
○ Lighting directed into the sky causes excess light
pollution
● Regulations were met with positive feedback
○ Signified long-awaited step towards sustainability
● City wishes to hold itself to similar standards as it does private institutions
● Current lighting system was nearing the end of its
useful life - so LED came into the picture
Budgeting & Financial Analysis
● Current Evaluation:
○ Short term financial costs vs long-term
savings
○ Total conversion cost: $1 million to $1.3
million
○ Cost is not unusual for a lighting projects
■ Errs on the lower side
○ Long term:
■ Maintenance costs are less for LEDs
(~$100,000 less annually for the first
five years)
This is where you section ends. Duplicate this set of slides as many times you need to go over all your sections.
Break-even point
Budgeting & Financial Analysis Cont.
● Current Evaluation cont.
○ About $115,000 in savings per year for
maintenance costs (half the cost of the
current system)
○ About $2 million dollars in 20 years (
cumulative savings)
○ Time is another factor:
■ Break-even point occurs 7-8 years
after installment
■ Initially, cost of the new system will
exceed that of the old (as expected)
Sustainability
● LED is an additional step towards long-term
sustainability
● Ecological benefits:
○ LED lighting achieves energy savings 50%
to 70% greater than induction lighting
○ LED known for creating the least amount
of emissions (one bulb creates 451 lbs
per year in CO2 emissions compared to
the avg of 1051 lbs/year)
● Need for action is apparent:
○ 15 million tons of CO2 generated per year
by unsustainable outdoor lighting
Sustainability cont.
● Light pollution around the world is steadily
increasing (6% per year in North America)
● Adverse effects on natural processes
● Dark sky lighting helps by directing light to
the ground
○ Shields top and sides of the light bulb
○ Reduces manmade skyglow
■ Directing light towards ground
reduces artificial skyglow
Benefits: Costs:
Conclusions: Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Holds public institutions to the same
standards as private companies
- Solidifies Cupertino’s commitment to
sustainable development
- Reduces light pollution
- Mitigates effects of light pollution
- Encourages others to follow in
Cupertino’s footsteps
- Long-term savings ($2 mil in 20
years)
- Short-term costs
- $1 to $1.3 million
- Time:
- Project will take a 7-8 years to
break even
- Costs will initially be higher
- See graph for more details
THANK YOU
FOR
LISTENING!
CC 10-18-2022
Written
Communications
Item #14
Professional Turf
Management contract for
Blackberry Farm Golf
Course
From: Pamela Wu
To: Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar
Subject: FW: Public Comment – Item 14: BBF Golf Course Maintenance Contract Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 3:39:39 PM
Attachments: City Council – BBF Golf Course maintenance contract.pdf
Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-1322
From: Darcy Paul <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Christopher Jensen <[email protected]>; Pamela Wu <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Public Comment – Item 14: BBF Golf Course Maintenance Contract
fyi
Sent from my iPhone
Darcy Paul
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-3195
Begin forwarded message:
From: EAC Chair <[email protected]>
Date: October 18, 2022 at 3:33:42 PM PDT
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>, Rachelle Sander <[email protected]>, Jacinta Liang <[email protected]>, Shani Kleinhaus <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment – Item 14: BBF Golf Course Maintenance Contract
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 Mayor Paul and Councilmembers,
We would like to pull Item 14 regarding the Blackberry Farm Golf Course Maintenance Services Contract from the Consent Calendar. Please see attached for our comments.
Regards,
Annie Yang
Annie Yang
Environmental Action Committee Chair
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
22221 McClellan Rd
Cupertino, CA 95014
[email protected]
October 18, 2022
RE: Item 14 – Award and authorize the City Manager to execute a maintenance servicescontract with Professional Turf Management for the Blackberry Farm Golf Course Dear Mayor Paul and Councilmembers,
We would like to pull Item 14 regarding the Blackberry Farm Golf Course Maintenance ServicesContract from the Consent Calendar. The 2022 contract lacks many of the wildlife protectionprovisions that were in the 2016 contract. We understand that the City is currently consideringwhether to retain the golf course or to convert it to natural habitat. Regardless of the Council’sfuture decision, this current maintenance contract should and can include protections for theexisting wildlife and for Stevens Creek.
