CC 07-07-2022
Closed Session
Item No. 1
Labor Negotiations
Written Communications
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Joseph Fruen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Hung Wei; Jon Robert Willey; Kitty Moore; City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia Cc: Kristina Alfaro
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting of 7/7/2022 - Item 1: Labor negotiations 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 & Councilmembers:
I urge you to support a fair and reasonable contract that provides wage increases that reflect the superb quality of Cupertino's staff as well as the rising cost of living and unusually high inflation.
As we are all too aware with recent staff departures from the city, recruiting and retaining well‐trained professionals is critical to maintaining the level of service Cupertino provides to its residents and businesses. A highly competitive compensation package will not only mitigate such departures at a time when public sector employees have more mobility, and reward staff for a job well done, but also ensure that Cupertino can continue to attract the strongest candidates in government service.
Sincerely,
J.R. Fruen
Cupertino resident
CC 07-07-2022
Written
Communications
Oral
Communications
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk
Subject: Written Communications: Cupertino City Council, July 7, 2022; Unacceptable Behavior Date: Thursday, July 7, 2022 10:09:15 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: Please put this email in the public record for this July 7 City Council meeting so that it will be in the City Council written communications. Sincerely, Connie Cunningham
Dear Mayor Paul, Councilmembers and City Manager:
I was unpleasantly surprised at the May 24 meeting of the Planning Commission (PC) to hear Commissioner Wang leave the agenda topic (Housing Element site inventory) to make loud, harsh criticisms of Cupertino City Staff and the consultant EMC. He spoke over 6 minutes, although asked by Assistant City Attorney Woo and Chair Scharf to stop at least two times.
The City Attorney attends all PC meetings to answer questions about legality, ethics and other process matters. Even so, Commissioner Wang did not stop. Oddly, in his criticism, he left out delays caused by elected officials that impact City Staff workload and project lead-times.
Link to Commissioner Wang’s rant on May 24:
https://youtu.be/AC4wMTqW7lA?t=2147
I, also, attended the April 26 PC meeting. I heard the Chair say that the Housing Element was going to City Council next. The May 24 Staff Report clearly stated that Chair Scharf requested the May 24 meeting.
“The Planning Commission provided input on the topic at the April 26 meeting and concluded the meeting by referring the housing sites selection to the City Council for its consideration and review.
Planning Commission Chair Scharf subsequently requested that housing sites selection be placed on the May 24, 2022 Planning Commission agenda for further discussion. …. The May 24 discussion of this item includes the same materials…at the April 26, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. (Red highlights are mine.) For public comment, I expressed my opinion that Commissioner Wang’s conduct was unacceptable. Here is a link to my comments. https://youtu.be/AC4wMTqW7lA?t=3464 At the end of the meeting, the Commissioner came back to address this topic for another full minute, although admitting that the Commission reports to the Council, and does not direct Staff. Also, see excerpts below from Commissioner’s Handbook, 2021. * https://youtu.be/AC4wMTqW7lA?t=3861
I ask that City Council take action about Commissioner Wang’s unacceptable conduct.
Sincerely, Connie Cunningham, Resident 34 years
Housing Commission (self only)
______________
*Excerpts from the Commissioner’s Handbook, 2021, signed by Mayor Darcy Paul <!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->Paragraph C of the Handbook: ….and commissioners should not attempt to direct or prioritize work for departments or individual staff.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->Paragraph D of the Handbook:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->The Chair should:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Keep discussion focused on the issue at hand.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Discourage overly dominant commissioners from having disproportionate control over the discussion. --[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Paragraph F of the Handbook restates Paragraph C: Keep in mind that your appointment does not empower you to supervise or direct City staff.
My note: Although Decorum is mentioned in Paragraph I of the Commissioners Handbook, it clearly does not apply to the fact that Commissioner Wang was well outside the more important rules of attempting to direct or prioritize work of staff. ***end of letter***
CC 07-07-2022
Item No. 14
Proposed Amendments to
Environmental Review
Committee
Written Communications
1 Lauren Sapudar
From: Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2022 10:07 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: June 7 City Council, Item 14 Environmental Review Committee 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: Please put this in the official report for this meeting Thank you. 2022‐7‐7 City Council
June 7 City Council, Item 14 Environmental Review Committee Good evening, Mayor Paul, Councilmembers and City Manager:
It is not a good idea to make this change to the ERC. Also, I recommend that all ERC meetings be on video recordings as are the City Council and Planning Commission are. These meetings touch on many aspects of the City and decisions will impact the timing and the cost of projects.
I attended an ERC meeting on May 19.
Agenda Item No. 2 addressed a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) on a property that proposed to add a few homes to the original property. The Recommended Action was for the ERC to consider the MND the appropriate environmental review document for the proposed project. I took notes of what I heard that morning.
Planning Commissioner Scharf asked what the justification was for not doing more soil samples around the whole site. He was advised that staff had followed professional written guidance. Commissioner Sharf was not convinced with that answer. He stated he thought the borings may have been done in such a way to avoid finding contamination. That was a bold and shocking assertion.
Councilmember Moore said she would prefer an updated EIR. She asked several questions and stated her opinion that the site description was not accurate.
Property owner answered the questions, supporting the documentation.
Councilmember Moore said she would prefer more testing.
Outside panelist: Nick Pappani, from Raney Planning, stated that the MND would be appropriate even with additional soil sampling.
Commissioner. Scharf: His preference to do additional borings now, before any more work was done, the reverse order from normal practice.
Councilmember Moore: Says that doing borings now would speed up the process. 2 Original Motion: MND is appropriate, with direction to do additional soil testing be done (peer review and property owner) and any additional work done before going to Planning Commission.
Big discussion about samples all over the property or following the written guidance. Commissioner Scharf and Councilmember Moore stated something to the effect that they do not trust any “judgement‐driven” choice of sites.
Substitute motion by Councilmember Moore that this item be continued pending soil testing. It was seconded.
Back and forth discussion until the original motion prevailed.
The ERC Vice Chair and Director of Public Works, Mett Morley supports the original motion over the substitute.
Director of Community Development Benjamin supports the original motion over the substitute.
Assistant City Manager Diane Thompson would support original motion.
Final vote on original motion: Morley‐yes, Fu‐yes, Thompson‐yes; Scharf no; Moore no Given the opinions that Commissioner Scharf and Councilmember Moore do not trust experts in the field, or the processes by which environmental decisions are made by other agencies, I think it is important to keep more people in the decision‐making loop, especially experienced Staff.
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham, a 34 year resident and Housing Commissioner (self only)
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: June 7 City Council, Item 14 ERC
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2022 4:18:04 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.
June 7 City Council, Item 14 about the ERC:
Dear Mayor Paul, Councilmembers and City Manager:
It is not a good idea that the Environmental Review Committee is proposed to no longer have any staff members, even though Staff Report shows that other cities ordinarily have staff people on the committee. It is important to have people on the Committee who work regularly with environmental issues and with outside agencies who review environmental documents.
ACTION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON MAY 19, 2022 There are no video recordings of the Environmental Review Committee meetings.
Given that this Committee will become a control point for all concerns of an environmental nature, I recommend that Video Recordings be held of the Environmental Review Committee meetings.
Sincerely,
Connie L Cunningham
Housing Commission (self only)
34 year resident and homeowner