Written Communications (Updated 1-19-2023) — Cupertino City Council, January 17, 2023

CC 01-17-2023
Written
Communications
Oral
Communications
From: Daniel Honegger
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: 1/17/2023 City Council meeting communication - Convert Blackberry Farm Golf Course to natural habitat Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:22:28 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.

To Mayor Hung Wei and Councilmembers:

As a long time resident and employee all around the south bay, I feel that it is in the best interests of our local community and the environment as a whole to favor the return of the golf course to a natural, drought tolerant habitat.

Already, today, the number and variety of people served by local natural trails and an education center would surpass the usage of a restored golf course. Enjoyment of nature and natural spaces has a minimal cost of entry and broad, long-lasting appeal across all ages, backgrounds, and interests. The hours and conditions (seasons, weather) of use is also greater for trails compared to a golf course. Extending beyond people, who could say no to the increased space for native flora and fauna to flourish? Looking to the future, returning the space to nature makes even more sense. We’re confronting unprecedented species loss and climate change at all levels. What message are we sending to ourselves and to those to come if we don’t take this opportunity to act proactively and locally to mitigate issues we face with drought and native habitat loss? I can't foresee which way the appeal of golfing as a leisure activity will trend, but the appeal of nature to everyone of us is durable, and nature makes our environments more hardy and durable in return.

Thank you,
Daniel Honegger
From: Robert Hall
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 1/17/2023 Public Comments for the record
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:23:50 AM
Attachments: Blackberry Golf Course Comment 1_17_23.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 Mayor and City Council members:

I’m writing to ask you to support converting Blackberry Farm Golf Course into a benefit for the broader public, and importantly, wildlife.

You may have read the recent San Francisco Chronicle article titled, The Bay Area’s

natural habitats have vanished. We're a microcosm of a global die-off. Or, perhaps you watched the January 1st 60 Minutes segment called, Earth’s wildlife running out of places to live.

The message is dire. Human activity is driving plant and animal species to extinction at a rate not seen since the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago. While golf courses have been closing due to a generational decline in participation, the situation isn’t as urgent. In fact, there’s an astounding 41 golf courses in Santa Clara County alone.

Fortunately there’s hope, because the solutions are local and leaders like you can help repair our damaged relationship with nature. Rewilding the golf course with native plants, can immediately cut down on water-waste, eliminate the need for chemical herbicides, reinvigorate Stevens Creek and create a connected wildlife corridor with other parks in the area such as McClellan Ranch where birds, fish, frogs, bees and butterflies can thrive.

Native plant corridors are recommended as a best practice by the San Francisco Estuary Institute report, Making Nature's City: A Science-based Framework for Building Urban Biodiversity, which summarizes the key indicators supporting urban biodiversity. The report is available for free on SFEI’s website in English and Spanish.

SFEI's key urban biodiversity success indicators include -Native Vegetation
-Green corridors
-Patch size
-Special Resources - Water/Aquifers/Reservoirs, Large Trees -Management - Vegetation, Soil, Invasive plant removal, Infrastructure https://www.sfei.org/news/building-cities-better-support-biodiversity https://www.sfei.org/projects/making-natures-city
Cupertino can do the right thing and say goodbye to the biodiversity deserts of greens and fairways and join the movement to restore nature to create a park for everyone with a variety of demographics . While the time for action is now, nature is resilient, notes the San Francisco Chronicle article above, and if given an opportunity it can bounce back.

Bob Hall
1946 Grove St. Apt. 6
San Francisco, CA
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: Gary Latshaw; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Andre Duurvoort; Gilee Corral Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: Request to Review the November 15th Decision on the City Hall Study Date: Friday, January 13, 2023 1:54:53 PM
Attachments: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter letter to City of Cupertino 1.17.23.pdf image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
Good afternoon Gary (Council Bcc’d), your email has been received and, per your separate request, will be included with the written comments for Oral Communications for the January 17 City Council meeting. Regards, Kirsten

Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways:
1) Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall. Members of the audience who address the City Council must come to the lectern/microphone, and are requested to complete a Speaker Card and identify themselves. Completion of Speaker Cards and identifying yourself is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments. 2) E-mail comments by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 17 to the Council at [email protected]
. These e-mail comments will also be forwarded to
Councilmembers by the City Clerk’s office before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the meeting.

Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the meeting as follows:

Oral public comments will be accepted during the meeting. Comments may be made during “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the public comment period for each agenda item.

Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225

From: Gary Latshaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 12:13 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; Andre Duurvoort <[email protected]>; Gilee Corral <[email protected]>; Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]> Subject: Request to Review the November 15th Decision on the City Hall Study

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, Mayor Hung Wei, City Manager Pamela Wu-City, Sustainability Manager Andre Duuvort, and Climate & Utility Analyst Gilee Corral

I am writing as a resident of Cupertino and an active member of the Sierra Club. Below is the text of the Sierra Club's critique of the decision to restore the City Hall as opposed to the replacement.

The letter describes the shortcomings of the decision process, which I feel are grounds to re- examine the issue. As a resident, I would like the city to follow the path of Sunnyvale and have a new city hall with the most advanced forms of energy acquisition and management. Sunnyvale's residents can point to a very forward-looking and modern building. Simply restoring ours to comply with seismic standards will not achieve that.

Here is the letter:

The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter requests that the City of Cupertino re-examine its decision on November 15, 2022 to restore the City Hall to conform to current seismic standards, and not replace the City Hall.

In coming to this decision, neither the council discussions or the staff report even mentioned the climate goals the City has set for itself or provided a life-cycle cost- benefit analysis of the proposed restored building versus new construction. The materials used in construction have a climate impact. While reuse of an existing building may be inherently a sustainable approach, the City should also consider life-cycle emissions. Of course, some portions of the existing facility, such as the basement, might be repurposed for a new building. The LEED standards developed by USGBC provide valuable information to achieve a green building.

The City’s recent commitments are identified and should be reflected in the City Hall decision:

· The City’s website states: the goal to achieve carbon-neutrality in City owned facilities and operation no later than 2030.

· The City’s Climate Action Plan 2.0[1] specifically identifies the need to achieve the City’s target of carbon neutrality by 2040.

· Furthermore, on September 18,2018[2] the City declared a climate emergency in Resolution No.18-094 stating: emergency declaration to halt greenhouse gas emissions at the local level. Councilmember Darcy Paul, at the time stated: “I am really glad that we are declaring a climate emergency...this is extremely critically important for not just our community but for the planet and it is something that I’m very glad to bring forward to the community.”

Whether the City decides to achieve its climate objectives by restoration of the current City Hall or construction of a new City Hall, is not the business of the Sierra Club. However, the Club would like to identify some important factors that have apparently not been considered and need attention before a final decision should be made:

· A new City Hall could be designed to take advantage of sunlight heating and natural shading and ventilation for cooling as the new Sunnyvale City Hall does.

· A life-cycle cost benefit analysis will reveal whether having a net-zero building, which could operate independent of external electricity and minimize water consumption, will cost less to operate over the life of the building.

· It is likely that over the next couple of decades, natural gas will not be available in Santa Clara Valley. Thus, buildings that depend on it will need to be retrofitted to be heated by electricity.

Thank you for your consideration of our letter,

Gladwyn D’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Gary Latshaw,
([email protected])
Guadalupe Regional Group Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Cc:

James Eggers
Executive Director
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

[1] City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 – August 16,2022, page 12 [2]
City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan – 2018 Progress Report, page 1 --
Fight for Renewable Energies! Save the global ecology; create jobs; eliminate dependence on foreign oil; reduce military requirements
Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.
408-499-3006

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES

January 17, 2023

Via email to: Cupertino City Council ([email protected]), Mayor Hung Wei, Pamela Wu-City Manager ([email protected]), Andre Duurvort-Sustainability Manager([email protected]), Gilee Corral-Climate and Climate & Utilities Analyst ([email protected])
Cc: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk ([email protected])

Subject: Review of City Hall Decision November 15, 2022

In coming to this decision, neither the council discussions or the staff report even mentioned the climate goals the City has set for itself or provided a life-cycle cost-benefit analysis of the proposed restored building versus new construction. The materials used in construction have a climate impact. While reuse of an existing building may be inherently a sustainable approach, the City should also consider life-cycle emissions. Of course, some portions of the existing facility, such as the basement, might be repurposed for a new building. The LEED standards developed by USGBC provide valuable information to achieve a green building.

The City’s recent commitments are identified and should be reflected in the City Hall decision:

• The City’s website states: the goal to achieve carbon-neutrality in City owned facilities and operation no later than 2030.

• The City’s Climate Action Plan 2.01 specifically identifies the need to achieve the City’s target of carbon neutrality by 2040.

• Furthermore, on September 18,20182 the City declared a climate emergency in Resolution No.18-094 stating: emergency declaration to halt greenhouse gas emissions at the local level. Councilmember Darcy Paul, at the time stated: “I am really glad that we are declaring a climate emergency...this is extremely critically important for not just our community but for the planet and it is something that I’m very glad to bring forward to the community.”

1 City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 – August 16,2022, page 12 2 City of Cupertino Climate Action Plan – 2018 Progress Report, page 1

• A new City Hall could be designed to take advantage of sunlight heating and natural shading and ventilation for cooling as the new Sunnyvale City Hall does.

• A life-cycle cost benefit analysis will reveal whether having a net-zero building, which could operate independent of external electricity and minimize water consumption, will cost less to operate over the life of the building.

• It is likely that over the next couple of decades, natural gas will not be available in Santa Clara Valley. Thus, buildings that depend on it will need to be retrofitted to be heated by electricity.

Thank you for your consideration of our letter,

Gladwyn D’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Gary Latshaw,
([email protected])
Guadalupe Regional Group Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

Cc:

James Eggers
Executive Director
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter

From: C. F
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Re: Are electrical **anything** legal on the walkway in the park? Date: Thursday, January 12, 2023 5:05:24 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
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.

Kirsten,
Same issue in Creekside Park - different vehicle this time - high speed (toy) electrical vehicle with a kid behind the wheel on the sidewalk that is FAST and SILENT enough to threaten the safety of pedestrians.

This happens today (01/12/23) around 4:30pm at Creekside Park.

Can you please put this issue with the associated video clip into the next Council meeting (oral communication?) so at least they know about this, then we can wait until someone really get hit.

Maybe I can drive a Tesla next time for a joy ride in the playground as well - it is electrical and with 4 wheels, just bigger...

Video for this can be found here:

ToyEVInCreekside.MOV
Thanks.
--
Charles Fu
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 10:51 AM
To: C. F <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Are electrical **anything** legal on the walkway in the park?

Good morning Charles, thank you for your e-mail. This is a matter for the Sheriff. I have forwarded your communication to City Code Enforcement Officer Jeff Trybus who will be coordinating with the Sheriff’s Office to have a patrol check performed during the reported times. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Regards, Kirsten

Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225

From: C. F <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 7:12 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Are electrical **anything** legal on the walkway in the park?

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,

Do not know who/where to send this to, please forward it to the party that is responsible for this.

I was walking my dog in Creekside Park just now, around 6:30pm 09/28/2022, and there were about 10+ - probably high schoolers - people riding one-wheeled board (like this one https://www.amazon.com/Fender-OneWheel-Compatible-Fittings- Onewheel/dp/B09TVX1F47/ref=sr_1_3?
crid=3VT7PN3958QST&keywords=onewheel+skateboard+electric&qid=1664416282&qu=eyJx c2MiOiIzLjgwIiwicXNhIjoiMi43NSIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=onewheel+skate%2C aps%2C170&sr=8-3)
from behind me at high (enough) speed, and a bunch of them are zig-zagging on/off the walkway as well - and they could cause
severe injuries should they collide with someone walking along the path - while there are kids in soccer classes right next to the
walkway as well.

Also sometimes there are (elementary?) kids riding this kind of boards (like this one https://www.amazon.com/NOVA-Hoverboard-Balancing-Headlights-Lithium- Ion/dp/B09GVMD5FM/ref=sr_1_9?
crid=3VT7PN3958QST&keywords=onewheel+skateboard+electric&qid=1664416560&qu=eyJx c2MiOiIzLjgwIiwicXNhIjoiMi43NSIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=onewheel+skate%2C aps%2C170&sr=8-9) in the park as well, as they are learning/newbie, they do not have much control on where it will go, and are hazards for
people/animal walking close/around them

Just wondering what is the regulation for this situation? and if they are illegal, how do the City enforce it?

Attached is the video I captured (tail end, they pass so fast I barely have time to take the video) on what I am talking about.

If the attachment does not go through due to size, it can be found in the link below as well:

ESkatesInCreekside.MOV

Thanks for your help.

--
Charles Fu
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Fwd: 23-1-17 City Council Oral Communications, Biodiversity Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:22:36 PM
Attachments: 23-1-17 Oral Communications, Biodiversity.docx 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,
>Please add to written communications.
> Connie
>
>
1 23-1-17 Oral Communications, Biodiversity

Good evening, Mayor Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan, and
Councilmembers:

My name is Connie Cunningham. Resident 34 years

2023 is our opportunity to turn the corner on
biodiversity in Cupertino. Biodiversity is critical to human life. We can change how we landscape our
property, and we can add property dedicated to nature.

At the last three City Council meetings, I spoke about
Plunging Biodiversity worldwide, explaining that it is
critical for humans to better understand what it is,
how it must be turned around, and prioritize actions in favor of biodiversity.

While talking to someone, I discovered that we each
come to understanding biodiversity from different
places.

How did I come to the understanding? First, I fell in
love with bird watching in Yosemite when I first saw a
Western Tanager. Bright red head, yellow body and
2 black wings! That year I bought binoculars and
watched birds in earnest.

That led to speaking to City Council on behalf of birds, with the wonderful conclusion that Cupertino approved
our Bird-safe and Dark Skies Ordinance! From my
research for that effort, my awareness of the need
for biodiversity grew.