The wildlife and creek protection sections from 1) the 2016Blackberry Farm Golf CourseMaintenance Technical Provisions 1 and where it isaddressed, and 2) any equivalent languagefrom 2022Attachment A: Scope Of Work And Technical Specifications Blackberry Farm GolfCourse Maintenanceare included in the table below.We also included 3) our comments onthose sections with specific edits. The following is a summary of the main points.● The 2016 document includes specific actions that would ensure compliance with stateregulations and protect terrestrial and aquatic life while the 2022 document does not. Forexample, the 2016 denotes best practices for protecting birds during nesting season,requiring minimal use of outdoor lighting, and ways to avoid chemical runoff.● The language on nesting bird protection should be added and clarified to include surveysfor nests prior to trimming of all trees during the nesting season.● While both documents prohibit chemical, pesticide, or fertilizer runoff, neither requiremonitoring or testing. This should be required to ensure runoff does not occur.
We hope that you add these protections into the contract.
Regards,
Annie Yang
Cupertino ResidentEnvironmental Action Committee ChairSanta Clara Valley Audubon Society22221 McClellan RdCupertino, CA [email protected] 1 A - Historical background of maintenance servicesat Blackberry Farm, p. 527-531
SCVAS, Page2
2016 Blackberry Farm Golf CourseMaintenance Technical Provisions 2022 Attachment A:Scope Of Work AndTechnicalSpecificationsBlackberry Farm GolfCourse Maintenance SCVASRecommendations
16. RECYCLING OF VEGETATION
16.01 RECYCLING REQUIRED: Contractorshall recycle all vegetative material generated.No clippings may be dispersed in the rough oron the fairways. Clippings may be recycled inout of play areas in amounts and locationsapproved by the City. Clippings may not berecycled on the creek bank or within 8 feet ofthe creek edge or in a manner that might resultin clippings getting into the creek channel at anytime. If build up of pine needles, leaves andgrass clippings become excessive in theseareas the Contractor will be required to removethem and place them in the vegetation recyclingcontainers provided by the City.
Retain “Clippings maynot be recycled on thecreek bank or within 8feet of the creek edgeor in a manner thatmight result in clippingsgetting into the creekchannel at any time.”
17. WILDLIFE CONSIDERATIONS
Contractor is to note that a number of federally-and state-protected wildlife species inhabit theStevens Creek corridor and portions of the golfcourse. Among the species are steelhead fish,turtles, woodrats, various birds of prey such ashawks, owls and white-tailed kites, and variousmigratory birds and songbirds. These animalsand their habitat are protected by variousfederal and state regulations. Those regulationsaffect activities that could affect wildlife directlyor indirectly, including actions on the golf coursethat could affect the creek and its water quality.Such actions include fertilizer use, pesticideuse, irrigation practices, operation of the golfcourse ponds, vehicle washing, and otherprocedures.
Contractor shall meet with City staff andrepresentatives annually to review maintenanceactivities relative to these considerations.Contractor is encouraged [sic] meet with Cityrepresentatives more frequently as needed toensure compliance. Further considerations arenoted below.
The new guidelinesremove protections andregulatory framework.Please retain the 2016Wildlife requirements.In addition, pleaseupdate theserequirements to applyprotections for nestingbirds on all trees in thegolf course. During thenesting period, requiresurveys for nestingbirds on the entire golfcourse prior to treetrimming or removal.
18. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE
VEGETATION TRIMMING AND REMOVAL: Novegetation along the creek edge shall betrimmed or removed from February 1 to August31, unless it has been reviewed for presence of Retain 2016 TerrestrialWildlife section. Includethe following edit:
“No vegetation alongthe creek edgeor any
SCVAS, Page3
nests and protected wildlife by a biologist orqualified professional or the City Naturalist.
TREE REMOVAL: Certain trees are protectedby City ordinance. No tree shall be removed orsignificantly pruned without advance approvalby the City representative.
BIRD BREEDING SEASON: Breeding seasonfor raptors, birds of prey such as hawks andowls, is normally from February 1 to August 31,with highest activity usually from early or midMarch onward. Most such birds and their nestsand breeding are protected by law. Routine golfcourse operations may proceed during breedingseason.However, during this time contractor shallendeavor to reduce disturbing activities, such asloud noises or vibration, within 250 feet of araptor nest site and within 400 feet of awhite-tailed kite nest site. Songbird nests aregenerally protected within a 100 foot radius.
