Written Communications (Updated 6-22-2023) — Cupertino City Council, June 21, 2023

CC 06-21-2023
Written
Communications
Oral
Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council June 21 - non-agenda comment - stop wasting money Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 12:07:44 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image005.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.

Dear City Council,
I was surprised to have received a survey on making changes to the City website.

Given the current economic conditions, not just with the CDTFA but in general, it is a waste of the public's money to redo the City website.

The CDTFA issue is huge. And we have issues moving forward with the economy - - - Santa Clara County just made huge cuts to their budget.

It is stunning that our City is not doing the same.

I am happy with the current website.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

Here is a chart that I put together showing how Cupertino compared with neighboring cities with per capita income. You can see that Cupertino has consistently been ahead of other cities. And during COVID, Cupertino’s sales-tax revenues boomed while others retreated. And now we know that we will be having a severe decline in sales-tax revenues. I’ve provided another chart that shows just a 40% decline - - - imagine what 70% would look like.

Now here’s an example of what the chart looks like at 40% of current – and that number is extremely optimistic, because we’ve been told much higher numbers.

From: Munisekar
To: City Clerk
Subject: Oral Communications on 6/21/2023.

Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 12:02:34 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,
I am registered to attend the City Council meeting tomorrow; I plan to speak during Oral Communications asking the city to Oppose Discriminatory Law SB403.

I would like you to play the following clip during my Oral at my prompting. https://youtu.be/_41wmoXLHms?t=22
Please keep the above video clip queued up for Orals.

Thank you.

Muni Madhdhipatla
Cupertino Resident
CC 06-21-2023
Item #1
Consider the Memorial
Park Specific Plan
Written Communications
From: Susan Michael
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Revitalize Memorial Park Design
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 10:59:45 AM
Attachments: Preferred Draft Concept, Site Plan.png
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
Written communications for item #1

Susan Michael
Capital Improvement Programs Manager
Public Works
[email protected]
(408)777-1328/(408)510-0622

From: Nori N <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2023 12:35 AM
To: Hung Wei <[email protected]>; Sheila Mohan <[email protected]>; Liang Chao <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]>; J.R. Fruen <[email protected]> Cc: Susan Michael <[email protected]>; Rachelle Sander <[email protected]>; Chad Mosley <[email protected]>; Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Sashi Begur <[email protected]>; Carol Stanek <[email protected]>; Jenny Koverman <[email protected]> Subject: Revitalize Memorial Park Design

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 Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan, Councilmember Chao, Coucilmember Moore, and Councilmember Fruen,

There were three concepts, Concept A (Community Focus), Concept B (Nature Focus), and Concept C (Civic Focus). However, I believed Memorial park does not have to be identity focused park for only specific visitors.

Gates Design team chose Concept A (Community Focus) and added various attributes from Concept B and C in order to make it most desirable design after many surveys were taken. I am so glad that the blended concept design can meet everyone’s interest.

I am also glad the design team removed the underutilized softball field and added various amenities in their design.

I would like to add some my comments to the deign.

• Playground #12

— Based on the latest design, the playground for different age group looks too small. It has to be much bigger after closing 2 current playgrounds. Have you seen the current playgrounds on weekends, holidays, and during/after events? The playgrounds are full of the families with children. In addition, children in Summer Camp at Quinlan Center go to the playground during the break.

— The new playground has to be all inclusive playground for all children with physical and cognitive disabilities too.

So that
many more families can visit.

• Pickleball Courts #15

— Pickleball is getting popular, but the high pitch loud noise bothers some people. Have you been and stayed there at least for 30 minute at the current pickleball courts when all courts are in use? The loud noise bothers children who are sensitive to the sound, especially autism children. The tennis noise is 40 dBA, but Pickleball is almost double, over 70 dBA which consider disturbing level.

— Please move pickleball courts away from the playground and picnic areas .

— Please move it to along Stevens Creek and Anton. The noise does not bother anyone there, and players can easy to park at new parking lot on Anton. There are pickleball courts in the sports center tennis court too. So that noise is no longer issue.

• Basketball court #14

— Please move basketball court to where pickleball courts were located after they were moved to along the Stevens Creek.

Then, extend the playground to where the basketball was located.

• Amphitheater #9

— This has to be upgraded to safe and add wheel chair seating area. The many tree roots are exposed at side of seating area. The wood fence at back of the amphitheater already broken. It is unsafe if people sit on the fence.

I would be very appreciate it if you could consider.

Regards,
Nori

From: Susan Michael
To: City Clerk
Cc: Chad Mosley; Rachelle Sander
Subject: FW: Memorial Park Specific Plan - Blended Concept Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 6:52:40 PM
Attachments: Preferred Draft Concept, Site Plan.png
Preferred Draft Concept, Site Plan.png
image017.png
image018.png
image019.png
image020.png
image021.png
image022.png
image023.png
image024.png
image025.png
image026.png
image027.png
image028.png
image029.png
image030.png
image031.png
image032.png
City Clerk’s office,
Please include this email as part of written communications for the 6/21 City Council meeting, as per the request of Commissioner Begur.

Susan Michael
Capital Improvement Programs Manager
Public Works
[email protected]
(408)777-1328/(408)510-0622

From: Sashi Begur <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 7:39 PM
To: Nori N <[email protected]>
Cc: Carol Stanek <[email protected]>; Rachelle Sander <[email protected]>; Jenny Koverman <[email protected]>; Susan Michael <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Memorial Park Specific Plan - Blended Concept

Thank you Nori, for speaking yesterday and as well for this email.

Your ideas make very good sense. I’m copying the liaison and the director of Parks and Rec, and also the director of public works Susan Michael, to make sure they are aware of this email and also so your input can be included in the package to the council.

Regards
Sashi

Sent from my iPhone
Sashi Begur
Parks and Recration Commissioner
[email protected]
On Jun 2, 2023, at 4:37 PM, Nori N <[email protected]> wrote:

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 Commissioner Stanek, Commissioner Shearin, Commissioner Begur, Commissioner Swamy, and Commissioner Buch,

I joined the meeting and spoke yesterday.

• Playground #12

— Based on the presentation from Gates yesterday, the playground looks too small for age 2-5, 5-12, and Tricycle track. It has to be much bigger after closing 2 current unsafe playgrounds and locating in the current baseball field. Have you seen the current playgrounds on weekends, holiday, and during/after events? The playground is full of the family with children. In addition, children in Summer Camp at Quinlan Center go to the playground during the break.

— The new playground has to be all inclusive playground for all children with physical and cognitive disabilities also. So that many more families can visit after the Memorial park was revitalized.

• Pickleball Courts #15

— Pickleball is getting popular, but the loud noise bothers some people. Have you walked by the current pickleball courts when all courts are in use and listened the sound? The loud noise bothers children who are sensitive to the sound, especially some autism children. The tennis noise is 40 dBA, but Pickleball is almost double, over 70 dBA which consider disturbing level.

— Please move pickleball courts away from the playground or picnic areas .

— Please move it to next #4 Expanded Senior Center Courtyard and the main entrance along Stevens Creek. The noise does not bother anyone, and players can easy to park at new parking lot on Anton. There are pickleball courts in the sports center tennis court too. So that noise is no longer issue.

• Basketball court #14

— Please move basketball court to where pickleball courts were located after they were moved to along the Stevens Creek. Then, extend the playground to where the basketball was located.

• Amphitheater #9

— This has to be upgraded to safe and add wheel chair seating . I will send you photos later but the edge of current seating area has holes and easy to fall over and danger, especially children. Is the wood fence at back of the amphitheater safe if people sat on it during the event?