I have spoken at Sustainability Commission meetings to
urge adding biodiversity and the planting of trees to
Climate Action Plan 2.0. This approved plan specifically includes trees and other plants for carbon
sequestration. Without the assistance of trees and
plants, it is may not be possible for California to meet its carbon goals. Gov Newsom has signed an executive
order known as 30 X 30, that pledges California to
conserve 30% of the state’s land and waters by 2030—
only 7 years from today.

I have been talking to a local resident who would like to change his yard but wonders how to get started. He
knows that growing native plants requires new
knowledge about plants, watering techniques and soil
preparation.
3 Good news! There are native plant landscapers to help.

To jump start all of our imaginations, there is an in-
person, Growing Natives Garden Tour, on April 1, 2023,
for Cupertino and other nearby cities. It is sponsored by the California Native Plant Society, Santa Clara
Valley chapter, in association with UCCE Master
Gardeners of Santa Clara County.

I invite each one of you to take this tour with me. Of course, if you prefer to attend on your own, you may
register at the website below.

https://gngt.org/GNGT/HomeRO.php

In conclusion: What can City Council do to increase
biodiversity?

1. Learn more about native plants! Understand
biodiversity’s impact on humans.

2. Ask how each project supports biodiversity when
it comes to Council.

3. Approve restoring nature to 16 acres of
land, Option B, at Blackberry Golf Course this
year.

From: Rose Grymes
To: City Clerk; City Council
Cc: Connie Cunningham
Subject: Oral Communications Jan 17, 2023
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:18:36 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 add my remarks to the written record.

Good evening city council members, and Happy 2023. Thank you most sincerely for your energies devoted to our city. I agree with the previous two speakers on Lehigh, and support Supervisor Simitian’s efforts, but that’s not my subject tonight.

Rather, I’m here to again voice my agreement with the popularly supported —in fact, majority supported—Blackberry Farm plan option that transitions from its current golf course operation to a natural habitat with non-intrusive public enjoyment of trails, vistas, and open spaces. While the majority of Cupertino residents polled by city staff share my view, no doubt for a variety of reasons, such a cross-section is not always available to speak directly to the Council during meetings. They’re out there, but not always able to be in here, even virtually.

While there are many reasons for selecting the natural habitat option presented by city staff to the Council, today I will focus on the impacts to Cupertino quality of life caused by undue disturbance to the habitat we share, the habitat all around us.

A recent scholarly article in the journal American Scientist describes how wildlife, from insects to birds to small mammals and larger predators, adjusts to living alongside human developments. Characteristically, birds and animals seek to avoid people; not only their immediate presence but also their distant sounds and their artificial lights. We generally DO acknowledge that insects, birds, and animals contribute to our quality of life. And they, like us, are adjusting to changing climate and water scarcity—water scarcity being a repeated way of life in California despite recent storms. Beside these challenges, human construction and development activities are altering the roaming behaviors and activity levels of insects, birds and animals. Changes can force them further into conflict with human neighbors. The solutions we must strive to prioritize are those which lead to the greatest good. Providing isolated corridors for wildlife to pass is an inadequate response. Too often these are wrongly sited, and the wildlife they are designed to support fail to read the memo or observe the change.

In the case of Blackberry Farm, the greatest good for this wonderful open space environment is allowing nature to re-create and restore a habitat as unobtrusive as possible to the wildlife it contains, so as to maximize the benefit of this land and minimize or eliminate the driving of wildlife under stress into nearby neighborhoods.

I will quickly add the enormously significant issue of watershed and water resources. Water requirements for golf course operations are expensive —expensive because we pay money and expensive because we lose this resource for other applications. In contrast, restoring the natural habitat increases watershed availability, improves ground water recharge, and reduces water pollutants from fertilizer application and pest control. Thank you for your consideration.

From: John Kehoe
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council Oral Communications, Blackberry Farm Golf Course Option B Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 8:17:07 AM
Attachments: Blackberry Farm Golf Course - Option B_2023.02.17.docx 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 Mayor Wei and Councilmembers,
Please add these comments to the Written Record at the City of Cupertino. I have also attached the Word document of this message below.

Thank you very much,
John Kehoe
2023.02.17, Oral Communications, Blackberry Farm Golf Course Option B Thank you, Mayor Wei and Council members, for this opportunity. My name is John Kehoe and with this brief address I hope to inform the city regarding your decisions on the future of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course. Please choose Option B: Conversion to Natural Habitat! Enhancing our natural areas is essential for preserving our natural wildlife and maintaining biodiversity. The basic recipe of planting locally native plants according to best practices gives our critters the best chance of long-term success. Proper landscaping and protection are the keys. Without essential plants we lose our wildlife. But with an expanded natural area adjacent to the Stevens Creek, we could increase the habitat to support and even boost the populations of our threatened monarch butterflies and bumble bees, to name just a few. Research shows that time is running out; let’s proceed as soon as possible. To assess our current status on biodiversity, we can refer to online data from the Xerces Society, iNaturalist or published research articles. I have included some citations at the end of this document.

Without taking assertive measures to protect and preserve our natural areas, we might bear witness to the demise and even extinction of our western monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus), (Schultz et al., 2017). The International Union for Conservation of Nature added our native monarch butterfly to its red list of endangered species, (Wikipedia, 2022).

Additionally, four of California’s bumble bee species (Genus Bombus) have been recently added to the candidate list of endangered species, per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, 2022). Further, a recent survey of all bumble bees in the state have shown that, overall, population abundance is in decline (Fisher et al., 2022).

By converting the golf course to a natural area, this Council could put Cupertino on the map of local biodiversity hotspots. We have the local talent and resources to expand habitat for pollinators including bees and butterflies. We can propagate and plant native plants including the necessary monarch butterfly host plants, milkweeds (Asclepias spp.), at no cost to the city.

This has been an ongoing activity at numerous areas in the County. In doing this, we could see a new era where students of all ages flock to Cupertino for volunteer opportunities and research while all park visitors enjoy the beauty of our natural world.

Thank you, again, for your time and attention
John Kehoe
References and citations:

Blackberry Farm Golf Course Feasibility Study: https://engagecupertino.org/bbfgolfcourse

Schultz, Brown, L. M., Pelton, E., & Crone, E. E. (2017). Citizen science monitoring demonstrates dramatic declines of monarch butterflies in western North America.

Biological Conservation, 214, 343–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.08.019

Fisher, K., Watrous, K. M., Williams, N. M., Richardson, L. L., & Woodard, S. H. (2022). A contemporary survey of bumble bee diversity across the state of California. Ecology and Evolution, 12, e8505. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8505

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “Updates to the legal status of bumble bees in California,” October 19, 2022
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/News/updates-to-the-legal-status-of-bumble- bees-in-california
Accessed January 15, 2023

Wikipedia. “Monarch butterfly - Conservation Status”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch_butterfly#Conservation_status Accessed January 16, 2023
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: C. F
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: Are electrical **anything** legal on the walkway in the park? Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 8:30:18 AM
Attachments: image019.png
image020.png
image021.png
image022.png
image023.png
image024.png
image025.png
image026.png
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
Good morning Charles (Council Bcc’d), your email has been received and will be included with the written comments for Oral Communications for the January 17 City Council meeting. Regards, Kirsten

Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the meeting as follows:

Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225

From: C. F <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 5:05 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Are electrical **anything** legal on the walkway in the park?

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.

Kirsten,

Same issue in Creekside Park - different vehicle this time - high speed (toy) electrical vehicle with a kid behind the wheel on the sidewalk that is FAST and SILENT enough to threaten the safety of pedestrians.

This happens today (01/12/23) around 4:30pm at Creekside Park.

Can you please put this issue with the associated video clip into the next Council meeting (oral communication?) so at least they know about this, then we can wait until someone really get hit.

Maybe I can drive a Tesla next time for a joy ride in the playground as well - it is electrical and with 4 wheels, just bigger...

Video for this can be found here:

ToyEVInCreekside.MOV

Thanks.

--
Charles Fu
From: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 10:51 AM
To: C. F <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Are electrical **anything** legal on the walkway in the park?

Regards, Kirsten

Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225

From: C. F <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 7:12 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Are electrical **anything** legal on the walkway in the park?

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,

Do not know who/where to send this to, please forward it to the party that is responsible for this.

Just wondering what is the regulation for this situation? and if they are illegal, how do the City enforce it?

Attached is the video I captured (tail end, they pass so fast I barely have time to take the video) on what I am talking about.

If the attachment does not go through due to size, it can be found in the link below as well:

ESkatesInCreekside.MOV

Thanks for your help.

--
Charles Fu
From: Don Halsey
To: City Clerk
Subject: Presentation to CCC on 1/17/23 about Blackberry Farm Golf and Nat Hab Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:36:43 PM
Attachments: Natural Habitat – Let’s Have More of It r06.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.

Here are the presentation slides I used tonight.

Thanks for your assistance.

Don Halsey
650 996 3021
Natural Habitat
&
Blackberry Farm Golf Course
Presentation to Cupertino City Council
1/17/2023
Don Halsey
Nextdoor: Friends of Blackberry Farm Golf in Cupertino
Comments to CCC in prior meetings:
• “Our free and open spaces are disappearing.”
• “It is imperative that we preserve existing natural spaces, and go one step further.”
• “Create natural spaces where we can.”
Comments to CCC today by a prior speaker:
• Blackberry Farm Golf Course hosts wildlife, primarily birds So many ways to do this
Alternativeswere presented in the July 2022 Survey
photos from MIG consultant study – February 2022
Alt A: Golf Alt B: Natural Habitat OR
Alt. B: Natural Habitat
Actual
Natural
Habitat
restoration
underway.

This site is
“Monitored”
Comment to CCC: “It is imperative that we preserve existing natural spaces …” Natural
Habitat as
illustrated
by MIG
Consultants
A stroll through the
“monitored restoration”
and there
are 22 more
lifeless
plantings of
~120 total
 Disintegrating tarpaulin
^ Dead existing bush
More
lifeless
plantings
Lifeless planting
 Like Charlie
Brown’s
Christmas
tree!
It is imperative that we preserve existing
natural spaces …
Start with fixing up the restorations we already
have.

Leave the golf course alone.

Recent Comments to CCC:
• “Our free and open spaces are disappearing.”
• “It is imperative that we preserve existing natural spaces, and go one step further.”
• “Create natural spaces where we can.”
Here are some other alternatives
Natural Habitat depicted by
MIG consultants
Today – Blesch house, a vacant
city owned residence next to
Stocklmeier farm
A stroll around Stocklmeier Farm
Is this a ‘natural space’? Are the survey respondents enjoying this?

Still other options to increase
Natural Habitat
Pool and picnic area at
Blackberry Farm Park –
paved over
Or – convert Linda Vista Park to NH
Pool and picnic areas at
Blackberry Farm Park –
paved over. MIG proposes
INCREASING parking area!
Create natural spaces where we can.

Start with converting the Stocklmeir Ranch into
Natural Habitat.

Leave the golf course alone.

Revised “Natural Habitat” concept
1) Fix up the habitat restoration already in progress
2) Make new habitat out of Stocklmeir Farm
Let’s re-think the Alternatives
P
In July: Golf [A] OR Natural Habitat [B]
Today: Golf [A] AND Natural Habitat [B]
Let’s make it a win-win situation!
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-01-17 CC Mtg Item 13 Peggys Slide-Treasurers Report Oct 2022 Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 8:18:38 PM
Attachments: Agenda Item 13 - Peggys Slide Treasurers Report Oct 2022.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 Clerk Kirsten,

I would like to speak on Agenda Item 13. Attached is the slide I would appreciate if you could display when I speak.

Thank you!

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: , 202
Subject
Consider the Monthly Treasurer's Report for October 2022 Recommended Action
the report.

Discussion
Background
California Government Code Section 41004 states:

Regularly, at least once each month, the city treasurer shall submit to the city clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances.

The city treasurer shall file a copy with the legislative body.

The City's Municipal Code Section 2.24.030 Monthly Reports states:

The Treasurer shall make monthly reports which conform to the requirements of Government Code Section 41004. Said reports shall be delivered to the City Council, the City Manager and made available for review by such other persons who may so request.

Lastly, the City's Municipal Code Section 2.88.100 Duties–Powers–Responsibilities lists one of the powers and functions of the Audit Committee is "to review the monthly Treasurer's report."
Per the referenced code provisions, a Treasurer's Report (report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances) shall be submitted to the Audit Committee and City Council every month.

CC 01-17-2023

Study Session #1

Council Procedures
Manual – Supplemental
Staff Report

Desk Item

1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: January 17, 2023

Subject
Consider adopting Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual Supplemental Report
Following the publication of the agenda, the City Council and City staff received comments from the public and Councilmembers suggesting revisions to the draft City Council Procedures Manual. The comments received are summarized below for Council’s consideration. This summary is provided for the convenience of Council only and includes comments received before 10:00 a.m. on January 17. Other comments not clearly suggesting revisions to the Procedures Manual are not reflected below, but will be included in correspondence made available to Council and the public pursuant to the Brown Act.