RODENTICIDE USE: Use of any and allrodenticides [to poison squirrels, gophers, mice,rats] or chemicals is banned, unless authorizedin advance in writing by the City.
LIGHTING: Contractor is to minimize use ofnighttime lighting, especially in the vicinity of thecreek. Contractor is to operate the golfmaintenance facility in a manner that minimizesuse of outdoor lighting to the extent feasible.Lights shall only be used when workers arepresent, unless the City provides advanceauthorization in writing. This stricture applies tooutdoor lighting of the maintenance yard.
EMISSIONS: Contractor is to minimize the useof exhaust- and emission-producing equipmentto the extent compatible with performance of thework. Contractor shall favor the use ofequipment powered by electrical, batteries orhand rather than diesel, gas or oil, as feasible.
WILDLIFE REPORTING:● Contractor shall report any observationsof the following to the Cityrepresentative within 1 working day:
● active raptor nests● turtles● woodrats [potentially San Franciscodusky-footed woodrat]● frogs [potentially California red-leggedfrog]● salamanders [potentially California tigersalamander] trees in any locationon the golf courseshall be trimmed orremoved from February1 to August 31, unlessit has been reviewedfor presence of nestsand protected wildlifeby a biologist orqualified professional orthe City Naturalist.” SCVAS, Page4
● other potentially protected wildlife
19. AQUATIC WILDLIFE
Federally-threatened steelhead inhabit thesection of Stevens Creek that is adjacent to thegolf course, year round. This fish species ishighly protected. Their survival depends onclean cool water, free of harmful levels offertilizers, pesticides, storm water runoffpollutants, and organic waste. The principalmethods to achieve this are minimizing total useof these contaminants, restricting the type ofinputs, and having an acceptable method ofapplication via an Integrated Pest ManagementPlan (IPM). The City has adopted such a planas discussed elsewhere in this document.
Contractor is strongly encouraged to operate inconformance with Pilot Salmon SafeCertification Standards for Golf Courses, latestversion (March 2014, draft 1.3) available atwww.salmonsafe.org.
Due to adverse impacts on fish an [sic] aquaticwildlife, use of the following pesticides is notallowed.
If use of any of these pesticides is desired,Contractor must submit written documentationto City to demonstrate a clear need for use ofthe pesticide, that no safer alternatives exist,and that the method of application (such astiming, location, and amount used) represents anegligible risk to water quality and fish habitat.Contractor must secure authorization inadvance from City and any involved regulatorsincluding Resource Agencies that use of thepesticide may proceed. [List of pesticides used in urban applicationsthat pose a high risk to salmon and aquatic life] Note that some of these pesticides are includedon the San Francisco Reduced Risk PesticideList (“SF List”). They are hereby deleted fromthe SF List since they are not suitable for usenear creeks and include but are not limited to:● Triclopyr These pesticides are not to be used on the golfcourse unless written authorization is secured inadvance.
Retain 2016 AquaticWildlife section. Updatethis section with anyState updates to the listof pesticides andpractices that protectthe creek.
20. WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS:Protection of creek & ponds
1.8 PROTECTION OFCREEK
Retain 2016 WaterQuality Considerationssection. Include a SCVAS, Page5
RUNOFF: No runoff from any applications ofchemicals, pesticides or fertilizer shall flow intocreeks or ponds, including runoff from allowableproducts. No runoff other than clean rainwatershall flow into the creek. Contractor shallconsider weather conditions and wateringregimes in order to schedule application offertilizer, pesticides and chemicals in a mannerthat prevents runoff to creeks or ponds.Contractor shall operate irrigation system andwatering activities in a manner that preventsirrigation runoff as well.
EQUIPMENT WASHING: All equipment shall bewashed within the equipment washoff area inthe golf maintenance yard, or in an equivalentoffsite facility that filters wash water and isconnected to the sanitary sewer system.Screens shall be cleaned of grass clippings andother material after each use. No washing ispermitted elsewhere.