I would be very appreciate it if you could consider,

Regards,
Nori

On May 31, 2023, at 2:34 AM, Nori N <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Commissioner Stanek, Commissioner Shearin, Commissioner Begur, Commissioner Swamy, and Commissioner Buch,

Based on Park and Recreation Commission meeting agenda this week, the schematic design of the Memorial Park will be presented by CIP manager Michael. Based on the staff report, concept A was chosen, but add various attributes from other concepts in order to make it most desirable design. The blended concept design can meet everyone’s interest.

I am glad you took consideration of removing underutilized softball field and add various amenities. Please relocate the current 2 small unsafe playgrounds into one large safe playground there. Please the new playground is all inclusive playground for children for all ages and abilities (physical and cognitive disabilities).

Pickle ball is getting popular, but the high pitch loud sound bothers some people. Please locate the pickle ball court away from the playground, so that the high pitch loud sound does not bother some sound sensitive children.

Please add wheel chair seating area when you upgrade amphitheater.

Thank you,
Nori

On Feb 6, 2023, at 9:15 PM, Nori N <[email protected] > wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nori N <[email protected]>
Subject: Memorial Park Specific Plan - Blended Concept
Date: February 6, 2023 at 2:48:42 AM PST
To: Ayano Hattori <[email protected]
>, Chad Mosley <[email protected]>, Rachelle Sander <[email protected]>, Susan Michael AIA <[email protected]> Cc: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>, Matt Morley <[email protected]>

Hi Manager Hattori, Assistant Director Mosley, Director Sander, and Manger Michael,

Revitalized Memorial Park Community Open House was great. I could have an opportunity to talk to Micheal and Rebecca from Gates. I also could talk to CIP manager, Micheal, and new Park & Recreation Commissioner Shearin.

I would be very appreciate it if you could take below my comments and proposals into consideration to the design.

1. Memorial Park does not have to be identify focused park. It could be Blended concept with Community Focus, Nature Focus, and Civic Focus to meet many people’s interest.

2. The least amount interest softball field becomes to the multi age play area is great concept. The softball field is empty most of the time.

3. There is large senior population in Cupertino. The multi age play area can meet those senior population. However, Cupertino should also focus on the children/young population.

4. There are full of families at playground on weekends, holidays, during the events, and also children in Summer Camp at Quinlan Center go to the playground during the break.

5. The playground in the Concept A, Community Focus is too small after closing 2 current playgrounds. Remove Bocce Ball Court and reduce table game area to expand the playground for the children. The new playground should be bigger and all inclusive playground for children for all ages and abilities (physical and cognitive disabilities). Bike Traffic Garden must be fun for the children.

6. The play area should be safe soft rubber ground, not the current wood chips nor lawn, and wheel chair access.

7. Move dedicated Pickleball courts to the current small playground is located. Away from the playground. Pickleball is popular game now, but it makes high pitch very loud noise.

8. The field where the big pond was located to be nature area with passive garden walk and add Nature Playground from Concept B (Nature Focus).

9. There are still 2 large fields for events. The Stevens Creek side of field is bigger now after the pond was removed.

10 . Upgraded Amphitheater should stay the current location. The truck comes from Alves to Anton and park behind the Amphitheater and load/unload the equipments or the music instruments during the performance. The equipments or the music instruments can be moved through the big truck entrance next to the Amphitheater.

11. Please add wheel chair seating area at the upgraded Amphitheater.

Regards,
Nori
<Blended Concept .png>

From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #1, Memorial Park
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 4:11:50 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,

Agenda Item #1, Memorial Park, I think that it would be a shame to remove the existing amenity of the softball field. Perhaps efforts should be made to make it known to the public before considering its removal. Our City is poised to increase its population and having this type of amenity would be hard to replace. Memorial Park is pretty big and if we need more amenities there, I’m confident that there’s be room for them elsewhere.

Also, if you’re considering basketball and other noisy activities, please consider a location that is furthest away from homes. And please also check for the acoustics. Sometimes noise can travel in unexpected ways and it would be unfortunate to put a loud amenity in an area that would impact our residents (even a noisy amenity further away from homes could be more impactful).

Please also consider building underground parking.

Finally, I do think that this project should be shelved until we know the outcome of the CDTFA audit.

We should know within 8 weeks or so. Spending money on CEQA contracts and/or expensive studies should not be considered until we fully understand our city’s financial situation.

Thanks,
Rhoda fry
From: Ronny Tey
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Fw: Keeping the Memorial Park Softball Field
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 8:55:30 PM
Attachments: Softball petition as of June 16, 2023.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,
I noticed that my email dated June 16th (below) was not included in the written communications for the council meeting Wednesday June 21st evening. Please add this email and its attachment as written communications for agenda item #1. Thank you.

Regards,
Ronny.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Ronny Tey <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 at 05:22:50 PM PDT
Subject: Keeping the Memorial Park Softball Field
Dear City Council, City Manager, and Assistant City Manager, I am submitting the attached petition results for keeping the softball field at Memorial Park. The city believes that the field is underutilized at a utilization of 15%. It is very different to measure utilization of a pickleball or tennis court versus a field for a team sport like softball. Tennis or pickleball may have 2-4 players in an hour, but softball is a team sport with at least 20 people on the field for an hour-long game.

With 16 league teams and additional casual users, there are more unique individuals that use the field for softball than those that use it as a dog-off-leash-area, or those that use most of the other amenities at Memorial Park
I want to thank Mayor Wei for coming out to the field this morning to meet some of the players that use the field. Today, Mayor Wei saw 24 men and women play softball on the field with another 8-10 fans in the stands. We talked about how softball is a game for men and women of all ages with varying levels of experience and how the Memorial Park softball field is a unique gem for Cupertino and the surrounding community. There is no other field in the area designed for softball (and with lights!). The field can also easily be adjusted to be used for youth baseball if we want to further increase its utilization. We share the field today with dog owners very amicably as the field is mostly fenced in and we very rarely have had to pick up dog waste from the field. Dog owners are able to use the field any time there is no game.

The Memorial Park softball field is a unique asset to Cupertino that encourages healthy, active lifestyles for adults and seniors with camaraderie for the players with fans and families often watching in the stands. It is an asset that may be too easily taken away, but will be very difficult to get back.

I invite other council members and city staff to come out to the field and meet the users of the field. My friends and I play every Friday morning, and there are league games there Monday, Tuesday, and Friday nights as well as Thursday mornings for seniors. I am also happy to meet you there at your convenience.

Best regards,
Ronny.

From: Mary_Patrick
To: City Council
Subject: Memorial park utility of softball field: June 21 agenda item Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 1:42:20 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.

To members of the Cupertino City council:

I am objecting to the Parks department’s recommendation which calls for the removal of and rebuilding of the current softball field. Certainly the city has a better use of its resources than to engage in such wasteful demolition and rebuilding. This is especially harmful for those of us who make good use of the current field. We are generally older, which matches closely the continued change to Cupertino’s demographics.

I am a past resident of the city but am not currently a resident of Cupertino but we do spend enough money within your city’s borders to be considered an interested party.

Patrick J. O'Meara
408-234-5568
Sent from my iPad
1 Susan Michael
From: Jean Bedord <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 3:11 PM
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office
Cc: Rachelle Sander; Susan Michael
Subject: Agenda Item #1: Memorial Park Specific Plan, Council June 21, 2023 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza tion. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Honorable Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan, and Councilmembers Fruen, Chao and Moore,

I want to comm end staff for the excellent work on the Memorial Park Specific Plan conceptual design.