Suggested Revisions to Draft Procedures Manual
 Revise Section 2.1 (Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor) to allow the Mayor and Vice Mayor to serve consecutive terms.
 Revise Section 4.4 (Appointment) as follows: “ . . . Former Councilmembers are not eligible for appointment to service on any commission or committee within four years of having served on the City Council.”
 Alternatively, revise Section 4.4 (Appointment) to clarify that former Councilmembers currently serving on a commission or committee may continue to serve.
 Revise Section 4.6 (Undue Influence on Commissioners) to allow Councilmembers to participate in deliberations of City commissions.  Revise Section 5.7 (Council Training) as follows: “. . . . Members shall attend training sessions that are offered locally in the immediate vicinity of Santa Clara 2 County or by completing online a state‐approved public service ethics education program.”
 Revise Section 6.6 (Councilmember Access to Information) to delete the last sentence addressing Councilmember use of the Public Records Act.  Delete Section 8.2 (Seating of Councilmembers) in its entirety.  Revise Section 8.5.2 (Removing Items from Consent Calendar) to continue to allow members of the public to pull items from the consent calendar.  Revise Section 8.5.2 (Removing Items from Consent Calendar) to allow Councilmembers to remove items from the consent calendar without providing notice before the Council meeting begins.
 Revise Section 8.6 (Public Comment) to remove the 10 minute‐limit on total time for public comment by a single member of the public.
 Revise Section 8.9.3 (Council Questions and Deliberations) as follows:
“Councilmembers may obtain the floor by seeking recognition from the Mayor.

Following presentations to Council on an agenda item, Councilmembers shall each be given 5 minutes to ask questions of any presenter. The Mayor may allow additional time for questions where appropriate. Following public comment, the Mayor may request that a motion be made and seconded. After the motion has been stated to the Council and seconded, any member of the Council has a right to discuss the motion after obtaining the floor. A member who has been recognized should shall limit their time to 5 minutes. The Mayor may allow additional time for questions where appropriate.”
 Revise Section 8.10 (Meeting Length) to require only a majority of members present and voting to extend Council meetings past 11:30 p.m., instead of a 2/3 vote of the Council.
 Clarify Section 8.12 (City Council Recess Period) to note that a special meeting may be called during recess.

Suggested Additions to Council Procedures Manual

1. Agenda Preparation. Release the agenda earlier to provide more time for Council and the public to review.

2. Study Sessions. Define a “study session” and prohibit Council from taking action on a study session item.

Sample language (City of Palo Alto): Study Sessions are meetings during which the Council receives information about City business in an informal setting. The informal 3 study session setting is intended to encourage in‐depth discussion and detailed questioning and brainstorming by Council on issues of significant interest, including City policy matters, zoning applications, and major public works projects. The Council may discuss the material freely without following formal rules of parliamentary procedure. Staff may be directed to bring matters back for future Council consideration as no action can be taken at a study session. The Decorum rules still apply to the behavior of the Council and public.
(City of Berkeley): The City Council may schedule a matter for general Council discussion and direction to staff. Official/formal action on a work session item will be scheduled on a subsequent agenda under the Action portion of the Council agenda.

In general, public comment at Council work sessions will be heard after the staff presentation, for a limited amount of time to be determined by the Presiding Officer.

The Presiding Officer will request that persons wishing to speak, line up at the podium to be recognized and to determine the number of persons interested in speaking at that time.

If ten or fewer persons are interested in speaking, each speaker may speak for two minutes. If there are more than ten persons interested in speaking, the Presiding Officer may limit the public comment for all speakers to one minute per speaker. Speakers are permitted to yield their time to one other speaker, however no one speaker shall have more than four minutes.

After Council discussion, if time permits, the Presiding Officer may allow additional public comment. During this time, each speaker will receive one minute. Persons who spoke during the prior public comment time may be permitted to speak again.

3. Ad Hoc Subcommittees. Include language regarding ad hoc subcommittees requiring (1) estimated staff resources required; (2) membership and purpose of the subcommittee; and (3) a process for termination of the subcommittee.

Sample language (City of Palo Alto): Council Ad Hoc Committees and the Committee as a Whole shall be subject to the following procedural rules:

1. Definition of Ad Hoc Committee
An Ad Hoc Committee is an advisory committee composed solely of less than a quorum of members of the Council. The work of an Ad Hoc Committee is limited to a single finite purpose. By contrast, a Standing Committee has continuing subject matter jurisdiction extending for a lengthy time period and/or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of the Council.

2. Definition of Committee as a Whole
A Committee as a Whole is a committee composed of the entire City Council. The work of the Committee as a Whole is limited to a single finite purpose.

4 3. Brown Act
Ad Hoc Committees do not constitute legislative bodies and are not subject to the requirements of the Brown Act. The Committee as a Whole is subject to the Brown Act.

4. Appointment
The Mayor or the City Council may appoint three or fewer members of the Council to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee. In contrast, only the Council and not the Mayor alone can create a Standing Committee. The Mayor will publicly announce any Ad Hoc Committee created by him or her, its membership and stated purpose and post this information on the City Council website. The City Manager shall prepare a report to Council about the anticipated time commitment required for staff to assist the Ad Hoc Committee.

5. Duration
Ad Hoc Committees are created for a finite period of time. If an Ad Hoc Committee does not complete its task by the end of the calendar year, it shall not continue unless reappointed by the new Mayor in the following year.

6. Members
Ad Hoc Committees shall consist of less than a quorum of Council members only and shall not include any other persons such as members of other legislative bodies.

7. Reporting
Ad Hoc Committees shall report their recommendations to the Council no less than once per quarter in writing or orally. Any Council Member may during the COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
request that an updated Ad Hoc Committee report be placed on the next meeting’s agenda.

8. Termination of Ad Hoc Committee by Majority of Council A majority of the Council may vote to terminate any Ad Hoc Committee following placement of the issue on an agenda.

9. Conclusion
A public announcement shall be made any time the Ad Hoc Committee has concluded its work and/or upon dissolution.

4. Council‐Staff Relations. Include language emphasizing Council’s policymaking authority, staff’s independence, and the need to present alternatives to Council as appropriate.

Sample language (City of Palo Alto): Staff is expected to provide its best professional recommendations on issues. Staff should not try to determine Council support for 5 particular positions or recommendations in order to craft recommendations. The Council must be able to depend upon the staff to make independent recommendations. Staff should provide information about alternatives to staff.

5. Sharing of Information. Include requirements to ensure that staff responses to Council questions regarding agenda items are shared with other Councilmembers and members of the public.

Sample language (City of Palo Alto):

A. Council Members should direct any questions on staff reports to the City Manager or designee. Questions on reports from the City Auditor, City Attorney, or City Clerk should be directed to the appropriate Council Appointed Officer. Council Members should not direct any questions on agenda items to other members of the City Manager’s Staff or the Staff of the other Council Appointed Officers.

B. Council Members should submit questions on agenda items no later than 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the Council meeting at which the item will be discussed.

Staff will make best reasonable efforts to post written responses to timely‐submitted questions by Thursday 5:00 p.m. Any questions received after 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday before the meeting may be responded to via e‐mail, or alternatively, will be responded to at the Council meeting.

C. Staff will not engage in “dialogues” with individual Council Members regarding questions, i.e. follow‐up questions to initial questions will be responded to at the Council Meeting.

D. Staff will give highest priority to responding prior to the Council meeting via e‐mail only on items on the Consent Calendar. Questions which address the policy aspects of the item on the Council agenda will not be responded to prior to the meeting, although Staff welcomes such questions in advance of the meeting in order to prepare for the Council and public discussion. Technical and clarifying questions on non‐ Consent Calendar items will be responded to as time permits.

E. If the Staff will be responding to a Council Members Consent Calendar question at the meeting rather responding to the question via e‐mail, Staff will inform the Council Member as early as possible after receipt of the question(s).

F. Questions and all Staff‐prepared responses will be forwarded to all Council Members as well as put up on the special web page created for public review of Council agenda questions and Staff responses. Staff will include the name of the Council Member posing the questions in the “subject” field of the e‐mail response. G. Written copies of all Council Member agenda questions and Staff responses will be at Council places at the meeting; additionally copies will be made available in the Council Chambers for members of the public.
6 6. Public Comment. Adopt a system of pre‐registration for public comment and “virtual speaker cards” similar to the system used by the CUSD Board. _____________________________________

Prepared by: Christopher D. Jensen, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager

CC 01-17-2023
Item No. 1- Study Session
Consider adopting
Cupertino City Council
Procedures Manual
Written Communications
From: louise saadati
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council Meeting Special Session January 17. 2023 Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:32:24 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 have read through the changes proposed by the City Staff to amend our Cupertino City Council and Commission procedures and I encourage you to approve the resolution at the upcoming City Council meeting.

My main additional concern is that the manual should include language stating that Councilmembers, Commisioners, Committee Members , etc as representatives of our city not be permitted to post anything on social media including NextDoor, Instagram, Facebook , etc that is unprofessional, untrue, misinformation, implied use of their power in city council to retaliate against residents who have stateddiffering opinions, stifle civil resident opinions or public discussion.

Examples : “I will see you in Council” in midst of discussion of disagreement in opinion, false or misleading statement.

Thank you for your service for the residents (instead of personal power), Louise Saadati
Sent from my iPhone
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: additional comment: City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 Study Session #1 - City Council Manual Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:07:25 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.

Hi City Council,
additional comment: City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 Study Session #1 - City Council Manual . . .

I don’t see where I read it, but I would like to add that the Parks and Rec commission should recommend (with staff input) which fees are waived for festivals and room use.

This is consistent with the Parks and Rec making community grant recommendations.

The final decision should be referred to the City Council.

What I had read said that staff would make a recommendation directly to the City Council.

Let’s let the commissions and committees do what we’ve put them in place to do.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 Study Session #1 - City Council Manual Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:01:00 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 Council,
I first started going to City Council meetings in 1987, when the City had proposed an unlawful unconstitutional tax.

Fortunately, I was able to prevent it from being adopted and prevent the City from being subject to legal action.

I thought those days were over and I am so very disappointed to see the proposal and the evident disdain that the staff has toward the public that it serves.

It would be helpful if the document explained the motivation for the items that have been proposed and how it is different from the past.

2.1 It should be up to the City Council as to whether it wishes to have Mayors/Vice Mayors serve consecutive terms.

3. Councilmember Committees and Subcommittees - reports or minutes shall always be made in writing – regardless of whether a recommendation is made to council. It is important to have an administrative record.

4.4. This suggestion should be removed: “Former Councilmembers are not eligible for appointment to any commission or committee within four years of having served on the City Council.” If our elected officials believe that a former City Councilmember is the best suited to serve on a committee or commission, then they should be appointed to that committee. It is up to our City Council to determine who is best suited to be on a committee or commission, not City staff.

8.5 I get it. It isn’t nice for city staff to have to prepare to speak to an item on consent calendar. However, a member of the public or a city council member should be able to put an item on the regular calendar for consideration for the next meeting. It should not by default stay on consent if there is good reason to remove it.

8.6 Staff is proposing that the public speak to no more than 3 items in an agenda. This is not acceptable. The public must be allowed to speak on each agenda item.

Thanks Much,
Rhoda Fry
--- this is part 1 --- I wanted to make sure to get this in by 4pm today!!! From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council; Christopher Jensen
Subject: Fwd: 23-1- 17 City Council Study Session Agenda Item 1, Council Procedures Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 3:29:06 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.

Sending again to correct that subject line!
Connie
Begin forwarded message:

From:

Connie Cunningham <[email protected]>
Subject: 23-27 City Council Study Session Agenda Item 1 Date: January 17, 2023 at 3:23:32 PM PST
To: City Clerk Cupertino <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Dear Mayor Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan, and Councilmembers, City Manager and City Attorney,
First, congratulations to Matt Morley as the new Assistant City Manager!

I think
that he will be excellent in that role.

Secondly, I enthusiastically support the reform package of changes to the City Council Procedures.

I have attended many Council meetings over the years.

As I
read the reforms I could actually feel how these changes will:
1) reduce staff work load that will allow more work to move forward on resident services
2) increase the amount of time accessible to residents to speak to Council. 3) reduce the length of meetings. Two (2) am is simply not a time when residents can attend nor is it a good time for making decisions by exhausted Councilmembers
4) clear rules make life easier for everyone—especially residents , since they less
frequently interact with Council
5) take more of the politics out of day-to-day governance of the City. Good for residents
who want Council to get things done.

I urge you to approve Resolution No. 23-021, adopting the

Cupertino City
Council Procedures Manual presented by Christopher Jensen, City Attorney!
Thank you for this time to comment.

Connie Cunningham
Housing Commission (self only)
(Some edits, nice to have, but OK to do later:

Suggest extending time for Oral Communications to 6-9 minutes Questions;

8.6 Are members of the public required to be residents of Cupertino for purposes of 10 minute combined time?

8.9 Define Ex Parte Contacts

9. Closed sessions: Is the public comment on the agenda items or OralCommunications? Or Both?
Para 10. Censure action –is this a defined term?
Also 2/3 vote is 3.35 votes. This is a little vague. Better perhaps is 3/5. Or just say a majority?))
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Clerk; City Council; Christopher Jensen
Subject: 23-27 City Council Study Session Agenda Item 1 Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 3:24:01 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 Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan, and Councilmembers, City Manager and City Attorney,
First, congratulations to Matt Morley as the new Assistant City Manager! I think that he will be excellent in that role.

Secondly, I enthusiastically support the reform package of changes to the City Council Procedures. I have attended many Council meetings over the years. As I read the reforms I could actually feel how these changes will:
1) reduce staff work load that will allow more work to move forward on resident services
2) increase the amount of time accessible to residents to speak to Council. 3) reduce the length of meetings. Two (2) am is simply not a time when residents can attend nor is it a good time for making decisions by exhausted Councilmembers 4) clear rules make life easier for everyone—especially residents, since they less frequently interact with Council
5) take more of the politics out of day-to-day governance of the City. Good for residents who
want Council to get things done.

I urge you to approve Resolution No. 23-021, adopting the Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual presented by Christopher Jensen, City Attorney! Thank you for this time to comment.