POND MAINTENANCE: Ponds shall be keptfree of excessive vegetation. Vegetationremoval shall be done with hand or mechanicalmeans. Such removal shall be timed to avoidwildlife breeding seasons in consultation withthe City. Timing will ordinarily be September toJanuary, or potentially as late as mid March ifnesting and protected wildlife are not present.
A pond outlet/overflow pipe within the lowerpond provides an emergency discharge to thecreek. This outlet pipe must be capped at alltimes with a tight, sturdy, secure, 3/32” squaremesh or tighter screen that is acceptable to City.If slotted the maximum opening width is 1/16”.Pond water level shall be maintained sufficientlybelow the outlet pipe elevation such that NOPOND WATER ENTERS THE OUTLET norflows to the creek. Contractor shall check thescreen to ensure that it is tight, intact and clearat least monthly and shall maintain the mesh ina clear clean condition.
When ponds are in operation, ponds shall bemaintained with adequate water level tomaintain habitat for existing fish and wildlifepopulations, unless the City authorizesotherwise. Ponds shall be operated in a mannerthat prevents algae growth. Avoid overfertilization that contributes to algae growth.
No runoff from fertilizer,pesticide, or chemicalapplications shall flow intocreeks or ponds nor todrainage inlets thatdischarge to creeks orponds.
3.9, 4.7, 5.6PROTECTION OFCREEK
No runoff from fertilizer,pesticide, or chemicalapplications shall flow intocreek areas, norto drain inlets thatdischarge to creek areas. requirement for thecontractor to monitorand test for runoff ofany chemicals,pesticides, or fertilizerto ensure runoff doesnot occur.
Revise pondmaintenancerequirements to allowplanting of locallynative vegetation, andavoid vegetationmanagement during thenesting season.
CC 10-18-2022
#16
20860 McClellan Road
Development
Written Communications
(sd)
(sd)(sd)(sd)
(sd)(sd)(sd)(sd)(sd)
(sd)
>>>
SD
SDSDSDSD
SDSDSDSD
SDSDSDSD
SDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDSDSD
SDSD
SDSD
SDSD
SD
SDSDSDSDSDSDSD SDSD SD
FF 279.35Pad 278.52FF 279.80Pad 278.97FF 280.20Pad 279.37FF 280.60Pad 279.77 Cherryland Drive (private Street)
McClellan Road
Bonny Drive
(25')(10.5')(20')20.5'5'
(5')(±8)'
(278.77)(279.26)(279.54)(279.77)(280.10)(280.38)(280.54)(281.45)(281.68) (277.20)
(276.38)(276.04)(276.41)
Pad 279.77FF 280.60(0.20'+0.67')FF=HP Swale +10" Slab Section (281)
(280)(280)
(281)
(279)
(277)
(278)
(278)(278)(279)
(280)
(280)(279)(279)
(277) (278)(279)(279)
(281)
(282)
(278)
280.16tc279.72fl279.76lip