As well as giving my input, I talked with many other actual users of Memorial Park, none of whom were involved with organized sports. The proposed plan incorporates many of their observations and desires for the park.

Memorial Park needs to meet the needs of the entire community, particularly our aging population, not a small group of softball players. This field can be better utilized with the proposed new popular recreational facilities (1) highly requested pickleball courts, (2) a full-sized basketball court, (3) fenced DOLA (Dogs Off Leash) area, (4) reservable picnic area with shade, and (5) a new restroom.

I particularly want to applaud the inclusion of senior needs with the Senior Center expanded/integrated deck/courtyard with access to fitness stations and event lawn for exercise classes/events. Current access from the Senior Center to the park is abysmal, and flunks ADA access, so I urge prioritization of this area.

I also support the addition of space along Anton Way to accommodate loading/unloading for events, providing improved safety and ADA access to the amphitheater . This area can also be used for food trucks for events, much as the senior center and Quinlan Center provide space.

Overall, this plan is well-done and forward-thinking. I urge you to approve moving forward to the Schematic Design and Environmental Assessment as quickly as possible. The community has already spent a lot of time and effort. Let’s move ahead, without further delays.

Warm regards,
Jean Bedord

Cupertino resident

CC 06-21-2023
Item #2
Restoration and
Potential Future
Development of the
Lehigh Quarry
Written Communications
From: Cathy Helgerson
To: Salisbury, Robert; Supervisor Joe Simitian; Loquist, Kristina; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; City Clerk; Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan; Liang Chao; J.R. Fruen; Kitty Moore; John Marvin; McCann, Lisa@Waterboards Subject: Re: EIR scoping meeting for SCQ Use Permit and Reclamation Plan Amendment application Date: Saturday, June 17, 2023 6:09:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
Regarding the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Stevens Creek Quarry Use Permit and Reclamation Plan Amendment Project dated May 25, 2023 I have read this notice. I do believe that the public has a right to view the new use permit application 2024 and the new reclamation plan amendment 2024 proposed by Stevens Creek Quarry Inc. The Stevens Creek Quarry has been operating without a use permit for way too many years and it is time to end the life of the quarry and the operations that have polluted the Air, Water, and the Soil. The Steven Creek Reservoir, Rattlesnake Creek and Swiss Creek have been polluted and it seems that it is up to the public to voice their concerns in order to put a stop to this ASAP. They have been in violation of may regulations and with the pollution that this quarry and the recycling of concrete it needs to be closed down.

Robert Salisbury representative in charge says that he wants from the public their input and comments by June 29, 2023 pertaining to an Environmental Report and this EIR - Environmental Impact Report will be prepared by Santa Clara County. How so? The Notice of Preparation states that Santa Clara County will prepare the use permit and the reclamation plan amendment and the EIR - Environmental Impact Report the question is what has
Stevens Creek Quarry submitted? The use permit application (new) and the reclamation plan amendment (new) should have been submitted to Santa Clara County and that the public should
have been allowed to review the paperwork and comment. Usually EIR's come in after all that has taken place and the State Regional Water Quality Control Enforcement Division and the Bay Area Air Quality Control Division are involved in the EIR process and have a set of rules and regulations that adhere to this process. I have included the BAAQMD & SRWQCED persons in
this e-mail in order to notify them that the public wants complete transparency regarding the Steven Creek Quarry and any future developments that may come up.

I do not understand what is really taking place here Santa Clara County (Robert Salisbury) want to know what the public wants in the EIR - Environmental Impact Report the standards that
pertain to EIR's should be obvious based on the rules and regulations that the SRWQCED and the BAAQMD have in place and they should be the ones overseeing the EIR to determine what goes in it and how the pollution clean up is conducted in order to protect the public from any further harm.

I have tried over the many years of commenting and complaining about the Steven Creek Quarry all these years and it seems my comments and concerns have gone unheard and so now you want more comments where is this all getting anyone in the long run. Will Santa Clara County even look at the comments that the public submits and will they even add anything said
by the public to the use permit and the reclamation plan with EIR requirements? We the public want no more of this continued lack of enforcement and there's no way that SCQ can justify its existence. Human lives are more important than Steven Creek Quarry mining and recycling of concrete. I would also like to add that the City of Cupertino's compost are on Stevens Creek Quarry land be closed down and the State Regional Water Quality Control Enforcement Division has mentioned this compost area in its writings and the know pollution in
this is the time to stop providing compost to the public that is mixed with overburden from SCQ.

I did not attend the Public Scoping/Community Meeting because it was at night and I felt Zoom was not to be an option. I feel that meetings now need to be in person. The evening meetings
are right in the middle of commute time and it is also difficult for senior persons to attend these meetings in the evening. I will attend meetings held in the day time and ask that SCC conduct
these meetings in the day time to accommodate the public as a whole.

I will be commenting as soon as I get a reply from SCC regarding my concerns and as soon as I can review the paperwork that needs to be provided to the public as I stated above prior to the EIR issuance. Please provide a location of the information I requested on the web and see that the public and agencies receive this information.

Thanks,
Cathy Helgerson - Environmental Enforcement Advocate
CAP - Citizens Against Pollution
408-253-0490
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 6:00 PM Salisbury, Robert <[email protected] >
wrote:

Stevens Creek Quarry Interested Parties:

The County of Santa Clara is preparing an Environmental Impact Report for the Stevens Creek Quarry Use Permit and Reclamation Plan Amendment application, and an EIR scoping meeting via Zoom
has been scheduled for this project on Tuesday, June 6 at 6 PM.

At this meeting, we will provide a brief overview of the project and then hear comments from the public and stakeholders on the topics that the required EIR should analyze. If you would like to provide input on the EIR for the project, please attend the scoping and/or send your comments to me via email, no later than June 29, 2023, at 5 PM.

Please see the attached Notice of Preparation for further details.

Kind regards,

Robert Salisbury, Principal Planner
County of Santa Clara Planning Office
70 W. Hedding Street, East Wing, 7th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110
email: [email protected]
Phone: (408) 299-5785

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.

Please visit our website.

Click here to look up unincorporated property zoning information.

Questions on the status of your permit? Please e-mail: [email protected]

From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #2, Lehigh 6/21/23
Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 4:01:26 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,
Agenda Item #2, Lehigh I ask that the agreement be amended so that the cancelation provision is extended from 60 days to 6 months and happens through a vote of the city council.

Thanks,
Rhoda fry
CC 06-21-2023
Item #5
Second
Amendment to
Professional
Services Agreement
Moss Adams
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #5, yes to extending Moss Adams contract June 21 2023 Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 4:21:14 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 Council,

Regarding Agenda Item #5, yes to extending Moss Adams contract June 21 2023. Moss Adams has provided valuable input. We should continue gaining more insights as to how our City can be better run.

However, I am disappointed that the City Staff has not made it a priority to implement a number of the recommendations in place. Can you please ask staff to present to City Council a table of the Moss Adams recommendations along with which ones have been completed and which ones have yet to be completed (or have no plan to be completed). The Grand Jury report had criticized the City for not implementing their advice and I haven’t seen any focus from this City Council for doing it.

I am further dismayed that we are continuing to not receive accounts payable timely and that there continue to be massive expenditures by City Staff that are not appropriately being approved by our City Council. Especially now, we need to be more careful with the public’s money.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
CC 06-21-2023
Item #6
Consider
authorizing City
Manager to
execute
agreement with The
Pun Group
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #6 kudos for selection of independent auditor Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 4:31:28 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 City Council,

Regarding Agenda Item #6 kudos for selection of independent auditor. Just wanted to thank staff for their recommendation. Per the guidelines, it was a good idea to not renew with Crowe. For similar reasons, it was good to not go with Maze.