Connie Cunningham
Housing Commission (self only)
(Some edits, nice to have, but OK to do later:

Suggest extending time for Oral Communications to 6-9 minutes Questions;

8.6 Are members of the public required to be residents of Cupertino for purposes of 10 minute combined time?

8.9 Define Ex Parte Contacts

9. Closed sessions: Is the public comment on the agenda items or OralCommunications? Or Both?
Para 10. Censure action –is this a defined term?
Also 2/3 vote is 3.35 votes. This is a little vague. Better perhaps is 3/5. Or just say a majority?))
From: [email protected]
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Seriously? Have you lost your minds?
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 3:15:28 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,
I read with disbelief the proposed changes to the city council procedures and came away scratching my head believing that you must have no real notion of how democracy works. Who wrote this procedure manual, Lewis Carroll? The fundamental right of any citizen is the right to speak in a public arena voicing their views. Council members have the right to records requests-constitutional right. The public has the right to information. The only thing that this nonsense will result in is enmity, distrust, lawsuits and ridicule.

Knock yourselves out.

Regards,
Brooke Ezzat
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Written comments on 01/17 council meeting agenda #1.

Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 3:12:12 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.

Hello Mayor Wei and city council,
I am writing to you about agenda item 1 about Cupertino city council procedures. I note that some of the items proposed are a fairly radical overreach into the role of elected officials by un-elected city staff and administration.

Specifically I write to you to request that the below items be struck out of this and the doc be re-written with these omitted.

1. Section 2.1. “The mayor and vice-mayor shall not serve consecutive terms”.

2. Section 2.2.

Removal of mayor and vice-mayor from office. This should be removed. Removal is by the electorate via democratic processes not by ad hoc staff defines processes.

3. Section 4.1.

Qualifications shall be set forth in municipal code. Note that commissioners are city residents. Qualifications are often learnt on the job. Requiring qualifications as defined in municipal code denies l residents the right to participate in their city democratic processes of serving on commissions.

4. Section 4.4.

Former council members are not allowed to serve on commissions for upto 4 years. I request this be removed.

Council members are experienced and have learnt the duties. They should be allowed to serve should they so choose.

5. Section 4.5.

City clerk shall remove commission or committee members. Kindly remove this clause. It is not the job of city staff to removing serving residents of the city from appointed positions.

6. Section 4.6. Kindly remove this. There is no basis for this as there is no similar restriction on outside interests placing undue influence on city staff or council members. Commissioners should be able to exercise independent judgement while listening to input from anyone and everyone in the city.

7. Section 6.6. Kindly remove this attempt to prohibit council members from using PRA. Any and all residents of the city including council members are free to use PRA.

8. “Oral communications shall be limited to 30 minutes”. Please remove this clause. The residents have a right to speak upto 3 minutes per agenda item.

9. Section 8.5.2.

Please remove this. It should be possible to remove an item from consent calendar at any time during council meeting.

Thank you for taking resident input and kindly removing the above sections from the proposed draft.

I further request a revised draft be shared well in advance through social media with residents and widely communicated to allow public review of the proposed changes as these affect the residents interaction with the city.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao
From: Govind Tatachari
To: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Cc: City Council
Subject: Jan 17, 2023 Council Agenda-Item-1 : Consider adopting Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:29:14 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.

Dear City Management Team (City Manager Mrs. Wu, City Attorney Mr. Jensen and City Clerk Ms Squarcia), Hon Mayor Hung Wei, Vice Mayor Sheila Mohan, Council Members Liang Chao, J R Fruen, and Kitty Moore
References: Staff report (including Exhibit E), Draft of the Manual and Draft Resolution No. 23-021
With utmost respect to the City Management Team and the City Council, It is very important to point out that
a) Members of the public mainly focus on their family and livelihood and more so during these uncertain times. Even the voter turnout has been relatively low for many reasons. b) Members of the public have several reasons to FEAR participating in City related governing rules, meetings and matters. There are very strong reasons to refrain from and NOT provide inputs on City governance especially when it looks like a tussle between the elected council and the City management.
c) It is unclear why the two page Exhibit E has ballooned into a 14-page “City Council Procedures” Manual.

Due to time limitation to communicate before 3 pm today, here are my comments on Specific sections of the Draft of “City Council Procedures” Manual up to section 7.2. As time permits, I hope to send another communication with comments on the rest of the sections. (Comment and Request) 1.1 Purpose
Reference Exhibit E - 2.17.0200 (Intent and Purpose)
Members of the public are entitled, protected and governed by the US Constitution and prevailing Federal, State and Municipal laws. It is unclear why the phrase “Members of the public” has been included since the “City Council procedures” are designed and implemented and have always been enforced.

As per constitution and prevailing laws, members of the public are entitled to and expect “communication, understanding, fairness and trust” be promoted by those who govern. (Request for change) please remove the phrase “members of the public” (Comment) 1.2 Values
Those who govern must show respect to the members of the public during the conduct of the City business including oral communications and public comment period. (Few years ago, an ex-Mayor called a member of the public “Liar” from the Dais. Such behavior from those who govern is uncalled for and unwarranted). (Request for inclusion) 1.4 California Public Records Act Reference: https://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/laws
The public’s right to access public records is paramount and part of the governing law. Every council member is entitled to the same rights as “the members of the public” whom they serve. (Request for change) 2.2 Removal of Mayor and Vice-Mayor Unless in case of a criminal or highly egregious behavior or conduct, the Mayor and Vice- Mayor should be given one warning and advised of the proposed cause before considering removal.
(Requests for change) 4.3 Performance Expectations
Request1: Request mandatory training to include ethics and anti-harassment, Brown Act, California Public Records Act, and Rosenberg’s Rules of Order.

Request2: Two different dates for mandatory training (if a commissioner is unable to attend training on one of the dates).
(Request for change) 6.5 Decorum
Please include “the City management and Staff, the elected Council members, Vice-Mayor and Mayor must treat all members of the public with dignity, courtesy, and respect.” (Comment and Change Request) 6.6 Councilmember Access to information Exhibit E - 2.17.0400 (Staff)
Also see (Request for inclusion) 1.4 California Public Records Act Why? It is unclear how 2.17.043 is deficient. It has served the needs of California Public Records Act and has not been challenged.
(Change Request) Please retain 2.17.043 ASIS. Please remove 6.6 Councilmember Access to information.
(Comment and Request for Change) 7.1 Future Agenda Items * There is already a RULE on how to request and get an item to be added to a future agenda for Council action. This has been in practice for many years. (Remove) Any item may be
removed for the future agenda list by a majority of the City council. (Comment and Request for removal) 7.2 Preparation of Agenda Why? The Council is elected by the public and must retain all powers accorded to them. There is no need to curtail, diminish or remove any powers accorded to them. (Request for removal) Please retain 2.17.031 ASIS. Please remove 7.2 Preparation of Agenda Thank you for your kind and thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Govind Tatachari
Cupertino Resident
PS: I seek your indulgence and pardon if any part of this communication seems inappropriate.

From: Caryl Gorska
To: Kirsten Squarcia; Hung Wei
Cc: Sheila Mohan; J.R Fruen; Kitty Moore; Liang Chao
Subject: Please do not vote on items during Study Session Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:57:31 PM
Attachments: Please do not vote on items during Study Session.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 Mayor Wei and Councilmembers,
The materials for tonight’s Study Session indicate that the Council plans to vote on them.

Item 1: Adopting Procedures Manual
I would like to ask, I beg of you, not to vote on adopting the council procedures manual during this session. Something this important should be discussed in at least at one general session before taking a vote. Neither Council nor the public has had the chance to read the entire document with any sort of comprehension.

Voting on an action in a study session is unprecedented, or if not, should be — because it breaks our democratic procedural norms. Study Sessions are, as it say right in the name, for study, not action. And being unprecedented or nearly so, your constituents will not be expecting a vote. Please don’t ram this through in this session just because you can and you don’t want to hear any dissent. That is the stuff of tyrants, not democrats.

Item 2: Cutting Commissions
For the reasons I just stated, it cannot be well-intentioned to vote in this study session to eliminate entire commissions without a chance for a more public discussion in a regular council session.

This action, if you take it, not only summarily (summarily: meaning without customary formalities) cuts public participation and input, but is just a mean thing to do so suddenly to commissioners who have volunteered substantial time in the service of their neighbors and our City.

I appeal to your self-interest: Voting on these two items hastily, outside of a general session, are bound to affect the public’s regard for your judgment and motivations. I don’t believe it’s a good way to start for our new council. ~ ~ ~
By the way, I don’t think the Staff Report made a very convincing case that our number of commissions is out of the ordinary, or somehow wrong. I feel sorry for Sunnyvale with a population of 150,00 and only 11 commissions. And if we went by Los Gatos’ math, with a population of 31,000 and 9 commissions, we should have 18! If it’s a matter of staff resources stretched thin, then that should be the argument — what’s wrong with the truth?
Regards,
Caryl Gorska
10103 Senate Way
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-01-07 CC Meeting Agenda Item1 - Definitions of agenda section content is missing Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 12:23:42 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.

Reference: Att B – Draft City Council Procedures Manual

Page 9 ends

Dear City Council,

This Section 8.4 of the Draft City Council Procedures Manual listed above lists the agenda sections but does not define what goes in each
. Specifically:

1. What goes under Consent Calendar?
a. Currently, in today’s 1-17-2023 agenda items 6-26 (20 items out of 28) are under Consent!
b. 20 items is a lot of information that the public will not have the ability to pull, have discussed in public, comment on in any kind of detail if at all, etc. c. BUT your meetings will end at 11pm. In fact, you can probably go home by 9 AND if it’s not pulled you don’t have to read it. Just rubber stamp it. Gradually, since it’s not discussed/pulled/read, less and less information can be provided.

2. What goes under Action Calendar?

3. Where are first and second readings?

4. Where is the continuation of Oral Communication?

Democracy takes time and effort from both the Public and those they elected.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Tessa Parish
To: City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject: City of Cupertino City Council Procedure Manual Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:47:35 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.

Mr. Jensen & City Manager Wu,
I am writing to you about the draft version of the proposed Procedure Manual. Purposely addressing you as the originators of the proposal according to the opening letter.

1. I am deeply concerned about the power to have an ELECTED Official voted out of office. It is my understanding that any elected official cannot be removed with a vote. These were elected by the people.

What if you get 4 members of opposing views and they decide to remove a good council member.

The Constitution provides that “[t]he President, Vice President, and ”“all civil Officers”“ of the United States” are subject to removal from office upon impeachment and conviction. 1 However, neither the text nor
early historical sources precisely delineate who qualifies as a “civil officer.” ref. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4- 2/ALDE_00000689/#:~:text=Article%20II%2C%20Section%204%3A,other%20high%20Crimes%20and%20Misdemeanors.

Though this is mainly for the House and Senate, it does state "all civil officers"

2. In addition, the manual does not specify reasons for removal nor proper procedure. Nor attempt to correct the wrong. It seems to be without cause. I would like to see a list of violations that warrant removal and a list of actions to try to address them before the 72 hours of removal. Any Justice action (as this seems to be) should have proper notice, otherwise it violates the rights of the person to be given proper notice and breaks Public Confidence in the Rule of Law. "
Rule of law is a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are: Publicly promulgated. Equally enforced. Independently adjudicated.

I believe there MUST be very clear violations, warnings and gradient discipline leading to removal of an elected official.

3. The restriction on public comments is also contrary to the intention of the government to be "for the people" if the people are not allowed to speak beyond a certain time. NO other Council has had such restrictions. They limit the time under special circumstances.

I urge you to remove the ability to "Vote" any public officer from officer, commissioner.

4. Likewise, I urge you to specify cause for removal commissioners and committee members. There is no job stability in a government removal without specific, written and known cause.

5. The letter states this is similar to other cities' procedures. Which cities? did they verify their actions against the Constitution and proper City Governance.

Thank you for your consideration in the matter. Sorry for the short notice but on a holidays weekend, I had not read this til last night.

Tessa Parish
Resident of Cupertino
From: Liana Crabtree
To: Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan; Liang Chao; J.R Fruen; Kitty Moore Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office Subject: Written Communication, 1/17/2023 Special Meeting of the City Council, Agenda Item 1, Consider adopting Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:33:48 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.

Honorable Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan, Council Members Chao, Fruen, and Moore:

Please include this letter as written communication for Agenda Item 1 “Consider adopting Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual” for the 1/17/2023 Special Meeting of the City Council.

The document “Council Procedures Manual” includes some unfortunate provisions that should be rejected by Council. Regrettable provisions include those intending to control people through the silence of dissent, the restriction of access to public information, and the transfer of authority from Council to city administrators.

Silencing Dissent, examples

4.6 “Individual Councilmembers and commissioners shall have the right to attend meetings of commissions and other Cupertino governmental bodies but shall refrain from speaking or becoming involved in deliberations.” Unduly limits the Freedom of Speech of elected and appointed individuals who remain members of the public when not sitting on the dais.

Consider that other jurisdictions exert no limitations on participation in Cupertino government.

For example, council members from other cities can and do speak at Cupertino council meetings; commission members from other cities can speak at Cupertino council and commission meetings. Under Policy 4.6, it seems Cupertino would abide public comment from non-resident elected and appointed individuals, but deny public comment rights to its own residents.

7.1 “Any item may be removed for the future agenda items list by a majority vote of the City Council.” As stated, a minority of Council Members may add an agenda item to a future meeting agenda, but then a majority of Council Members may choose to remove the agenda item before it appears on an actual agenda. What would the process to a remove future agenda item look like? How would the public be noticed that a future agenda item was to be removed before the item were to appear on a meeting agenda?

8.1 “Oral communications shall be limited to 30 minutes.” An individual speaker has no control over how many others may also have items to present during oral communications.

8.5.2 “Any member of the City Council who would like to remove an item from the consent calendar shall notify the City Manager and the City Clerk prior to the meeting.” A Council Member could learn information during a Council meeting that would give them cause to pull an item from consent. Provision 8.5.2 prevents Council Members from acting on information learned during a Council meeting.