280.90tc @ dwy280.45fl280.51lip
281.12tc @ dwy
280.97lip280.92fl
281.84tc @ dwytc @ ci281.38fl
279.09tc @ dwy278.64fl278.68lip278.27lip278.14lip278.02fl278.59tc@ci, Inv271.44 277.05tc@ci, Inv272.75277.38tc bc277.05lip276.95pavers277.10lip276.96fl276.96lip276.89fl276.71fl277.17tc poc276.72lip 276.70tc276.23fl276.29lip276.61tc276.14fl276.20lip
277.35hcr
278.12fl278.16lip276.99pavers277.47tc277.48tc276.97pavers277.73tc @ dwy277.67tc @ dwy277.23pavers277.16pavers277.68tc277.75tc277.14pavers277.15pavers277.64tc277.66tc @ end277.66brc277.16fl277.16lip277.31lip277.72brc277.39fl277.44fl277.37lip277.79brc 277.77brc277.82tc277.36fl277.36lip277.26pavers277.77tc 277.12pavers277.75tc (20')(30')
S1 S1
S2S2
HP Fl278.25TW279.00
TW278.10
FF 279.15Pad 278.27MOFG 278.43Fl278.00Fl278.00
Fl278.00hp Fl278.25
Fl278.00hp278.25
TW279.00
TW278.50
(278.51)
FF 279.43Pad 278.60Fl278.22HP Fl278.56Fl278.22(279.04)
(6" Wall)
(7" Wall)(12" Wall)TW279.00
(16" Wall)
(21" Wall)(21" Wall)(21" Wall)
(E)FF 278.12±(E)FF 276.78±(E)FF 278.65±
Lot 1Lot 2Lot 3Lot 4Lot 5Lot 6
Tree±6'
Min 6"-Max 21"CMU Retaining Wall@ Property Line
Max 21" CMURetaining Wall@ Property LineTypicalBio-Retention BasinMax. 9" Ponding Typ. Lot SwaleTyp. Lot Swale
Typ. Lot SwaleTyp Roof LeaderSplash Block
-1.4%Bio-Soil Top Elev 276.90TW277.75
Fl278.00Fl277.14
HP Fl278.47
Fl277.58
HP Fl278.92
Fl277.93
HP Fl279.32HP Fl279.72
Fl278.40
(E) CIto be Replacedwith a ManholeRIM 279.44
CIGrate 278.77INV 274.29, 15"∅Out
SDMHRIM 278.13With 3"Ø Orifice Plate on 10"Ø PipeINV 273.34, 10"∅InINV 273.01, 15"∅InINV 271.44, 15"∅InINV 271.44, 15"∅Out(E) CIRIM 276.55INV 272.75, 15"∅Out CIGrate 276.54INV 272.47, 12"∅Out
(E)SDMHRIM 278.46INV 271.00, 15"∅InINV 267.16, 30"∅Out
30' - 15"Ø RCP @ S=4.31%
(E) 15"Ø SD @ S=2.61%(E) 15"Ø SD @ S=1.47%TW278.10OverflowOverflowOverflowOverflowOverflowOverflow 190'-24"Ø Perforated HDPEwrapped in 12" drain rockTotal Vol = 1,698cf Bio-Soil Top Elev 276.39Bio-Soil Top Elev 276.39Bio-Soil Top Elev 277.18Bio-Soil Top Elev 277.65Grate 278.05Inv276.05±Grate 277.75±Inv276.65±Grate 277.05Inv275.85± 52' - 10"Ø C900@ S=0.50%105' - 10"Ø C900@ S=0.38%SDMHRim 276.93Inv 274.00', 10" Ø (In)Inv 269.26', 24" Ø (Out) 4' - 12"Ø HDP@ S=11.72%CIRim 276.72Inv 272.70', 12" Ø (Out) SDMHRim 276.83Inv 269.26', 24" Ø (In)Inv 272.30', 12" Ø (In)Inv 273.60', 10" Ø (Out) -0.25% -1.25%GbTc277.70Tc277.29HPTc277.44LPTc277.04GbTc276.96PRC GbTc277.08Tc277.38 -0.25%GbTc278.93-3.1%-4.3%-0.25%0.67% (E)Fl278.64 -2.17%-1.65%
Conform(e)2.1%3.56%GbTc277.42LPTc277.23GbTc277.00-0.25% 4'P.S.D.E.4'P.S.D.E.