In my opinion, the City Manager should not extend the contract for up to two years. This needs to go out to bid and come back to council.

PLEASE LOOK AT THE FINE PRINT!!! Year 1 costs $133,500. Years 4 and 5 are optional.

Year 5 will cost us $162,270!
This is a 21% increase of nearly $30K
(that’s a Shakespeare in the Park or a whole bunch of other community amenities).

Please, in FY 2024-25, we need to put this out to bid again. Please put it on your calendar now.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
CC 06-21-2023
Item #7
Consider To Be
Determined List
Written Communications
From: Pamela Wu
To: Liang Chao; City Clerk
Cc: Bikram Srivastava
Subject: RE: Request to put SB-403 on Council Agenda
Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 3:59:16 PM
Kirsten / Lauren – please follow up with Bikram.

Thank you

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

From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 3:43 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Bikram Srivastava <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Request to put SB-403 on Council Agenda

Ms. Srivastava,
An email cannot be read at the Council meeting unless you raise your hand when the item came up for public comment.

Pamela,
Please help direct Ms. Srivastava to any instruction on public comment in a Council meeting.

Thanks!

Liang

Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192

From: Bikram Srivastava <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 3:32 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Request to put SB-403 on Council Agenda

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.

Madam City Clerk,
I would like for this email to be read as part of the oral communications for agenda item 7 on my behalf.

Dear Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan and the City Council,
The residents of Cupertino are very concerned about a new bill SB-403 being rushed through the California legislature. This bill unfairly targets the Indian Americans & the Hindu community as presumptively guilty of caste discrimination.

We affirm that discrimination in any form is unacceptable, and must be addressed by the state. Existing California laws against discrimination list out the protected characteristics like race, national origin, ancestry, religion etc. They do not explicitly list specific groups, unlike SB-403 which has a focus on South Asians.

Singling out a specific minority community is unfair and the bill is not facially neutral.

The recent Carnegie Endowment survey shows that a majority of Indian Americans are not caste conscious with that number being higher among American born Indian Americans. Our children learn about caste in schools; they do not have any idea what caste they need to identify with, and we have no way to prove or establish our caste. Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen expressed the same concern about how to even define or determine someone’s caste (Youtube)
“I know a little about caste. What I've learned is if you ask five South Asians what caste is you get 15 different opinions about what it is. I know that there have certainly been discriminatory practices in societies all over the world since the beginning of time. As district attorney I'm focused on whether there is discrimination or hate crime or violence based on discrimination in my county and while there have been hate crimes committed in our County, I'm not aware of anything related to caste and hate crimes or criminal violations. And so I just wonder if the bill is necessary.

I'm also very concerned about anyone being stigmatized or any Community being assumed to be racist because they look a certain way or come from a certain place. And so one of the concerns I certainly would have about a bill that talks about caste discrimination is it strikes me as discriminating against Indian Americans and making them suspect in some way that others are not. “
Jeff Rosen, Santa Clara County District Attorney
The now withdrawn lawsuit by the CRD against two Cisco Engineering leaders confirms that caste discrimination is already illegal under the existing California law. SB403 itself contains language which says that it should not be interpreted that caste based discrimination is not already covered. We do not require a new law which specifically targets the South Asian community, which will be affecting our future generations and subjecting them to caste scrutiny because of their descent.

We petition Cupertino City Council under the Cupertino Municipal Code

2.08.030 to study SB-403 and put it on the agenda ASAP to give us an opportunity to express our concerns. We also ask that the council pass a resolution condemning it on our behalf.

The matter is urgent as the SB-403 is being unfairly fast tracked to avoid public scrutiny. It already went through Senate Judicial review, Budget review and Senate vote in less than 2 months and is being rushed through the Assembly.

Most of the contents read above have already been sent to you in writing which I have also attached to this email here. That email was on behalf of myself and 69 other residents of Cupertino. That email was not acknowledged.

I urge you now to please schedule a special meeting with this topic being the only item on the agenda ASAP.

Thanks,
Bikram
From: Vikram Saxena
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Cc: City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Request to put Resolution against SB403 on City Council Agenda ASAP Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 3:57:06 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.

Dear City of Cupertno City Clerk,
Please include the following as a part of the oral communications for agenda item 7 for today's meeting on my behalf.

Dear Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan and the City Council,
I am writing to you to ensure that we discuss the issue of a resolution against SB403 in Cupertino city council as soon as possible.

The bill is being rushed through the legislative process without due diligence or understanding of the potential impact. Hence, time is of the essence.

Existing California laws against discrimination list out the protected characteristics like race, national origin, ancestry, religion etc. They do not explicitly list specific groups, unlike SB- 403 which has a focus on South Asians. An equivalent statement would be a law which explicitly states that "Christians have a long history of anti-semiticism leading to the Holocaust by the Germans" or "Taiwanese born people discriminate against PRC-born Chinese"
Our laws are meant to protect our residents from discrimination, they are not meant to label a particular group as discriminatory. Singling out a specific minority community is unfair and the bill is not facially neutral. Our US born children do not understand or identify with caste.

Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen expressed the same concern about how to even define or determine someone’s caste (Youtube
)
“I know a little about caste. What I've learned is if you ask five South Asians what caste is you get 15 different opinions about what it is. I know that there have certainly been discriminatory practices in societies all over the world since the beginning of time. As district attorney I'm focused on whether there is discrimination or hate crime or violence based on discrimination in my county and while there have been hate crimes committed in our County, I'm not aware of anything related to caste and hate crimes or criminal violations. And so I just wonder if the bill is necessary.

Regards,
-Vikram Saxena
From: S B
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Cc: City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Re: Residents Petition (Municipal Code 2.08.030) for a resolution on SB403 Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 10:32:37 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.

Madam City Clerk,
I would like for this email to be read as part of the oral communications for agenda item 7 on my behalf.

Dear Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan and the City Council,

The residents of Cupertino are very concerned about a new bill SB-403 being rushed through the California legislature. This bill unfairly targets the Indian Americans & the Hindu community as presumptively guilty of caste discrimination.

The recent Carnegie Endowment survey shows that a majority of Indian Americans are not caste conscious with that number being higher among American born Indian Americans. Our children learn about caste in schools; they do not have any idea what caste they need to identify with, and we have no way to prove or establish our caste. Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen expressed the same concern about how to even define or determine someone’s caste (Youtube
)
“I know a little about caste. What I've learned is if you ask five South Asians what caste is you get 15 different opinions about what it is. I know that there have certainly been discriminatory practices in societies all over the world since the beginning of time. As district attorney I'm focused on whether there is discrimination or hate crime or violence based on discrimination in my county and while there have been hate crimes committed in our County, I'm not aware of anything related to caste and hate crimes or criminal violations. And so I just wonder if the bill is necessary.

The now withdrawn lawsuit by the CRD against two Cisco Engineering leaders confirms that caste discrimination is already illegal under the existing California law. SB403 itself contains language which says that it should not be interpreted that caste based discrimination is not already covered. We do not require a new law which specifically targets the South Asian community, which will be affecting our future generations and subjecting them to caste scrutiny because of their descent.

We petition Cupertino City Council under the Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.030 to study SB-403 and put it on the agenda ASAP to give us an opportunity to express our concerns. We also ask that the council pass a resolution condemning it on our behalf.

I urge you now to please schedule a special meeting with this topic being the only item on the agenda ASAP.