8.6 “No member of the public may be allocated more than a combined total of 10 minutes to speak during a Council meeting.” The public has no control over how many agenda items the Mayor and City Manager choose to include on a meeting agenda. If the meeting agenda includes oral communications and two agenda items, then 10 minutes of public comment per person is sufficient. But for longer agendas, people may have more items that may compel comment. Who benefits when people are prevented from speaking publicly by arbitrary rules? Restricting Access to Public Information, example

6.6 “No Councilmember shall circumvent the City Manager’s direction regarding a request for information by seeking information through a Public Records Act request.” It seems this policy proposal is explicitly unlawful according to CA Gov Code 7921.305.: “(a) Notwithstanding the definition of "member of the public" in Section 7920.515, an elected member or officer of any state or local agency is entitled to access to public records of that agency on the same basis as any other person. Nothing in this section shall limit the ability of elected members or officers to access public records permitted by law in the administration of their duties.”
Transfer of Power from Council to City Administrators, examples

2.1 “The Mayor and Vice Mayor shall not serve consecutive terms”. Weakens the authority of the mayor and vice mayor relative to the city manager, who serves at will, possibly for years, and can only be removed through a majority vote by Council.

2.2 “The Mayor or Vice Mayor may be removed from office, for cause, by a 4/5ths affirmative vote of the members.” Who determines which mayoral actions are sufficient “for cause” justification for removal from office?
The title “Council Procedures Manual” is unassuming relative to the chilling content of the document itself. Few scanning the meeting agenda would expect to see a proposal to transfer significant power from the people, including Council, to city administrators in an agenda item entitled “Consider adopting Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual”.

Council Members, your terms will end. Are you prepared to have these provisions of the 2023 Cupertino Council Procedures stand as your legacy for the City and the people you represent? Sincerely,
Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-01-17 City Council Agenda Item1 - City Council Procedure Manual Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:29:52 AM
Attachments: 2023-01-17 CC Study Item1-Council Procedure Manual PG Comments.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 and Staff,

I’ve spent way too much time looking at Agenda Item 1 – City Council Procedure Manual but attacking Constitutional rights hits home.

This agenda item is misleading because this “City Council Procedure Manual” impacts the public tremendously and its ability to comment during City Council meetings and obtain information! The description of the agenda item gives NO CLUE this will happen – that the public will lose all these rights! I’ve attached my detailed notes but some of the very important issues are below.

Impacts to the PUBLIC directly are:

1. Oral Communications will only be allowed for 30 minutes. It’s not clear that the leftover people will be allowed to speak at all.

2. Public limited to a TOTAL MAX of 10 minutes to speak during a meeting. If you use 3 minutes on an agenda item then it means you can only speak on 2 more plus 1 minute for say maybe Oral Communications.

3. Public can no longer combine their minutes except if there are 5 or more people then you can have 10 minutes. If you have 2, 3 or 4 people – tough. You all will have to use your individual time.

4. Public can no longer pull a Consent Item and there is a lot placed under Consent these days! It’s unclear when you would be allowed to speak on a Consent item. It appears you might have “some time” but you’ll have to speak to all the consent items you’re interested in, all at once, but no additional information or discussion will happen. They will just pass them all.

5. Staff Reports will no longer have “Background” or “Discussion” sections to provide an overview/context and history.

6. Generic agenda formats will no longer have “FIRST READING…”, “SECOND READING…” sections

Impacts to what an individual Council Member can do:

1. There’s the ability to remove a Mayor or Vice Mayor without giving them 1 official warning.

Seems very threatening.

2. It prevents a City Council Member from doing a Public Records Request.

3. Council Members no longer can pull a Consent Item during the meeting. It must be done in advance of the meeting.

4. Any 2 Council Members can put an item on the agenda but then both the majority council or the City Manager can come back and remove the item from ever appearing on the agenda! So, allowing 2 members to attempt to put an item on the agenda is a moot point.

5. Provides more power to the City Manager to not provide information requested by a Council Member.

Eliminating rights, reducing transparency and censoring both the public and Council Members is not the legacy you want for your term in office! Please correct these issues. Remember, one day you’ll be “the Public”! Attached are my section-by-section details.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
2023-01-17 CC STUDY SESSION - Item1 – “City Council Procedures Manual” – Peggy Griffin’s Comments

Page 1 ends

REQUEST: ADD The Mayor and Vice Mayor should be given one warning before considering removal.

Page 3 ends

REQUEST: Add that if a letter is sent without prior approval, the item should be on the next City Council Agenda to be reviewed and agreement confirmed.

Page 5 ends

REQUEST: In addition to ethics and anti-harassment training, add Brown Act, California Public Records Act, and Rosenberg’s Rules of Order trainings.

Page 6 ends

DELETE last sentence. It’s illegal. It violates the California Public Records Act and the California Constitution under Article 1 Section 3 (7).

REPLACE 6.6 above with what is currently in the Municipal Code section 2.17.034. The text below in 2.17.034 is clearer.

The Section 6.6 text has a lot of exceptions to why Councilmembers should not be provided information. The decision as to workload is defined in Muni Code 2.17.043 and is very clear. Don’t mess with it.

Page 7 ends

DELETE last sentence. It prohibits the minority opinions/issues from being heard in public EVER!

Page 7 ends

QUESTION: This seems to contradict the Council’s authority to decide what is on the agenda. How does a Council get an “unpopular topic” onto the agenda? See Muni Code 2.17.031 Council Power below

Page 7 ends

REQUEST: The agenda item should state whether the Council will take action, provide feedback-only or it’s informational-only.

Page 7 ends

CRITICAL REQUEST: Add back in these 2 sections in a staff report - Background
- Discussion
It provides the history and the context in which a decision must be made. It helps both the public and Council/Commission members.

Page 8 ends

CRITICAL REQUEST: What about the public’s need for these supplemental reports? Waiting until “Written Communication” at 5pm just before the Council meeting is not acceptable. The public needs time to review the new material, too!

Page 9 ends

IMPORTANT: There are key items missing from this generic agenda. - SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
- FIRST READINGS OF ORDINANCES
- CONTINUATION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (at end of meeting) Putting major headings for these make it easy for the public to scan down and find “new laws” you are passing or considering. Burying them under “Action Calendar” or whatever is not clear.

Page 9 ends

CRITICAL: BOTH the Public and Councilmembers should be allowed to remove items from the Consent Calendar during the meeting! Also, both the Public and Councilmembers do not have control over what gets placed under the Consent Calendar. Limiting who and when can pull an item is a way to hide information from the public and squash open discussions.

IMPORTANT: Define exactly what is allowed to be placed under the Consent Calendar. Items of interest to the public should not be placed under Consent.

Page 9 ends

DELETE the last sentence. It refers to deleting consent items, not adding them!

Page 9 ends

CRITICAL: Modify this to allow ANY member of the Public and ANY Councilmember the right to remove an item from the Consent Calendar!

Page 10 ends

CRITICAL: Allow any number of people up to a max of 5 to combine their time up to 10 minutes. Just reduce their time to 2 minutes each if they are combining time. Example: 2 people get 4 minutes, 3 people get 6 minutes, etc.

DO NOT limit the total time a person can speak during a meeting! On packed agendas, it is the equivalent of censorship! Major issues with these changes proposed:
 Must have 5 or more people to combine speaking time! Censorship!  2 or 3 people can’t combine their times.
 The public is limited to a max of 10 minutes TOTAL in a meeting. Censorship and a logistic problem! Who is going to total everybody’s running minute counts especially during a controversial meeting?  The Brown Act allows the public to comment on every agenda item. Limiting total time prohibits people from having the time to express their points. Censorship!

Page 9 ends

QUESTION: What kind of topics does discloser of Ex Parte Contacts cover? I don’t understand the term “quasi- adjudicative”.

Page 43 ends

REQUEST: Modify to state that information sought by an individual council member related to an agenda item SHALL also be provided to the City Council as a whole. This allows all Councilmembers to have the same information.

From: Peggy Griffin
To: Christopher Jensen; Pamela Wu
Cc: City Clerk; City Council; City Attorney"s Office
Subject: 2023-01-17 City Council STUDY SESSION Re-notice Agenda Item 1 - Misleading the public! Date: Monday, January 16, 2023 12:44:18 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 Attorney Jensen, City Manager Wu and Mayor Wei,

I have regularly attended City Council meetings and commission meetings for over 10 years (probably 20) and I find the 1-17-2023 City Council Study Session Agenda for Item 1 extremely misleading and should be re-noticed to clarify what is actually being done for the following reasons:

REASON 1 - Item #1 is listed under STUDY SESSION, not a regular meeting. Study Sessions have been items where a topic or proposed action is presented by the staff then discussed and input provided by the Council and the Public with the understanding that NO OFFICIAL ACTION will be taken by Council. The Council gives direction and the item comes back later as a regular meeting agenda item. There is not voting.

YET, this agenda item says the Council’s action is to APPROVE the Resolution! Many people skip attending a Study Session due to work, time commitments, etc. knowing that ACTION WILL NOT BE TAKEN during these sessions.

Below is the wording of this agenda item – It’s misleading! Agenda items need to be clear so the public is noticed properly.

REASON 2 – Attachment A – Draft Resolution states that this has been “…duly noticed regular meeting…”
This is really confusing. The agenda item text says the Council will approve…adopting. It is not clear what the action is from the City Council! J
Is it to vote to pass it?
Is it to review the proposed draft resolution and provide input? Whatever it is, it’s NOT CLEAR!

REASON 3 – There is a contradiction in the material and the agenda item.

The agenda item says the Council will “approve”…”adopting”. In the Regular Meeting agenda items “approve” is used meaning a vote to do it!

SUMMARY: The Council and Staff are trying to make rules clear. Please start by making the noticing of this agenda item clear to the public. Clear noticing of Council actions is required by the Brown Act. PLEASE clarify what exactly is being done during this Study Session Agenda Item

Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
From: J Shearin
To: City Clerk; City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Study Session Item 1, City Council meeting January 17: Council and Commission Procedures Date: Monday, January 16, 2023 11:10:59 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 Honorable City Council Members, Mayor Wei, with a copy to City Manager Wu:

There are three areas in which I have minor concerns, and I encourage you to address them. (1) Section 4.2 Attendance at Council Meetings states, “At least one commission member must attend City Council meetings when the commission has an item of interest on the Council agenda, so as to be available to answer Council questions.”
I support this section, but I ask that the appropriate Staff Liaison notifies—via email—the entire Commission when an item of interest is placed on the City Council agenda. This will facilitate the commissions meeting this requirement.
(2) Section 4.5 Removal states, “The City Clerk shall remove commission or committee members for failure to comply with attendance policies adopted in the Commission and Committee Handbook. Council retains full discretion to review commission and committee member performance and may take disciplinary action as needed, including removal from the commission or committee.” This is indeed an important consideration, but I find the word “performance” of a commission or committee member to be vague. It seems better to state this performance evaluation would be based on the requirements found in the Commissioner’s Handbook and our Ethics Code as the preceding attendance statement does. (3) Section 8.6 Public Comment states in part, “…Members of the public wishing to speak regarding an item shall submit a request to comment to the Clerk (“blue card”) or, where applicable, raise their hand in Zoom within five minutes of the time the Mayor opens public comment…” Five minutes seems too short, especially for those residents that are new to the process of speaking at City Council, are a bit reticent, or perhaps have stepped away for a moment. Nine minutes—the time for the first three speakers—would be a reasonable amount of time to end requests yet still discourage “rebuttal” speaker cards.

I would also recommend that if no speaker cards are submitted at the beginning of public comment, then the public comment period should be closed at that point and should not be left open for a designated portion of time. Section 8.6 as currently written does not make that clear. (The Mayor could have the option of opening up public comment again later during the item.) As I stated above, I am greatly in support of these changes to the procedures. The changes will help to make sure that:

City Council meetings are run in an efficient and responsible manner, respecting the time of all participants; Those with the power to make decisions do not have undue influence on independent commissions or staff; Everyone gets a chance to be heard, and a single person won’t dominate a discussion at City Council meetings; and
Everyone, regardless of position, whether staff, council member, commissioner, or resident, is afforded proper respect for their opinion, time, and work.

I appreciate your consideration of these issues I have raised and my input. Thank you for all your work on behalf of the residents of Cupertino. It is truly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Cupertino resident
From: Jenny Griffin
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Consent Calendar Items
Date: Monday, January 16, 2023 8:53:19 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.

FYI.

Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Consent Calendar Items
From: Jenny Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023, 8:45 AM
To: [email protected]
CC: Christopher Jensen <[email protected]>,[email protected],Debra Nascimento <[email protected]>
Thank you very much for your response. After looking at the information about the proposed City Council handbook which is being introduced in the Study Session, I am not sure what was in it originally
And what was added. There probably needs to be a version that shows the difference between the
Old text and the new text. Anything that was added or changed should probably be indicated With cross outs and over writing so that one can see the differences between the different versions
If text.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
On January 16, 2023, at 8:03 AM, Hung Wei <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Jennifer ,
Thanks for your input. I'm connecting you with City Attorney Chris Jensen to respond to you on your concerns.

Best regards,
Hung
Get Outlook for iOS
Hung Wei
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-3139
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 1:47:39 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Subject: Consent Calendar Items

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 concerned that changes are being made so that the public cannot request that items on the Consent Calendar of City Council Meetings be pulled for public discussion.

This ability to ask that items on the Consent Calendar be able to be discussed by the public has been a hallmark of the Cupertino public process since 2000 or before.

Any attempt to take away that right could be construed as trying to eliminate the ability of the public from participating in their city government process.

I am concerned that too many changes are being made in the City Council meetings in 2023.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk Cc: Jennifer Griffin
Subject: Consent Calendar Items
Date: Monday, January 16, 2023 1:47:49 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 Council:

I am concerned that changes are being made so that the public cannot request that items on the Consent Calendar of City Council Meetings be pulled for public discussion.