Bio-Soil TopElev 277.25
S3S312"DIRim 277.00Inv 274.40', 10" Ø (Out)
PL-1PL-4PL-5
PL-6 PL-3PL-2
ADUADU ADUADU ADUADU
1 1 1
PROFILE: Grading Section S1SCALE H: 1"=20'SCALE V: 1"=5'277278279280281282 2772782792802812820+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+32Pad278.27Pad278.60Pad278.52Pad278.97Pad279.37Pad279.77McClellan Road(30' R/W)(E)Pad279.0±Exterior BoundaryAvg. 12" High(Max 21")CMU Retaining Wall@ Property LineLot 6Lot 5Lot 4Lot 3Lot 2Lot 1Typical Bulkhead Retainerat the bottom of Fenceas needed@ Property LinePROFILE: Grading Section S2SCALE H: 1"=20'SCALE V: 1"=5'275276277278279280281 2752762772782792802810+501+001+502+002+09Cherryland Drive(Private Street)Pad278.97Parcel BAPN359-20-043(E)FF 278.12± Max. 2:1 Slopewith 12" OverbuildLot 3FF279.80 Exterior Boundary1 1
PROFILE: Garding Section S3SCALE H: 1"=20'SCALE V: 1"=5'275276277278279280 2752762772782792800+501+001+501+77Tw278.10Pad278.27Lot 6FF279.15 Max. 2:1 Slopewith 12" OverbuildExterior Boundary Exterior BoundaryParcel CAPN359-20-044(E)FF 276.78±Avg. 12" High(Max 24")CMU Retaining Wall@ Property Line111 Permeable Paver Street &Onsite DrivewayGrasscrete Onsite Parking SpacePCC Sidewalk 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313201234567891011121314151617181920212223 0L:\Projects\Harry\221047-Alok Ventures, LLC, McClennan Road, Cupertino\DWG\221047 C3-Prelim Grading & Drainage Plan.dwg - 10/18/2022 3:18 PM - Plotted 10/18/2022 3:18 PM by Harinder Singla JOB NO.OF 16075 Vineyard BoulevardMorgan Hill, CA 95037DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:
Xrefs: 221047 LO Existing; 221047 LO New; 221047-Hatch; 221047 Arch 4-11-22SHEET221047C35Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan20860 McClellan RoadOct 20221"=20'MFHS HARINDER SINGLASTATE OF CALIFORNIAC49717REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ±13'14.5'
NorthSCALE: 1"=20'010203040
3.25" Vehicularrated pavers
Scarify and compactupper 12" of soil to 90%relative maximum density3/4" Clean crushed rock orclass II permeable base rockwrapped in filter fabric ASTM No. 8 beddingcourse & paver filler
Typical Permeable Paver SectionTensar BX100Biaxial Geogrid min.12"min.12Not to Scale
Looking North Existing PerviousPavementsawcut lineNot to Scale (E) PL2%Permeable Paverson Bedding Courseand Stone Subbaseper the Soils Engineerto match existingStreet Section4'9"P/L1.5-3.5%Street Section-Cherryland Drive Widening Curb & Gutter or full depthVertical Curb & Sidewalkas shown on plan CL(±8')20.5'(10.5')1.0-2.5%1.0-2.5%(5')(20')14.5'3"5"PUE & LE Hardscape Legend:
20'
1“Updated Elevations10-18-22”
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: Kitty Moore
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: Item 16
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:43:32 PM
Attachments: image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
Good evening Councilmember Moore, your additional comments will be posted with the late written communications for the October 18 City Council meeting, Item 16. Regards, Kirsten
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:22 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 16
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 include the following document for public record on this item tonight.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10890532&GUID=02350643-19DA-4ACC-9D39- B68C3CCC7887
Thank you
Kitty Moore
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: Kitty Moore
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: Item 16
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:43:06 PM
Attachments: image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
Good evening Councilmember Moore, your comments will be posted with the late written communications for the October 18 City Council meeting, Item 16. Regards, Kirsten
Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:23 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 16
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 Kirsten,
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10890534&GUID=DA58B5FF-CED3-46D4-B784- DC10E1D4D667
Please include in this item.
Kitty
From: Larry Harrison
To: City Council
Subject: Council Agenda Oct 18, 2022, Public Hearing item 16 Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 1:37:04 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.
I am the adjacent property owner at 7601 Erin Way of 20860 McClellan Road. Close to the development south property fence line, there is a mature established row of Italian Cypress Trees on our property that currently act as a privacy screen and would, in the future, serve the same purpose for the new adjacent lot development.
I do not necessarily see a problem, however I would like to assure that any lot grading and other construction work is done carefully to avoid any compromise to the heath of these trees.
In addition, in past communications, the developer has indicated a commitment to install a new brick fence along our adjacent property line. I would to like to established a firm commitment for this fence.
Arthur Harrison
7601 Erin Way
Cupertino, CA
CC 10-18-2022
#17
Lozano Lane crosswalk
Written Communications
From: Seema Lindskog
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Please follow staff recommendations on Lozano Lane Access path Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 2:39:23 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.
Mayor Paul and councilmembers,
The community is excited to start using the Lozano Lane access path to get to the Regnart Creek Trail. Many residents who live on Rodrigues, especially those in the Biltmore Apartments and Waterfall Condominiums are anxiously waiting for the trail to open.