Regards
Sashi
On Jun 14, 2023, at 5:45 PM, S B <[email protected]
> wrote:

Dear Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan and the City Council,

The undersigned residents of Cupertino are very concerned about a new bill SB- 403 being rushed through the California legislature. This bill unfairly targets the Indian Americans & the Hindu community as presumptively guilty of caste discrimination.

The recent Carnegie Endowment survey shows that a majority of Indian Americans are not caste conscious with that number being higher among American born Indian Americans. Our children learn about caste in schools; they do not have any idea what caste they need to identify with, and we have no way to prove or establish our caste. Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen expressed the same concern about how to even define or determine someone’s caste (Youtube) “I know a little about caste. What I've learned is if you ask five South Asians what caste is you get 15 different opinions about what it is. I know that there have certainly been discriminatory practices in societies all over the world since the beginning of time. As district attorney I'm focused on whether there is discrimination or hate crime or violence based on discrimination in my county and while there have been hate crimes committed in our County, I'm not aware of anything related to caste and hate crimes or criminal violations. And so I just wonder if the bill is necessary.

We petition Cupertino City Council under the Cupertino Municipal Code

2.08.030 to study SB-403 and put it on the agenda ASAP to give us an opportunity to express our concerns. We also ask that the council pass a resolution condemning it on our behalf.

There are a few more articles written widely on this topic:

1. Caste bill would harm California’s South Asian communities: Legislation may be well-intended, but the unintended negative consequences are enormous.

By Barbara McGraw The Mercury News
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/04/20/opinion-caste-bill-would-harm- californias-south-asian-communities/

2. Preliminary Thoughts on Potential Constitutional Flaws in SB 403, a California Proposal to Prohibit Caste Discrimination by Vikram David Amar https://verdict.justia.com/2023/05/16/preliminary-thoughts-on-potential- constitutional-flaws-in-sb-403-a-california-proposal-to-prohibit-caste- discrimination

3. Why California’s caste discrimination bill is itself discriminatory. Suhag Shukla
https://religionnews.com/2023/05/17/why-californias-caste-discrimination-bill-is- itself-discriminatory/

4. Not all California innovations are good: stop SB 403. Samir Karla. Capital Weekly.
https://capitolweekly.net/not-all-california-innovations-are-good-stop-sb-403/

5. A letter from HAF (Hindu American Foundation) that articulates the problems with this bill.
https://www.hinduamerican.org/say-no-to-sb403

6. Carnegie Endowment Survey
https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/09/social-realities-of-indian-americans- results-from-2020-indian-american-attitudes-survey-pub-84667

7. Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen's views on SB-403:
https://youtu.be/_41wmoXLHms?t=22

We strongly urge the City of Cupertino to oppose SB-403.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely (70 Cupertino Residents Signed this petition - listed in alphabetical order of first names)

1. Ajay Agarwal

2. Ajith Dasari

3. Akshara Barulkar

4. ALN Reddy

5. Anirudh Viswananthan

6. Archana Panda

7. Ashwin Krishnan

8. Chitra Iyer

9. Debjyothi Paul

10. Deepak Sherlekar

11. Durgesh Srivastava

12. Girish Thobi

13. Gita Rayanker

14. Govind Tatachari

15. Hetal Panchal

16. Indu Raina

17. JY Bharadwaj

18. Krithika Srinivasan

19. Latha Recharla

20. Madhuri Dubey

21. Manish Gajjar

22. Meena Vijekar

23. Meeta Upadhyay

24. Mita Mohanty

25. Muni Madhdhipatla

26. Namita Kumar Sripathi

27. Neha Raina

28. Nirmalendu Das

29. Nirupama Chiplunkar

30. Nivedita Archarya

31. Prabha Krishnaswami

32. Prabhir Mohanty

33. Pradeep Dubey

34. Prakash Ranade

35. Pallavi Kumar Sripathi

36. Praveen Mohanan

37. Radha Narayanan

38. Rajesh Narayanan

39. Ram Sripathi

40. Ranjan Desai

41. Rattan Raina

42. Ravi Kale

43. Ravi Kiran Singh

44. Rishita Madhdhipatla

45. Ritvik Madhdhipatla

46. Sagorika Das

47. Sahana Narayanan

48. Sai Mylavarapu

49. Santosh Rao

50. Sarika Agarwal

51. Sashi Begur

52. Satyen Kansara

53. Seema Bharadwaj

54. Senhal Panchal

55. Shreyas Karthik Vakkalanka

56. Siddarth Viswanathan

57. Sonali Padgoankar

58. Sravya Vakkalanka

59. Sudeep Kumar

60. Supreeth Rao

61. Sumedha Sherlekar

62. Surya Vakkalanka

63. Sushma Ranade

64. Susmitha Vakkalanka

65. Thirupathaiah Gande

66. Uday Barulkar

67. Venkat Ranganathan

68. Venki Ayalur

69. Vikram Saxena

70. Vishi Iyer
CC 06-21-2023
Item #7
Consider To Be
Determined List
Written Communications
From: Munisekar
To: City Clerk
Subject: Oral Communications on 6/21/2023.

Dear City Clerk,
I am registered to attend the City Council meeting tomorrow; I plan to speak during Oral Communications asking the city to Oppose Discriminatory Law SB403.

I would like you to play the following clip during my Oral at my prompting. https://youtu.be/_41wmoXLHms?t=22
Please keep the above video clip queued up for Orals.

Thank you.

Muni Madhdhipatla
Cupertino Resident
From: Uday Barulkar
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Request to put SB-403 on Council Agenda - Call to action today! Email 3 Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 8:23:40 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 the City Council,

The undersigned residents of Cupertino are very concerned about a new bill SB-403 being rushed through the California legislature. This bill unfairly targets the Indian Americans & the Hindu community as presumptively guilty of caste discrimination.

The recent Carnegie Endowment survey shows that a majority of Indian Americans are not caste conscious with that number being higher among American born Indian Americans. Our children learn about caste in schools; they do not have any idea what caste they need to identify with, and we have no way to prove or establish our caste. Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen expressed the same concern about how to even define or determine someone’s caste (Youtube
)
“I know a little about caste. What I've learned is if you ask five South Asians what caste is you get 15 different opinions about what it is. I know that there have certainly been discriminatory practices in societies all over the world since the beginning of time. As district attorney I'm focused on whether there is discrimination or hate crime or violence based on discrimination in my county and while there have been hate crimes committed in our County, I'm not aware of anything related to caste and hate crimes or criminal violations. And so I just wonder if the bill is necessary.

There are a few more articles written widely on this topic:

1. Caste bill would harm California’s South Asian communities: Legislation may be well- intended, but the unintended negative consequences are enormous. By Barbara McGraw The Mercury News
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/04/20/opinion-caste-bill-would-harm-californias-south- asian-communities/

2. Preliminary Thoughts on Potential Constitutional Flaws in SB 403, a California Proposal to Prohibit Caste Discrimination by Vikram David Amar
https://verdict.justia.com/2023/05/16/preliminary-thoughts-on-potential-constitutional-flaws- in-sb-403-a-california-proposal-to-prohibit-caste-discrimination

3. Why California’s caste discrimination bill is itself discriminatory. Suhag Shukla https://religionnews.com/2023/05/17/why-californias-caste-discrimination-bill-is-itself- discriminatory/

4. Not all California innovations are good: stop SB 403. Samir Karla. Capital Weekly. https://capitolweekly.net/not-all-california-innovations-are-good-stop-sb-403/

5. A letter from HAF (Hindu American Foundation) that articulates the problems with this bill.
https://www.hinduamerican.org/say-no-to-sb403

6. Carnegie Endowment Survey https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/09/social-realities-of- indian-americans-results-from-2020-indian-american-attitudes-survey-pub-84667

7. Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen's views on SB-403:
https://youtu.be/_41wmoXLHms?t=22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_41wmoXLHms&t=22s&authuser=0 We strongly urge the City of Cupertino to oppose SB-403.