This ability to ask that items on the Consent Calendar be able to be discussed by the public has been a hallmark of the Cupertino public process since 2000 or before.

Any attempt to take away that right could be construed as trying to eliminate the ability of the public from participating in their city government process.

I am concerned that too many changes are being made in the City Council meetings in 2023.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Cathy Helgerson
To: City Clerk
Subject: Draft City of Cupertino Special Meeting Procedures Manual Draft Date: Friday, January 13, 2023 10:46:24 AM
Attachments: City of Cupertino Special Meeting Procedures Manual Draft Comments.docx 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 have attached my comments regarding the Draft on the City of Cupertino's Special Meeting Procedures Manual please see that the Council members and Staff receive my comments.

Please review them and let me know if the comments will be put up on the City of Cupertino's web- site for the public to view.

It would be nice to know if any of the suggestions made by me or the public have been used to and added to the Manual.

Thanks,
Cathy Helgerson
408-253-0490

From: Marieann Shovlin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: City Council Process Improvements
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 5:01:12 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 Council Members and City Staff,
I wholeheartedly support giving more time to Cupertino residents to speak to the Council during their meetings.

The City can benefit from being able to get rational feedback from their residents.

It is important, however, to provide time to hear from all residents in some way - and to share that communication with all other residents, staff and Councilmembers.

Please consider ways (public forums, and other events) to accomplish this.

Thank you,
Marieann Shovlin
From: Dan Marshall
To: City Clerk
Subject: Comment on Cupertino City Council Procedures proceedures discussed 1-17-2023 Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 5:51:39 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 delighted that the council is establishing a set of rules and procedures for their deliberations.

I would suggest adding an accepted process for working toward resolution when there is disagreement between members of the Council.

In particular I suggest that each side of the disagreement can ask the other side to state their understanding of the other side's perception and any facts or experiences driving that perception.

For example if Bill and Betty disagree whether 1 million dollars or 10 million should be spent on a park. Bill thinks 1, Betty thinks 10. This clause would give Bill the right to ask Betty to explain her understanding of why Bill only wants to spend 1 million. And it would also give Betty the right to ask Bill to explain his understanding of Betty's perspective.

Dan Marshall
408-859-6628
See a brief video about a promising approach to addressing climate change.

CC 01-17-2023
Written
Communications
Item No. 2
Study Session to
consider modifying
Municipal Code Title
2 regarding
compositions and
responsibilities of
existing Commissions
and Committees
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Pamela Wu; Christopher Jensen
Cc: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 2023-01-17 City Council Agenda Item #2 is misleading and should be renoticed Date: Monday, January 16, 2023 2:24:19 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 Manager Wu and City Attorney Jensen,

The 1-27-2023 City Council Agenda Item #2 (below) is misleading and should be re-noticed. It does not mention the possible elimination of committees and sub-committees. People reading this would think that you’re just changing what they do but they’d have NO CLUE that you are planning to delete long standing commissions and committees!

California Office of the Attorney General’s Brown Act text LINK: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/the-brown-act.pdf

Below is an example of inadequate notice when a school board described an agenda item as “continuation school site change” when in reality it was closing schools. I see the description of “compositions and responsibilities” equally misleading when in reality it is a discussion of eliminating commissions and sub-committees.

Page 30 ends

REQUEST: Please re-notice this agenda item with a clear description stating it is to consider eliminating several commissions and committees, preferably listing them.

Clear messaging improves trust.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Council; City Clerk; Christopher Jensen
Subject: 23-1-17 CC Agenda Item 2, Study Session on Commissions/Committees Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 3:37:34 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 Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan, and Councilmembers, City Manager and City Attorney,
I enthusiastically support this reform package of changes to the City Commissions and Committees.
1) reduce staff work load that will allow more work to move forward on resident services
2) clear rules make life easier for everyone—especially residents, since they less frequently interact with Council, Commissions or Committees 3) take more of the politics out of day-to-day governance of the City. Good for residents
who want Council to get things done.

I urge you to direct staff to proceed with the ordinance amendment to consolidate existing Commission and Committees as presented by Pamela Wu, City Manager. (Municipal Code Title 2)
Thank you for this time to comment.

Connie Cunningham
Housing Commissioner (self only)
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 STUDY SESSION #2 compositions and responsibilities of existing Commissions and Committees
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 3:40:51 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 Council,

Regarding, City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 STUDY SESSION #2 compositions and responsibilities of existing Commissions and Committees Please retain the Design Review Committee and Environmental Review Committee and Economic Development Committee and Legislative Review Committee

1. Please retain the Design Review Committee and Environmental Review Committee
These committees already do not meet very often and it would be much easier to keep them on standby than to have to re-form them if necessary.

The City of Los Altos actually has a Design Review Commission – it isn’t even a committee. Don’t we want to make Cupertino a better place to live? The types of people who serve on Design Review are going to be somewhat different from the types of people who serve on the Planning Commission. Someone who serves on Design Review has a narrower focus and specific expertise. The same is true for the Environmental Review Committee. Many of these meetings are already being cancelled – but let’s keep them penciled-in in case they’re needed. Again, specific interest/expertise is required for this work. You might have an architect serve on design review and an environmental specialist serve on the environmental review committee. Members on one would not likely serve on the other. Moreover, having a meeting of people with a specific focus on a specific topic will yield superior results and advice to the planning commission.

2. “Council discontinue all previously formed subcommittees and delegate the areas of concerns to the City Manager to review and research.” This is troubling. It should be up to the City Council to determine whether a subcommittee is needed.

3. The staff is recommending getting rid of Design Review, Economic Development, Environmental Review, and Legislative Review. This is not okay. We have members of the public who can serve on these and can assist the City in providing superior solutions. Please note that the Chamber of Commerce is not a substitute for Economic Development.

The Chamber serves its members, many of whom have businesses outside of our City. When people contact the Chamber, the Chamber will provide recommendations to members of their organizations – not non- member businesses within our City. Having seen the presentations on the Economic Development Committee, I thought it was going to be an amazing asset for our community. Similarly, we need a forum under which staff and the community can review the effects of new legislation on our community. Please explain how the City spent 40 hours on the Design Review Committee in 2022? It never met in 2022.

Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Council; City Clerk; Christopher Jensen
Subject: 23-1-17 CC Agenda Item 2, Study Session on Commissions/Committees Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:19:20 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.

Connie Cunningham
Housing Commissioner (self only)
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Pamela Wu; Liang Chao; Christopher Jensen
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: 2023-01-17 City Council Agenda Item #2 is misleading and should be renoticed Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:52:16 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 Manager Wu,

Thank you for your response.

My concern is also the content of the material in these 2 items. They are plans to discuss and vote on 2 items that are of concern to many people yet they are being discussed and decided during a Study Session. Members of the public think it’s a time for discussion and Council direction, not voting and deciding the issue entirely!

Many people are working, picking up kids, fixing dinner and when having limited time, choose to watch and attend the regular meeting rather than a study meeting. They may even plan to speak during Oral Communications, sharing time with someone, but the rules may change between the Study Session and the Regular Meeting! It’s not clear when these take effect. It appeared to be immediately.

Again, thanks for your time.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

From: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:03 AM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>; Christopher Jensen <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2023-01-17 City Council Agenda Item #2 is misleading and should be renoticed

Peggy and Councilmember Chao, thank you for your email and your concerns. The agenda description for Item 1&2 tonight provides sufficient information for the public and City Council to take the necessary action. Your concerns are duly noted.

Pamela

Pamela Wu
City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-1322

From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 4:19 PM
To: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>; Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Christopher Jensen <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 2023-01-17 City Council Agenda Item #2 is misleading and should be renoticed

Thanks, Peggy.

That's a very good example from a Brown Act guide from California Attorney General's Office.

Liang Chao
Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 2:24 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Christopher Jensen <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: 2023-01-17 City Council Agenda Item #2 is misleading and should be renoticed

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 Manager Wu and City Attorney Jensen,

The 1-27-2023 City Council Agenda Item #2 (below) is misleading and should be re-noticed. It does not mention the possible elimination
of committees and sub-committees. People reading this would think that you’re just changing what they do but they’d have NO CLUE that you are planning to delete long standing commissions and committees!

California Office of the Attorney General’s Brown Act text LINK: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/the-brown-act.pdf

Page 30 ends

REQUEST: Please re-notice this agenda item with a clear description stating it is to consider eliminating several commissions and committees, preferably listing them.

Clear messaging improves trust.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

CC 01-17-2023

December 20, 2022
Minutes -
Amended 12-20-2022 Draft
Minutes page 6

Desk Item
City Council December 20, 2022 Minutes

Page 6 ends

Ian Greensides supported the draft assignments.

John Geis supported the draft assignments and discussion on the unappointed assignments.

Jean Bedord supported the draft assignments.

Monica Mallon supported the draft assignments.

Darcy Paul supported changes to the draft assignments.

Housing Commissioner Tessa Parish (representing self) supported changes to the draft assignments.

Mayor Wei closed the public comment period.

Fruen moved and Mohan seconded to approve the 2023 Councilmember Committee Assignments.

Chao moved and Moore seconded a substitute motion:

Chao’s substitute motion failed with Chao and Moore voting noyes.

Fruen’s motion to approve the 2023 Councilmember Committee Assignments (as presented) carried with Chao and Moore voting no.

SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES – None
Wei Mohan Fruen Chao Moore
CitiesAsscBOD
CitiesAsscSelect
CitiesAsscLeg
WVMayors
Rt85
StvCrk Corridor

CleanEnergy(A)
CleanEnergy
Audit
SisterCity
CEP

ABAG(A)
CitiesAsscBOD(A)
CitiesAsscSelect(A)
LibraryJPA(A)
WVMayors(A)
VTAPAC
ABAG
SCCHCD
Audit
School
SisterCity
Water

CitiesAsscLeg(A)
Liaison(A)
Rt85(A)
StvCrk Corridor(A)
LibraryJPA
Water
Disaster
School
CEP

Commission(A)

SCCHCD(A)

SVRIA(A)
SVRIA
Water
SisterCity
Audit
VTAPAC

VTAPAC(A)
Disaster(A)
CC 01-17-2023

#9
Amended Staff
Report_AB361 Continued
Remote Meetings Jan 17 -
Feb 16

Desk Item

1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: January 17, 2023

Subject
Consider adopting a resolution authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino for the period January 17 , 2023 through February 16, 2023 pursuant to the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361

Recommended Action
Consider adopting a resolution authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino for the period January 17, 2023 through February 16, 2023 pursuant to the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361

Background
On March 2, 2020 , Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency due to the public health threat posed by COVID-19. On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order No -29-20, which suspended certain elements of the Brown Act and specifically allowed legislative bodies to hold meetings entirely electronically with no physical meeting. In accordance with the Executive Order , the City held its first teleconference meeting on March 24, 2020, to help stop the spread of COVID-19. On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order No-08-21, which stated that the provisions in Executive Order No-29-20, suspending certain elements of the Brown Act, would continue to apply through September 30, 2021. On October 17, 2022, Governor Newsom announced that the COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2023.

On September 15, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361 into law, which allows state and local agencies to continue using teleconferencing during certain state-declared emergencies under modified Brown Act requirements. AB 361 became effective immediately after signing due to its emergency clause and is set to sunset on Jan uary 1, 2024. Under AB 361, teleconference meetings may be held during a state of emergency if (1) state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or (2) a legislative body determines by a majority vote that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (Gov. Code, § 54953(e)(1).)

2 To continue teleconference meetings beyond a 30-day period, AB 361 requires the Council to make a determination that either (i) "[t]he state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person, or (ii) “State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.” (Gov. Code, § 54953(e)(3)(B).) That determination must be reviewed each 30 days thereafter to continue teleconference meetings. (Ibid.)

Discussion
AB 361 allows the City Council and other City legislative bodies to continue meeting exclusively via teleconference so long as a state emergency declaration remains in place and the statute’s conditions for permitting remote meetings are met. To continue meeting remotely, the City Council must find that state or local officials have imposed or recommend measures to supp ort social distancing , or that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.

On December 20, 2022, Council adopted Resolution No. 22-151 affirming findings related to AB 361 and authorizing the City Manager and legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino to meet exclusively by teleconference in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act through January 19, 2023 (Attachment B). Council may make either or both of the permitted findings to extend the time to allow teleconference meetings to continue. The Santa Clara County Health Officer continues to recommend that public bodies meet remotely to the extent possible, specifically including use of newly enacted AB 361 to maintain remote meetings under the Ralph M. Brown Act and similar laws (Attachment C). The California Department of Industrial Relations Revised Emergency Temporary Standards, effective May 6, 2022, continue to require or recommend social distancing in the workplace in certain circumstances. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the Draft R esolution authorizing continued teleconference meetings for the City of Cupertino’s legislative bodies in order to protect the health and safety of all attendees and participants, particularly those who are unvaccinated (Attachment A).