The city does not have any data currently to assist with a decision on whether a crosswalk is needed or
where it should be located.
I urge you to follow the staff recommendation and gather data for one year after the Regnart Creek trail opens before making any decisions on whether to add a crosswalk and if so, where to locate it.
If you are determined to add a crosswalk today, without any data to justify the decision, then Option B is the best choice that will benefit the most residents, based on feedback received from residents on Rodrigues. There are parents who live in the Biltmore Apartments whose small kids will use the access path to get on Regnart Creek trail to go to Eaton, Wilson Park, and Creekside Park. They view Option B as the safer alternative. There are senior citizens living on Rodrigues who have mobility issues, who have stated that it would be easier for them to use Option B.
At the end of the day, the council needs to make a fact and data-based decision that will benefit the biggest number of residents. This is why the staff recommendation to gather data for a year after the Regnart Creek trail opens is the best course of action.
The signage proposed by the staff is good and should be adopted. It addresses all the concerns raised by the residents in the Lozano Lane HOA.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Seema Lindskog
___________________________________________________________________ "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi From: Leslie
To: City Council
Subject: Bike Path
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 2:16:30 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.
Please support keeping Lozano Lane open. My family and I have used this lane for years for our walks. We should use data, if a crosswalk is needed, to decide where the crosswalk should go.
Most studies show that it should be as close to where people want to go to make sure it is used.
Otherwise, it defeats the purpose and just wastes our city’s money. If a decision needs to be made tonight—without that data—then it’s clear which of the concepts should be considered. (see attached image)
Concept A makes no sense as it is farthest away from the path.
Concept B or C are much more likely to be used, with Concept B better as would be more likely to be used by people living in both Waterfall and Biltmore.
The signage asking those on bikes to dismount is reasonable and adequate. There’s no sign of bikes going through there now. People are reasonable and will be willing to walk their bikes for the short distance to get to the main Trail.
Sincerely,
Leslie Ericksen
Sent from my iPhone please excuse typos.
From: Sharon Walker
To: City Council
Cc: Jim *(ICE) Walker
Subject: Lozano Lane access path
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 2:06:14 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.
We totally support the Lozano Lane access path. We have walked the path and feel it’s important to approve for the many people who will benefit.
Sharon & Jim Walker
From: J Shearin
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Follow City Staff recommendations for Agenda item 17- Lozano Lane crosswalk Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 12:46:51 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 City Councilmembers and Mayor Paul:
I ask today that you follow the recommendation of the City Staff on Agenda item 17 for both studying the area on Rodrigues for a crosswalk for one year and for the signage at the walking path. I know that you wish to make your decisions based on data, and following their recommendation will ensure that it is.
The City Staff’s recommendation—based upon their many years of experience and expert training (they are Civil Engineers, and many PE’s as well) is reasoned and thoughtful. They would like to get some data for one year after the Regnart Trail opens to determine whether a crosswalk is needed across Rodrigues near the Lozano Lane pathway. I encourage you to follow their recommendation to get data before making any decision on whether and where to build a crosswalk. As an engineer myself—albeit an electrical engineer—I know that they have amassed the skills and experience to create a sound judgement on an item in their field of expertise.
If you feel a decision must be made today, then Concept B seems like it would make the most sense, as it would be beneficial to the most amount of people near Biltmore and Waterfall, and would be close to the path that it would connect to. Many studies show that people will walk the most obvious line and if a crosswalk is placed at Concept A then likely it would not be useful for the Lozano pathway.
I’d also like to support the sign that the city staff have proposed. As someone who bikes regularly for errands to the library and shopping, I know that there are places when I must dismount, and the proposed sign is a great way to show that this is one of those places. The vast majority of people are reasonable and follow signage.
Though this is not listed on your agenda for this evening, I’d also like to emphasize here that giving away the easement to the 10 homeowners in the adjacent HOA would not be the best for our city. Residents use and enjoy this pathway to walk today, and would continue to do so especially after the Regnart Creek Trail opens. This pathway was designed as a walking path to connect to the trail prior to the Lozano HOA homes being built, and each homeowner signs that they know there is a pathway there when their house is purchased. There is no evidence that the pathway has issues with undue accidents or criminal mischief.