Thank you very much.

From: Debra Nascimento
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Oppose SB-403
Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 6:21:25 PM

Debra Nascimento
Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-1302

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 6:17 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Oppose SB-403

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.

Madam City Clerk,
I would like for this email to be read as part of the oral communications for agenda item 7 on my behalf.

Dear Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan and the City Council,

We affirm that discrimination in any form is unacceptable, and must be addressed by the state.

Existing California laws against discrimination list out the protected characteristics like race, national origin, ancestry, religion etc. They do not explicitly list specific groups, unlike SB-403 which has a focus on South Asians. Singling out a specific minority community is unfair and the bill is not facially neutral.

The recent Carnegie Endowment survey shows that a majority of Indian Americans are not caste conscious with that number being higher among American born Indian Americans. Our children learn about caste in schools; they do not have any idea what caste they need to identify with, and we have no way to prove or establish our caste. Santa Clara County DA Jeff Rosen expressed the same concern about how to even define or determine someone’s caste (Youtube )
“I know a little about caste. What I've learned is if you ask five South Asians what caste is you get 15 different opinions about what it is. I know that there have certainly been discriminatory practices in societies all over the world since the beginning of time. As district attorney I'm focused on whether there is discrimination or hate crime or violence based on discrimination in my county and while there have been hate crimes committed in our County, I'm not aware of anything related to caste and hate crimes or criminal violations. And so I just wonder if the bill is necessary.

Jeff
Rosen, Santa Clara County District Attorney

I urge you now to please schedule a special meeting with this topic being the only item on the agenda ASAP.

Regards,
Chitra Iyer
Cupertino Resident since 2004.

CC 06-21-2023
Item No. 8
Consider approval of the
May 16 City Council
minutes
Written Communications
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: Kitty Moore
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: Item 8 20230621 FW: 2023-06–6 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 2-May 16 Minutes Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 9:38:49 PM
Attachments: image021.png
image022.png
image023.png
image024.png
image025.png
image026.png
image027.png
image028.png
image029.png
image030.png
image031.png
image032.png
image033.png
image034.png
image035.png
image036.png
Councilmember Moore, your comments will be included as requested.

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

From: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 9:01 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 8 20230621 FW: 2023-06–6 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 2-May 16 Minutes

Dear City Clerk,

Please add the following to the written communications for Item 8.

Thank you,

Kitty Moore

Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
From: Peggy Griffin <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 2:44 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 2023-06–6 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 2-May 16 Minutes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING EMAIL AS PART OF THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM #2.

Dear City Council and City Staff,

In the Meeting Minutes for the May 16, 2020 City Council Meeting, under CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 2-12), second paragraph it states “Peggy Griffin was concerned about the conformity of accounts payables and treasurers reports…”

For the record, I’d like this email and the following text to be placed in Written Communications for ITEM2 Approval of the May 16, 2023 Minutes to clarify exactly my concerns.

I’d like to bring these violations listed below to your attention.

In the May 16, 2023 Cupertino City Council Agenda, it includes the March 2023 Monthly Treasurer’s Report (Agenda Item #18) which is late and violates both Cupertino municipal code and California state law. This is not the first time since December 2022. They are continually late.

I-Violation of Municipal Code Section 2.24.030 Monthly Reports and California Government Code Section 41004.

The May 16, 2023 Cupertino City Council Agenda Item #17 “Receive the Monthly Treasurer’s Investment Report for March and April 2023”, the March 2023 Monthly Treasurer’s Investment Report is late.

II-Violation of California Government Code Section 53607, Cupertino Municipal Code 2.24.050 and the Cupertino Investment Policy
This is an excerpt from the top of the December 2022 Monthly Treasurer’s Investment Report. This is included in every Monthly Treasurer’s Investment Report as background information.

Link to current and about to be updated Cupertino Investment Policy https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11960748&GUID=32777BC5-C26B-4777-AFD8- 125ECE8D6F2D&G=74359C04-A5F0-4CB2-A97A-0032996BB90E

Last year, the Cupertino Audit Committee chaired by Councilmembers Moore and former Councilmember Paul worked to get our city into compliance with these laws. Since their removal from this committee the city Treasurer has fallen out of compliance despite their response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) report “Show Me the Money”.

Link to the CGJ’s report “Show Me the Money”
https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/Show%20Me%20the%20Money%20- %20Financial%20Transparency%20Needed.pdf

Link to City of Cupertino’s Response to the CGJ’s report “Show Me the Money” https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2023/Show%20Me%20the%20Money-City%20of%20Cupertino.pdf

In summary, Mayor Wei and the city staff decide when and what appears on each City Council Agenda. With regard to these reports, they have the duty and obligation to follow state and municipal code by ensuring these documents are included on the agenda in a timely manner yet they chose not to do so.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 06-21-2023
Item #9
Receive the FY 2021-22
Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council Meeeting June 21, 2023 Agenda #9 AFCR Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 4:02:28 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.

SUMMARY FOR MINUTES: Rhoda Fry requested that staff fix errors in the AFCR.

Dear City Council,

I am dismayed to see the AFCR once again on the consent calendar. The AFCR is like a company’s Annual Report. It is important. It was pulled off of consent at the previous meeting and there was no time to discuss or present it. So, it was deferred to June 21, 2023 - - - but as a consent item, not an agenda item. I was extremely disappointed to see that it was not placed on the regular Agenda and hope that this was a mistake.

I am writing you again regarding the AFCR. It is good to see that an error that I had pointed out during an Audit Committee meeting was corrected. The earlier version of the document said that the City Treasurer is selected by the City Council and, to my knowledge, this has not been the case for at least 50 years. Doesn’t anyone check these documents for accuracy?

This document covers the time period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022.

The document states that a number of retailers are part of a “vibrant downtown area,” however, many of these stores were long closed:

Doppio Zero closed in 2020.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/22/doppio-zero-pizzeria-restaurant-opens-in-concord- closes-in-cupertino/
Stein Mart closed in 2020.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/stein-mart-to-close-279-locations-through-going- out-of-business-sales-301111732.html
Target Express was also closed during the entire reporting period https://patch.com/california/cupertino/target-plans-close-one-cupertino-location-report and there’s more.

The document also lists Seagate as a “top employer,” but relies on old data because Seagate moved out in 2020. Seagate is also highlighted as a high-tech giant in Cupertino.

This is wrong. I won’t complain about this again. I already have during audit committee meetings and City Council meetings. Don’t you think we need to get the facts right?

Please also see my commentary from June 6 below.

Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry

--- comments from June 6 City Council pertaining to AFCR Dear City Council,

SUMMARY FOR MINUTES: Rhoda Fry requested that staff fix errors in the AFCR.

This item first showed up as an information item. It is one of the City’s most important documents and we were unable to comment on it. Now it is back on the consent calendar, where we are also unable to comment on it unless a council member removes it from consent calendar. This implies that our City’s leadership does not want this important document to be discussed and that concerns me.

The AFCR is similar to a corporation’s annual report. It is an important financial document. In order for it to be credible, it must be correct. There continue to be serious errors in this document that reduce the credibility of this document. Please direct staff to correct this document. I have already asked several times (including in the audit committee).