Sustainability Impact
Conducting meetings remotely has reduced paper consumption by providing electronic access to meeting materials instead of printed materials.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
_____________________________________

Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft Resolution
B – Adopted Resolution No. 22-151
3 C – Health Officer Recommendation Regarding Public Governmental Meetings

CC 01-17-2023

Amended Attachment A -
Draft Resolution__AB361
Continued Remote
Meetings Jan 17 - Feb 16

Desk Item
RESOLUTION NO. 23-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

AUTHORIZING CONTINUED REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE

LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 17, 2023 THROUGH FEBRUARY 16, 2023 PURSUANT TO BROWN ACT

PROVISIONS

WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the City Council, c ommissions, and committees; and

WHEREAS, all meetings of the City of Cupertino’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code sections 54950–54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; and

WHEREAS, the Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and

WHEREAS, a required condition for holding meetings exclusively by teleconference is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and

WHEREAS, Government Code section 54953(e) further require s that in order to authorize meetings exclusively by teleconference, a legislative body must determine that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, November 2, 2021, November 30, 2021, December 21, 2021, January 18, 2022, February 15, 2022, March 15, 2022, April 5, 2022, May 3, 2022, May 19, 2022, June 7, 2022, July 7, 2022, July 19, 2022, August 16, 2022, September 6, 2022, October 4, 2022, November 1, 2022, November 15, 2022, December 5, 2022, and December 20, 2022 the Cupertino City Council made the findings required under Government Code section 54953(e) and resolved that the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino shall Resolution No. 23-___

Page 2 ends

conduct their meetings without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3), as authorized by Government Code section 54953(e), and that such legislative bodies should comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in section 54953(e)(2); and

WHEREAS, Government Code section 54593(e)(3) provides that to continue to holding meetings of legislative bodies exclusively by teleconference, the legislative body must reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency every 30 days, and find that either (i) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person, or (ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reconside red the circumstances of the state of emergency that now exists , specifically defined in the County of Santa Clara proclamation of a local emergency beginning February 3, 2020, the City of Cupertino proclamation of a local emergency on March 11, 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclamation of a state of emergency beginning on March 4, 2020, and the national emergency declaration in Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020, beginning March 1, 2020, concerning the COVID-19 pandemic; and

WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara Health Officer's Recommendation Regarding Continued Remote Public Meetings of Governmental Entities dated September 21, 2021 and the California Department of Industrial Relations Revised Emergency Temporary Standards, effective Ma y 6 , 2022, continue to require or recommend social distancing in the workplace in certain circumstances; and

WHEREAS, the Health Officer's Recommendations , the Revised Emergency Temporary Standards, and evidence documenting the transmission of COVID -19 in indoor spaces establishes that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person; and

WHEREAS, based on the above findings, the Cupertino City Council hereby determines that the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino shall continue to conduct their meetings without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3), as authorized by Government Code section 54953 (e), and that such legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in section 54953(e)(2); and

WHEREAS, the City has and will continue to provide access for the public to legislative meetings and procedures through video teleconference technologies.

Resolution No. 23-___

Page 3 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, as follows:

1. Remote Teleconference Meetings. The City Manager and legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino are hereby authorized and directed to meet exclusively by teleconference and to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution , including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

2. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective through February 16, 2023, or such time as the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which th e City Council of the City of Cupertino may continue to teleconference without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3).

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of January 2023, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

_______________ ________________
Hung Wei, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

____________________ ___________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date
CC 01-17-2023
Item No. 9
Consider resolution for
Continued remote
teleconference
through February 16,
2023
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 #9 remote-only teleconferences Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 2:56:01 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 Council,

Can you please explain, City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 #9 remote-only teleconferences There was a big swearing-in ceremony
Then there was a remote-only meeting (if I recall correctly) Now there is a hybrid meeting
The County has just started meeting again in a hybrid capacity And now the City is going to remote-only
All of this is a big dizzying!
Can you please explain?

Thanks Much,
Rhoda Fry

CC 01-17-2023
Item No. 19
Consider approval of
response to the 2022
Civil Grand Jury County
Report
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 #19 civil grand jury response Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 3:00:51 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 Council,

Regarding the City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 #19 civil grand jury response.

I would like the public, City Council, and City staff to know that if not for councilmember Kitty Moore, the City of Cupertino would not have been one of the few compliant cities in Santa Clara County.

She has done a great service to the community.

The City needs to further plug the holes that allowed an $800K embezzlement between 2000 and 2014 and look for other possible thefts from us City taxpayers.

Thanks Much,
Rhoda Fry

CC 01-17-2023
Item No. 20
Status update on the
6th Cycle Housing
Element update
Written Communications
From: Neil Park-McClintick <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 1:22 AM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Housing Element Comments for Upcoming Agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open atta chments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Cupertino Housing and City Clerk,
I am writing to request the comments made at the 12/20 oral communications be included in the following housing element comments for the following agenda item. In particular, there was a detailed presentation that had specific recommendations for the council, with several orators speaking in agreement.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5992325&GUID=396C660B-8AAF-47B1-A25E- D8EA4AB95282&Options=&Search=
Thank you so much and happy new year,
Neil Park-McClintick
--
Neil Park-McClintick
President/Chair, Cupertino for All
408-660-6869
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Council; City Clerk; Christopher Jensen
Subject: 23-1-17 CC Agenda Item 20, Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 4:27:29 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 Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan, and Councilmembers, City Manager and City Attorney,
I support an ambitious housing element.

Therefore, I am advocating for the following with regard to the housing element draft (either before or after submission): (1) making sure AB 2011 and other housing bills are a focus of the housing element draft, as they have the potential to make it dramatically easier for Cupertino to meet its housing targets; (2) making sure we include and submit all comments related to the housing element focused on specific changes needed to make it an ambitious housing element; CFA submitted a letter on 12/20/22. I would like to focus on these to be included:

1. Programs and Policies: Urge staff and consultants to focus on new policies and programs modeled after other cities’ housing elements–with a framework of the 3 Ps in mind: production of homes, preservation of existing homes, and protection of renters. Cities like Emeryville and Mountain View have robust policies for all three of these planks. Cupertino’s current draft introduces few new policies, instead relying almost entirely on our existing ones, which have obviously failed to meet our housing needs. Additionally, the draft unnecessarily restricts proposed policies, such as only limiting parking requirements for SROs and studios, instead of applying a reduction in parking to all new homes.

Items d and e are particularly in need because new housing often impacts existing low-income housing. We have hundreds of BMR units at risk because we do not have policies such as d and e.
a.

Sample 1: Adaptive Re-use. The City will examine opportunities to allow for the adaptive reuse/conversion or replacement of vacant or underperforming commercial spaces and parking structures to residential units. The City will analyze the feasibility of an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance that would target the conversion of select types existing structures and of spaces that may include ground-floor retail in an existing mixed-use structure, part or all of an office building or parking structure
b.

Sample 2: Live/Work Units. Assess existing Live/Work regulations to see if any modification needs to be made to encourage development of Live/Work units in an effort to diversify the City's housing types.

Encourage the development or conversion of affordable live/workspace units, and ensure owners of existing Live/Work units are aware of the Homebuyer Assistance Program available for their unit when marketing their unit for resale, in an effort to expand affordable homeownership options.
c.

Sample 3: Family Friendly Housing. Promote housing designs and unit mix to attract multigenerational households by encouraging developers to include housing features and more bedrooms (including four- bedroom units), as well as other on-site amenities, such as usable outdoor open space for multigenerational use, and multipurpose rooms that can be used for after-school homework clubs, computer, art, or other resident activities.
d.

Sample 4: The creation of a tenant relocation assistance ordinance. r more rental units have been displaced because of renovations, redevelopment, and similar activities. The City’s ordinance is intended to help lower income households with moving costs, deposits, and securing replacement housing.
e.

Sample 5: Rental Preservation Program. The City will provide low interest rate loans to existing rental property owners to improve the habitable condition(s) of their rental units occupied by very low, low and moderate-income tenants. Performance Metric(s) # of rental units renovated; # of special need units assisted; Amount of Funds Expended there are many more ideas in that letter that I urge you to include if you have the time, or to mention to HCD that we are going to include them.

Connie Cunningham
Housing Commission (self only)
From: Ayushi Samaddar
Subject: Council reforms and Housing Element 2023
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 5:01:32 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 Cupertino City Council,
Regarding Cupertino council procedures, I support the council reforms because they (1) promote having clear rules, (2) make it easier for people to give public comment and participate in the process, (3) expand access to government by removing any meetings between 10 PM to 8 AM, (4) reduce the politicization of basic governance. I would however also like to see even longer windows to raise your hand for public comment and also more flexibility for giving comments, like what Santa Clara County does.

I also support the reduction of committees as they needlessly use staff time, resulting in favoring process over outcomes for our residents. We should focus on the quality of our institutions, not the quantity.

In addition, I support an ambitious housing element. Therefore, I am advocating for the following with regard to the housing element draft (either before or after submission): (1) making sure AB 2011 and other housing bills are a focus of the housing element draft, as they have the potential to make it dramatically easier for Cupertino to meet its housing targets; (2) making sure we include and submit all comments related to the housing element focused on specific changes needed to make it an ambitious housing element; (3) everything in this letter which names specific changes needed from 12/20 that CFA submitted.

Thanks,
Ayushi
From: Housing
To: City Clerk
Cc: Kerri Heusler
Subject: FW: Item 20 Suggestions for Changing Housing Element Update Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 8:46:32 AM
Attachments: Chair Letter to City Council (1).pdf
Forwarding written comms rec’d from the Housing Inbox:

Cyrah Caburian
Administrative Assistant
Community Development
[email protected]
(408) 777-1374

From: Neil Park-McClintick <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 5:47 PM
To: Housing <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Item 20 Suggestions for Changing Housing Element Update

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 would like to resubmit the following comments regarding much-needed changes to the housing element. While I recognize the need to submit a draft, HCD will no doubt respond that we need to dramatically redo portions of our HE update. As such, please see the attached letter from Cupertino for All, which is aimed to help the City, Council, and staff earn a compliant element over the span of this year. This letter was submitted at the end of last year. The only additional ask would be to have council direct staff to come up with (A) an analysis

of the effects of AB 2011 on Cupertino and its housing element (which are understood to be quite impactful), (B) direct staff to come back with a list of specific policies for protection, preservation, and production from other cities' housing elements--in particular, cities that received the green light during their very first submission (Emeryville and Alameda should be a focus.

To:

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia
Councilmember JR Fruen
Mayor Hung Wei
Councilmember Liang Chao
Councilmember Kitty Moore
City Manager Pamela Wu
Councilmember Sheila Mohan

Comprehensive redo of housing element draft needed

From the beginning of the housing element update process, community members have repeatedly demanded an ambitious, honest, and conforming process from the City of Cupertino. This means a resulting product that realistically outlines a path forward for not only building 4,000+ homes, but also transforming the affordable housing landscape for families across all incomes and backgrounds. However, this outcome is only achievable if the leadership of Cupertino truly believes that the HE update is a unique opportunity of a lifetime, rather than a burdensome task. The recently released housing element draft unfortunately seems to indicate the latter rather than the former. If we wish to preserve any hope of dictating our own future as a community, Council and staff must conduct a comprehensive redrafting process, with the following changes:

1. 2.

3. Site Inventory:

4. Reduce reliance on pipeline projects, expand the number of planned units in the “heart of

5. the city,” and avoid planning homes that are unlikely to be built. Nearly ⅔ of the planned inventory is pipeline projects, with roughly 80% of those projects being Vallco and the Hamptons. The Hamptons in particular is unlikely to actually be built out as

6. 600 units, given no recent developer interest and recent renovations from Irvine Company. Meanwhile, less than 5% of the inventory is composed of the heart of the city, the main portion of Cupertino, where most development should be slated.

7. 8.

9. 10. Programs and Policies:

11. Urge staff and consultants to focus on new policies and programs modeled

12. after other cities’ housing elements–with a framework of the 3 Ps in mind:
production of homes, preservation of existing homes, and protection of renters.

Cities like Emeryville and Mountain View have robust policies for all three of these planks. Cupertino’s

13. current draft introduces few new policies, instead relying almost entirely on our existing ones, which have obviously failed to meet our housing needs.

Additionally, the draft unnecessarily restricts proposed policies, such as only limiting parking requirements

14. for SROs and studios, instead of applying a reduction in parking to all new homes.

15. a.
b.
c. Sample 1: Adaptive Re-use. The City will examine opportunities to allow for the adaptive reuse/conversion
d. or replacement of vacant or underperforming commercial spaces and parking structures to residential units. The City will analyze the feasibility of an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance that would target the conversion of select types existing structures and of spaces
e. that may include ground-floor retail in an existing mixed-use structure, part or all of an office building or parking structure
f.
g.
h.
i. Sample 2: Live/Work Units. Assess existing Live/Work regulations to see if any modification needs
j. to be made to encourage development of Live/Work units in an effort to diversify the City's housing types. Encourage the development or conversion of affordable live/workspace units, and ensure owners of existing Live/Work units are aware of the Homebuyer
k. Assistance Program available for their unit when marketing their unit for resale, in an effort to expand affordable homeownership options. l.
m.
n.
o. Sample 3: Family Friendly Housing. Promote housing designs and unit mix to attract multigenerational
p. households by encouraging developers to include housing features and more bedrooms (including four-bedroom units), as well as other on-site amenities, such as usable outdoor open space for multigenerational use, and multipurpose rooms that can be used for
q. after-school homework clubs, computer, art, or other resident activities. r.
s.
t.
u. Sample 4: The creation of a tenant relocation assistance ordinance. r more rental units have been
v. displaced because of renovations, redevelopment, and similar activities.

The City’s ordinance is intended to help lower income households with moving costs, deposits, and securing replacement housing. w.
x.
y.
z. Sample 5: Rental Preservation Program. The City will provide low interest rate loans to existing
aa. rental property owners to improve the habitable condition(s) of their rental units occupied by very low, low and moderate-income tenants.

Performance Metric(s) # of rental units renovated; # of special need units assisted; Amount of Funds Expended
ab.
ac.
ad.
ae. Sample 6: Resident Engagement. The City will evaluate its current committees and commission membership
af. to determine if the membership is reflective of the socio-economic and racial mix of Cupertino or if there are any missing voices. If it is determined, there are missing voices, the City will enhance its outreach efforts to encourage residents from all socio-economic
ag. groups and racial backgrounds to serve on committees and commissions when position become available. The City will investigate the restructuring of the Housing Committee to ensure that the committee has at least one member that resides in a BMR unit, at least
ah. one member that is a tenant, and at least one member that is a homeowner.
ai.
aj.
ak.
al. Sample 7: Prohousing Designation. The City will seek a Prohousing Designation from the California
am. Housing and Community Development for enacting favorable zoning and land use policies, policies to accelerate the production of housing, reduction of construction and development policies, and providing financial subsidies. The Prohousing designation will
an. provide incentives, in the form of additional points or preferences in the scoring of competitive applications for housing and infrastructure. ao.