Thank you for considering the input of one of your residents. I don’t live in that neighborhood, but I’ve talked to many of the people there—one of my daughters’ best friends lived in Biltmore until recently—and I care as a neighbor about making sure they don’t lose a great connector to the soon-to-open trail.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
19511 Howard Ct, Cupertino
From: Ross Heitkamp
To: City Council
Subject: Regnart Creek Trail and Lozano Lane
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 12:09:43 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 Honorable City Council Members,
I’m writing you about the possibility of a crosswalk near the walkway through Campo de Lozano on Rodrigues Ave. I agree with the Staff Report that this area should be studied after the Regnart Creek Trail is opened and this walkway starts having greater use. This will also help to provide data on the need and on the best location for such a crossing.
I also think the “Trail Rules” signs are an appropriate addition at each end of the walkway.
However, I do wonder about the title of “Trail Rules”. This is an access walkway with different rules than the trail itself and users may misconstrue these rules as applying to the whole trail.
I’d like to emphasize how important I think it is for a trail like Regnart Creek Trail to have as many access points as possible. This maximizes the trail’s availability to the neighborhood and lessens the demands on any one access point. This walkway has long been an important part of the Regnart Creek Trail plan. It will bring the trail closer to many residents and enable more options for including the trail in neighborhood walks.
-----
Ross Heitkamp
From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: Vote NO on closing the Lozano Lane access path to the Regnart Creek Trail Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 11:56:16 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 Cupertino City Council,
I am writing today to urge you to vote NO on closing the Lozano Lane access path to the Regnart Creek Trail. This idea makes no sense and is ill-conceived and ill-advised.
It’s quite exciting to see the progress that is being made on the trail! The City of Cupertino has shown its commitment to walking and biking connectivity, and as such should be encouraging the use of this trail, including providing clear signage and convenient access. Taking away this access point is clearly counter-productive to the many Cupertino residents who will use this trail. More access points make for convenience and usability, plain and simple.
As a long-time taxpayer in Cupertino I object to giving away valuable assets. It is fiscally irresponsible and sets a dangerous precedent which would undoubtably have future consequences. It’s puzzling why the city council would spend its time on the desires of a small group at the expense of the entire community.
Please focus council energy and efforts on the greater good to our community, not special interest groups.
In summary, there is no community-beneficial reason to close this access. Please vote NO .
Sincerely,
Jim Davis
Cupertino Resident for 39 years
From: Yvonne Strom
To: City Council
Subject: In support of the Lozano path, agenda item 17
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 10:30:02 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.
Hello,
I am writing in support of the Lozano path connector (agenda item 17.) The whole community benefits when there are numerous, safe places to walk. I agree with the city staff who recommended reviewing the trail usage one year after it opens to see if a crosswalk is necessary. The crosswalk option, if necessary, should be chosen to be the most convenient for pedestrians. If a decision on a crosswalk cannot be deferred for one year, then the best option is Option B because it is more likely to be used by nearby residents. The signage for the trail looks adequate.
Yvonne Thorstenson
From: Taghi Saadati
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Lozano Lane
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:37:41 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.
I urge you to keep the Lozano Lane open and revisit this issue after one year of the Regnart Creek Trail opening. At this time there is not sufficient data as to the potential impact of the trail on the Lazaro Lane. Also it would be reasonable to put a walk your bike signs at each end of Lazaro.
Thank you.
Taghi Saadati
Sent from my iPhone
From: Tom Scannell
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Item 17 on tonights agenda--Rodrigues Avenue Crosswalk Options Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 4:33:42 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.
Honorable Members of the City Council
I would like to support the City Staff recommendation of waiting a year to determine the correct location of pedestrian crosswalk across Rodrigues near the "about-to-be-opened” Regnart Creek Trail. If we wait a year we will have some data on which to base the decision. I am in favor of the proposed wording on the signage.
What I would not
be in support of is any action by the City Council this evening to once again (re)consider closing this path in response to the local HOA. The City Council has considered this topic multiple times. I myself have spoken/written in support of the trail itself and against the special carve out for the folks in this HOA. I believe the citizens of Cupertino have made it clear that this path remain open as designed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter
Tom Scannell
Cupertino Resident for 42 years.