Please also refer to my letter from May 16 2023 below.

Regards,
Rhoda Fry

City Council May 16 Agenda #21 AFCR must be an Action Item, not Informational Item Dear City Council,

I am dismayed to see that Agenda #21 AFCR is an informational item. This item must be discussed as an action item. It is important to note that the auditor, not City staff, found three deficiencies, one of which could cause UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTIONS.

How can we verify that there have been no unauthorized transactions?

As recommended by the report, please specify what the City has done to ensure the segregation of duties as recommended in the report and that all issues raised have been resolved. Please read the letter from Crowe llp.

I attended the Audit Committee wherein an earlier version of this document had been presented. It contained information that was easily 50 years out of date. It had said that the City Council appointed the City Treasurer and to my knowledge this has not happened in fifty years. It is good to know that I was heard and this error was corrected. Does anyone actually verify these reports?

Nevertheless, other errors remain and some were discussed in the meeting. There is no mention that Target at Main Street has closed. Doppio Zero restaurant is listed as one of the successful restaurants but it closed in 2020. The document also mentions Stein Mart as one of our retailers, which also closed in 2020. Likewise, page 108 mentions Seagate as being the 8 th
largest employer in Cupertino – to my knowledge, Seagate moved out around 2020. I am not about to vet this entire document. What I do know is that it has errors and that worries me.

At the meeting, I also mentioned my concern about the CDTFA audit, which is lacking in this otherwise rosy report. This statement in the cover letter dated March 31, 2023 simply does not pass the straight face test: “Given these trends, the City’s sales tax revenue is projected to show a more modest increase going forward.” The report covers the time period to June 30, 2022 and at that time the CDTFA issues were known. Page 59 of the report mentions the probable reallocation of sales and use taxes – why was it omitted on the cover letter? As we know, this is a really big deal.

One of my questions at the audit committee was that the cost of Administration more than doubled from 2021 to 2022. Although the report makes some mention as to items that contributed to the increase, I would like to know how we got to double. At the meeting, Councilmember Mohan was kind enough to assure me that I would receive an answer to my question. This question remains unanswered. Note also that recreation and community services expenses quadrupled and I suppose that activities might still have been on hold in 2021.

I also asked about having greater transparency for other amenities that had enterprise funds in the past. Currently the only recreational facilities that are split out as enterprise funds are golf and sports center. Blackberry pool/picnic used to be combined with golf. But Blackberry pool/picnic never got its own fund and capital improvements there have been swallowed up under special projects, so we have no good visibility for its overall balance sheet. Similarly, the Senior Center had also operated as an enterprise fund and we have little transparency as to how much it is being subsidized. Especially now that we’re going to be tightening our financial belts, we need to have greater transparency.

Question – motor vehicle license fees increased by over 50%. Could that be that there were new vehicle purchases? If so, what happened to the old vehicles? Were they sold and where would that show up as income?

Please also take a look at the attached chart that shows City employment. Some areas have gotten quite fat over the years, especially Administration and Administrative services. This chart is worth looking at in the context of the budget.

Lastly, here’s my ask. Given that the scope of this report is quite narrow, we really need is a forensic auditor who can better organize our chart of accounts so that we have better transparency in order to make sound financial decisions.

Concerned Citizen,
Rhoda Fry
CC 06-21-2023
Item #10
Consider a proposed
mixed-use
redevelopment
project
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Cupertino City Council June 21, 2023, Item #10 De Anza Development Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 2:46:16 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 Council,
Regarding Cupertino City Council June 21, 2023, Item #10 De Anza Development.

I’m glad the trees in the back are being retained.

However, those have VERY SHALLOW ROOTS.

If the roots are cut, the trees could be harmed and it could be years before they die.

It is important to retain the privacy of the adjacent neighbors, consider adding conditions such as:

1. Retaining an arborist to determine safe areas for construction and mitigations

2. Post a 10-year bond for the planting of new trees if needed Thanks,
Rhoda
CC 06-21-2023
Item #13
Receive the Monthly
Treasurer's Report for May
2023
Written Communications
From: Griffin
To: City Council; Kristina Alfaro
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-06-21 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #13 Treasurers Investment Report for May 2023 Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 6:08:19 PM
Attachments: image0.png
Staff Report.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ANY ASSOCIATED ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear City Council, City Treasurer Alfaro and Staff,
The material for this agenda item #13 is missing the Staff Report. There has been and needs to be an explanation of why this report appears in the agenda, what Attachment A is all about and have it signed off by the staff member responsible, the City Treasurer.

Attachment A is NOT from the City Treasurer. It is the monthly statement from the investment consultant. It is not the responsibility of a contractor or the City Clerk. The City Treasurer needs to sign off on this information every month.

To quote the February 2023 Treasurers Report:
“The City's Municipal Code Section 2.24.050 Investment Authority states that the Treasurer shall make a monthly report of all investment transactions to the City Council. …
Per the referenced code provisions, a Treasurer's Investment Report shall be submitted to the … City Council every month.” Someone looking at this agenda item for the first time would not follow why it’s there. It appears as a random report with no explanation.

Also, when you look at the meeting details for this agenda item it says “Sponsors: Kirsten Squarcia” but this is the responsibility of the City Treasurer, not the City Clerk.

It is encouraging that these financial statements are starting to meet deadlines. Please include the Staff Report by the City Treasurer.

Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
P.S. Attached is a copy of the Treasurers Monthly Investment Report for February 2023 (Staff Report).

1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: April 13, 2023

Subject
Consider the Monthly Treasurer's Investment Report for February 2023

Recommended Action
Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Investment Report for February 2023

Reasons for Recommendation
Background
On May 19, 2022, the City Council approved t he City's Investment Policy. Per the City's Investment Policy , the Treasurer shall submit monthly transaction reports to the City Council within 30 days of the end of the reporting period per California Government Code Section 53607. In addition to the monthly transaction reports, quarterly investment reports are submitted to the City Council approximately 45 days following the end of the quarter.

The quarterly investment report offers a more extensive discussion of the City's economy, cash flow, and investments.

The City's Municipal Code Section 2.24.050 Investment Authority states that the Treasurer shall make a monthly report of all investment transactions to the City Council. Lastly, the City's Municipal Code Section 2.88.100 Duties –Powers–Responsibilities lists one of the powers and function s of the Audit Committee is "to review the monthly Treasurer 's report."

Per the referenced code provisions, a Treasurer's Investment Report shall be submitted to the Audit Committee and City Council every month.

Treasurer's Investment Report
The report provides an update on the City's investment portfolio for the month ending February 28, 2023. The report is as of March 22, 2023.

The attached statements include balances and transactions of the City's investments with the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and Chandler Asset Management. While not governed by the City's Investment Policy, statements for the Public Agency Retirement

2 Services (PARS) Section 115 Trusts are also attached per a request fro m the Monthly Treasurer's Report Subcommittee.

The City's General Ledger cash and investments balance was $227.0 million, a $3.0 million decrease from the prior month due to receipts of $3.0 million, disbursements of $(6.7) million, and journal adjustments of $0.6 million.

Cash and Investments – General Ledger Balance
Fund Type
Month Ending
January 31,
2023
Receipts Disbursements Journal
Adjustments*
Month Ending
February 28,
2023
General Fund 124,245,311 2,257,903 (5,088,916) 50,848 121,465,145 Special Revenue 43,941,431 153,325 (468,563) - 43,626,194 Debt Service 2,322,250 - - - 2,322,250
Capital Projects 38,731,638 462,480 (288,309) - 38,905,809 Enterprise 11,728,653 158,713 (344,838) 601,620 12,144,148 Internal Service 9,051,351 - (510,244) (8,417) 8,532,690 Total $230,020,633 $3,032,422 $(6,700,870) $644,050 $226,996,235 *Journal adjustments include transactions recorded in other systems and imported into the financial system, Council-approved budget adjustments, quarterly Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) charges, and quarterly interest earnings.