16. 17.

18. Needs Analysis:

19. The needs analysis is woefully inadequate for the unique housing context

20. of Cupertino, with no references to the extreme unmet housing needs of our daytime residents–instead choosing to focus on those who already can afford to live here. In particular, we see tremendous housing struggles among De Anza college students, adjunct

21. faculty, teachers, low-wage workers, non-profit workers, young adults, and seniors. For example, Cupertino severely lacks in apartments and smaller units that would be ideal for a young professional or community college student.

Additionally, with regard to

22. AFFH, our draft does not provide a realistic assessment of segregation in our region; we know that Cupertino has one of the lowest Latino/Latinx populations of surrounding cities–of just 3-4% compared to San Jose’s 30%. As such, one of our intended outcomes

23. should be to bridge this gap and greatly increase housing opportunities for Latino, Black, and Southeast Asian communities of color.

24. 25.

26. 27. Constraints Analysis:

28. Several constraints appear to be missing, including but not limited to (1)

29. local control and neighborhood opposition, (2) underutilized land such as dying strip malls, (3) relatively low surface area for development, (4) state law evasion/loopholes, (5) permit processing times Additionally, several other state laws are missing that

30. are in need of compliance like AB 2097 and AB 2011.

31. 32.

33. 34. Community Outreach:

35. While Cupertino has done some community outreach with regard to the housing

36. element, it does not seem to have actually translated into actual policies or programs. The purpose of community outreach is to hear from traditionally underserved communities, so new ideas emerge for how to meet these specific housing needs. Instead, there

37. are dozens of pages of outreach, with no actual effect on the resulting sites, programs, or policies. Additionally, much of the feedback critical of Cupertino’s approach to the inventory appears to be missing. The City must also be honest about its failures

38. in approaching community outreach, such as the last City Council dismantling the stakeholder engagement group, or the anti-housing bias within the housing survey.

39. 40.

41. 42. Transit-Oriented Development & mixed use:

43. Cupertino’s housing element draft does not seem to contain a vision for

44. the built-environment, as it isolates the thousands of planned homes from a much needed coinciding growth of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, reduced car use, and vibrant, mixed-use spaces. Instead, it makes few references to transit-oriented development

45. and even unnecessarily restricts mixed-use. We should be planning our housing future around the reduction of car reliance and the promotion of our Climate Action Plan 2.0.

46. 47.

48. 49. Timeline:

50. Cupertino is last in the entire county and will no doubt lose local control

51. under the builder’s remedy. Council should direct its staff and consultant team to focus entirely on more-or-less redoing the housing element draft as quickly as possible. The community would like to see an actual timeline and plan of action for achieving

52. an ambitious housing element in a short period of time.

53. 54.

55. 56. Rezoning of Vallco:

57. The Rise (formerly Vallco) is the most important project for the City to

58. meet its RHNA. It includes more than half of the City’s total RHNA and 136% of its low income units. One impediment is that the current GP and zoning do not allow for a feasible project. While the SB 35 approval is currently in effect, if it were to lapse,

59. the current GP/zoning designations are too restrictive and no project would occur. To be consistent with other housing element inventory sites, the City should

60. amend the General Plan and zoning to be consistent with The Rise project.

Strategy

61. HE-1.3 that would make a residential-only project available “by right” is insufficient. The HE assumes that half of the units will be affordable, but that is only feasible if there are other supporting uses to help pay for the high cost of affordable housing,

62. such as office space.

63. 64.

65. 66. Improving fee reduction language:

67. The HE makes clear that the City’s impact fees are both very high and an outlier in the region. This

68. can inhibit the proliferation of new housing and deter affordable projects. One of the HE strategies calls for a reduction in fees, but does not establish a clear path forward for which fees would be reduced or which steps would be taken.

Additionally, fee

69. waivers beyond parkland fees should be readily permissible in cases of affordable housing projects. As a whole, the fee regime should be thoughtfully restructured and reevaluated to strike a balance between fulfilling important city functions, while not impeding

70. new housing development.

71. Members across the community look forward to working with this new council and City Manager’s office to produce an ambitious housing element update that matches the innovation and ambition of our great town.

Sincerely,
Neil Park-McClintick
Chair, Cupertino for All
To:City Clerk Kirsten SquarciaCouncilmember JR FruenMayor Hung WeiCouncilmember Liang ChaoCouncilmember Kitty MooreCity Manager Pamela WuCouncilmember Sheila Mohan Comprehensive redo of housing element draft needed
From the beginning of the housing element update process, community members haverepeatedly demanded anambitious, honest, and conformingprocessfrom the City ofCupertino. This means a resulting product that realistically outlines a path forward for not onlybuilding 4,000+ homes, but also transforming the affordable housing landscape for familiesacross all incomes and backgrounds. However, this outcome is only achievable if the leadershipof Cupertino truly believes that the HE update is a unique opportunity of a lifetime, rather than aburdensome task. The recently released housing element draft unfortunately seems to indicatethe latter rather than the former.If we wish to preserveany hope of dictating our own futureas a community, Council and staff must conduct a comprehensive redrafting process,with the following changes:

1. Site Inventory:Reduce reliance on pipeline projects,expand the number of plannedunits in the “heart of the city,” and avoid planning homes that are unlikely to be built.Nearly ⅔ of the planned inventory is pipeline projects, with roughly 80% of those projectsbeing Vallco and the Hamptons. The Hamptons in particular is unlikely to actually be builtout as 600 units, given no recent developer interest and recent renovations from IrvineCompany. Meanwhile, less than 5% of the inventory is composed of the heart of the city,the main portion of Cupertino, where most development should be slated.2. Programs and Policies:Urge staff and consultantsto focus on new policies andprograms modeled after other cities’ housing elements–with a framework of the 3 Ps inmind: production of homes, preservation of existing homes, and protection of renters.Cities like Emeryville and Mountain View have robust policies for all three of theseplanks. Cupertino’s current draft introduces few new policies, instead relying almostentirely on our existing ones, which have obviously failed to meet our housing needs.Additionally, the draft unnecessarily restricts proposed policies, such as only limitingparking requirements for SROs and studios, instead of applying a reduction in parking toall new homes.a. Sample 1: Adaptive Re-use. The City will examine opportunities to allow for theadaptive reuse/conversion or replacement of vacant or underperformingcommercial spaces and parking structures to residential units. The City willanalyze the feasibility of an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance that would target the

conversion of select types existing structures and of spaces that may includeground-floor retail in an existing mixed-use structure, part or all of an officebuilding or parking structureb. Sample 2: Live/Work Units. Assess existing Live/Work regulations to see if anymodification needs to be made to encourage development of Live/Work units inan effort to diversify the City's housing types. Encourage the development orconversion of affordable live/workspace units, and ensure owners of existingLive/Work units are aware of the Homebuyer Assistance Program available fortheir unit when marketing their unit for resale, in an effort to expand affordablehomeownership options.c. Sample 3: Family Friendly Housing. Promote housing designs and unit mix toattract multigenerational households by encouraging developers to includehousing features and more bedrooms (including four-bedroom units), as well asother on-site amenities, such as usable outdoor open space for multigenerationaluse, and multipurpose rooms that can be used for after-school homework clubs,computer, art, or other resident activities.d. Sample 4: The creation of a tenant relocation assistance ordinance. r more rentalunits have been displaced because of renovations, redevelopment, and similaractivities. The City’s ordinance is intended to help lower income households withmoving costs, deposits, and securing replacement housing.e. Sample 5: Rental Preservation Program. The City will provide low interest rateloans to existing rental property owners to improve the habitable condition(s) oftheir rental units occupied by very low, low and moderate-income tenants.Performance Metric(s) # of rental units renovated; # of special need unitsassisted; Amount of Funds Expendedf. Sample 6: Resident Engagement. The City will evaluate its current committeesand commission membership to determine if the membership is reflective of thesocio-economic and racial mix of Cupertino or if there are any missing voices. If itis determined, there are missing voices, the City will enhance its outreach effortsto encourage residents from all socio-economic groups and racial backgrounds toserve on committees and commissions when position become available. The Citywill investigate the restructuring of the Housing Committee to ensure that thecommittee has at least one member that resides in a BMR unit, at least onemember that is a tenant, and at least one member that is a homeowner.g. Sample 7: Prohousing Designation. The City will seek a Prohousing Designationfrom the California Housing and Community Development for enacting favorablezoning and land use policies, policies to accelerate the production of housing,reduction of construction and development policies, and providing financialsubsidies. The Prohousing designation will provide incentives, in the form ofadditional points or preferences in the scoring of competitive applications forhousing and infrastructure.

3. Needs Analysis: The needs analysis is woefully inadequate for the unique housingcontext of Cupertino, with no references to the extreme unmet housing needs of ourdaytime residents–instead choosing to focus on those who already can afford to livehere. In particular, we see tremendous housing struggles among De Anza collegestudents, adjunct faculty, teachers, low-wage workers, non-profit workers, young adults,and seniors. For example, Cupertino severely lacks in apartments and smaller units thatwould be ideal for a young professional or community college student. Additionally, withregard to AFFH, our draft does not provide a realistic assessment of segregation in ourregion; we know that Cupertino has one of the lowest Latino/Latinx populations ofsurrounding cities–of just 3-4% compared to San Jose’s 30%. As such, one of ourintended outcomes should be to bridge this gap and greatly increase housingopportunities for Latino, Black, and Southeast Asian communities of color.4. Constraints Analysis: Several constraints appear tobe missing, including but notlimited to (1) local control and neighborhood opposition, (2) underutilized land such asdying strip malls, (3) relatively low surface area for development, (4) state lawevasion/loopholes, (5) permit processing times Additionally, several other state laws aremissing that are in need of compliance like AB 2097 and AB 2011.5. Community Outreach:While Cupertino has done somecommunity outreach withregard to the housing element, it does not seem to have actually translated into actualpolicies or programs. The purpose of community outreach is to hear from traditionallyunderserved communities, so new ideas emerge for how to meet these specific housingneeds. Instead, there are dozens of pages of outreach, with no actual effect on theresulting sites, programs, or policies. Additionally, much of the feedback critical ofCupertino’s approach to the inventory appears to be missing. The City must also behonest about its failures in approaching community outreach, such as the last CityCouncil dismantling the stakeholder engagement group, or the anti-housing bias withinthe housing survey.6. Transit-Oriented Development & mixed use:Cupertino’shousing element draft doesnot seem to contain a vision for the built-environment, as it isolates the thousands ofplanned homes from a much needed coinciding growth of bicycle and pedestrianinfrastructure, reduced car use, and vibrant, mixed-use spaces. Instead, it makes fewreferences to transit-oriented development and even unnecessarily restricts mixed-use.We should be planning our housing future around the reduction of car reliance and thepromotion of our Climate Action Plan 2.0.7. Timeline:Cupertino is last in the entire county andwill no doubt lose local control underthe builder’s remedy. Council should direct its staff and consultant team to focus entirelyon more-or-less redoing the housing element draft as quickly as possible. Thecommunity would like to see an actual timeline and plan of action for achieving anambitious housing element in a short period of time.8. Rezoning of Vallco:The Rise (formerly Vallco) isthe most important project for the Cityto meet its RHNA. It includes more than half of the City’s total RHNA and 136% of its lowincome units. One impediment is that the current GP and zoning do not allow for a

feasible project. While the SB 35 approval is currently in effect, if it were to lapse, thecurrent GP/zoning designations are too restrictive and no project would occur. To beconsistent with other housing element inventory sites, the City shouldamend theGeneral Plan and zoning to be consistent with The Rise project. Strategy HE-1.3 thatwould make a residential-only project available “by right” is insufficient. The HE assumesthat half of the units will be affordable, but that is only feasible if there are othersupporting uses to help pay for the high cost of affordable housing, such as office space.9. Improving fee reduction language:The HE makes clearthat the City’s impact fees areboth very high and an outlier in the region. This can inhibit the proliferation of newhousing and deter affordable projects. One of the HE strategies calls for a reduction infees, but does not establish a clear path forward for which fees would be reduced orwhich steps would be taken. Additionally, fee waivers beyond parkland fees should bereadily permissible in cases of affordable housing projects. As a whole, the fee regimeshould be thoughtfully restructured and reevaluated to strike a balance between fulfillingimportant city functions, while not impeding new housing development.

Members across the community look forward to working with this new council and CityManager’s office to produce an ambitious housing element update that matches the innovationand ambition of our great town.

Sincerely,Neil Park-McClintick
Chair, Cupertino for All

CC 01-17-2023
Item No. 23
Consider authorizing
the Director of Public
Works to reject all bids
received for Blackberry
Farm Pools
Improvements
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: RE: City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 #23 Blackberry Farm Pool Improvements Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 3:07:05 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 Council,

Regarding City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 #23 Blackberry Farm Pool Improvements Yes, it makes sense to bifurcate the scope of work for this project.

Given the amount of investment considered, the public needs to fully understand the cost of running this operation.

Given its proximity to the creek and wildlife area on the edge of Cupertino, perhaps a pool complex at Memorial Park would be more appropriate.

A similar justification was made for re-thinking the golf course when the cost of irrigation improvements appeared to be quite high.

Furthermore, the blackberry farm pool and picnic business was previously in an enterprise fund – this allowed there to be some transparency as to the profits and losses for this business that is being run by the City.

I recall that the senior center had also been in an enterprise fund.

I recommend that all businesses that are being run by the City be put in enterprise funds to allow for further transparency.

Thanks Much,
Rhoda Fry

Cupertino City CouncilJanuary 17, 2023

Cupertino City Council
January 17, 2023