3 The $227.0 million in cash and investments includes $38.8 million in cash, $21.2 million in cash equivalents, $149.7 million in investments, and $ 17.2 million restricted for funding pension costs.

The City pools cash for all funds except restricted funds. However, the City accounts for interest earnings, revenues, and expenditures separately for each fund to adequately meet the purpose and restrictions of each funding source. Pooling funds is a common and appropriate practice used in public agencies. By pooling funds, the City can benefit from economies of scale, diversification, liquidity, and ease of administration.

4 Cash and Investments – General Ledger Balance
Month Ending
January 31, 2023
Month Ending
February 28, 2023
% of
Portfolio
Cash in banks and on hand

Operating Checking (Wells Fargo) 41,789,796 38,744,116 17% Workers' Compensation Checking (Wells Fargo) 20,262 41,845 0% Payroll Checking (Wells Fargo) - - 0%
Restricted for Bond Repayments1 (BNY Mellon) - - 0%
Petty Cash and Change 5,000 4,700 0%
Cash Equivalents
Local Agency Investment Fund 21,242,141 21,242,141 9% Investments
Investments (Chandler) 149,723,383 149,723,383 66%
Restricted for Pension2 (PARS) 17,240,051 17,240,051 8% Total Cash and Investments3 $230,020,633 $226,996,235 100% 1 Cash held by fiscal agent for bond repayments
2 In accordance with GASB 67/68, the assets in the Section 115 Pension Trust are reported as restricted cash and investments in the General Fund. The assets can only be used to fund CalPERS costs. 3 Assets in the Section 115 OPEB Trust are excluded as the C ity cannot use these assets to fund its own operations. The assets are held in trust for retirees' post-employment health benefits.

The table below shows the bank balances for the City's cash and investments. Bank and General Ledger balances differ due to timing. Bank balances do not include outstanding checks and deposits in transit. The General Ledger is updated quarterly with interest earnings and annually with the year-end investment market values.

Cash and Investments – Bank Balance
Month Ending
January 31, 2023
Month Ending
February 28, 2023
% of
Portfolio
Cash in banks and on hand
Operating Checking (Wells Fargo) 42,673,289 39,316,220 17% Workers' Compensation Checking (Wells Fargo) 25,873 42,812 0% Payroll Checking (Wells Fargo) - - 0%
Restricted for Bond Repayments1 (BNY Mellon) - - 0%
Cash Equivalents
Local Agency Investment Fund 21,281,569 21,281,569 9% Investments
Investments (Chandler) 148,742,480 147,258,241 65%
Restricted for Pension2 (PARS) 18,507,647 18,035,635 8% Total Cash and Investments3 $231,230,858 $225,934,478 100% 1 Cash held by fiscal agent for bond repayments

5 2 In accordance with GASB 67/68, the assets in the Section 115 Pension Trust are reported as restricted cash and investments in the General Fund. The assets can only be used to fund CalPERS costs. 3 Assets in the Section 115 OPEB Trust are excluded as the C ity cannot use these assets to fund its own operations. The assets are held in trust for retirees' post-employment health benefits.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
LAIF is an investment pool administered by the State of California Treasurer and governed by California Government Code. The City can withdraw funds from LAIF at any time. As a result, the City uses LAIF for short-term investment, liquidity, and yield.

The City's LAIF account had a balance of $21. 3 million. Interest is deposited quarterly .

The December interest rate was 2.07%.

Investment Portfolio
In FY 2018 -19, the City conducted a Request for Proposal (RFP) for investment management services and selected Chandler Asset Management . Under the City's Treasurer's direction, Chandler Asset Management manages the City's investment portfolio in accordance with the City's investment objectives. The City's investment objectives, in order of priority, are to provide:

 Safety to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio  Sufficient liquidity for cash needs
 A market rate of return consistent with the investment program

The performance objective is to earn a total rate of return through a market cycle equal to or above the return on the benchmark index. Chandler Asset Management invests in high- quality fixed-income securities consistent with the City's Investment Policy and California Government Code to achieve the objective.

The portfolio's market value was $147.3 million, compared to $148.7 million at the end of the pr evious month. The table below includes historical comparisons of the City's portfolio.

6 December 31,
2022
January 31,
2023
February 28,
2023
Market Value 147,282,846 148,742,480 147,258,241
Par Value 156,155,965 156,310,484 156,479,011
Book Value 155,929,700 156,105,058 156,193,550
Average Maturity 2.62 years 2.66 years 2.71 years
Average Modified Duration 2.28 2.28 2.32
Average Purchase Yield 1.70% 1.73% 1.81%
Average Market Yield 4.63% 4.39% 4.89%
Average Quality1 AA/Aa1 AA/Aa1 AA/Aa1
1 S&P and Moody's respectively

The portfolio's market value fluctuates depending on interest rates. When interest rates decrease after an investment is purchased, the market value of the investment increases.

In contrast, when interest rates increase after an investment is purchased, the market value of the investment decreases. At the time of purchase, the City intends to hold all investments until maturity, meaning that changes in market value will not impact the City's investment principal. If the market value decreases, the City will incur an unrealized loss. However, the loss will only be realized if the City sells its investments before their maturity. The market values for the portfolio were provided by Chandler Asset Management.

Section 115 Trust Investment Portfolio
The City established Section 115 Trusts to reduce pension rate volatility and pre -fund Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) costs. These trusts are a tax-exempt investment tool that local governments can use to set aside funds for pension and retiree health costs.

Contributions made to the trust can only be used to fund retirement plans.

Investments in the Section 115 Trusts are governed by separate investment policies, which are distinct from the City's Investment Policy . On December 6, 202 2, City Council approved the Pension Trust Investment Policy and OPEB Trust Investment Policy. Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) administer s the trust, while US Bank manages the investments in accordance with the approved investment policies.

Both Section 115 Trusts are invested in "balanced" portfolios. The investment objective is designed to provide a moderate amount of current income with moderate growth of capital. This type of investment strategy is generally recommended for investors with a long-term time horizon. The strategic asset allocation ranges for this investment objective are:

7 Asset Class Range Target
Equities 50-70% 63%
Fixed Income 20-40% 29%
Real Estate 0-15% 5%
Commodities 0-10% 2%
Cash 0-10% 1%

The Section 115 Pension Trust had a balance of $ 18.0 million, a decrease of $0.5 million from the prior month due to investment loss. The Section 115 OPEB Trust had a balance of $32.8 million, a decrease of $0.9 million from the prior month due to investment loss.

The one-month investment returns were -2.52% for both the Pension Trust and OPEB Trust.

Compliance
All of the City's investments comply with state law and the City's Investment Policy. In compliance with California Government Code 53646 (b)(3), the City maintains the ability to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________

Prepared by: __________________
Thomas Leung
Budget Manager

Reviewed by: __________________
Kristina Alfaro
Director of Administrative Services

Approved for Submission by: __________________
Pamela Wu
City Manager

Attachments:

A – Chandler Investment Report February 2023

8 B – Chandler Custodial Statement February 2023
C – PARS Pension and OPEB Account Statement February 2023 D – LAIF Account Statement February 2023

Cupertino City CouncilJune 21, 2023

Cupertino City Council
June 21, 2023