CC 2-21-2024
Written
Communications
Oral
Communications
From: j w
To: Melissa Robertson
Subject: Re: Urgent Appeal for Assistance - Unjust Retaliatory Fine and Violation of Rights==: Injustice over play house Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 3:09:57 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.
Thanks, I revised Mr. Dillinger to Marlene Dillinger below. (not a savor but the one requesting) On Tuesday, February 20, 2024 at 01:16:07 PM PST, Melissa Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning (Council Bcc’d),
Your comments have been received and will be included with the written communications for the February 21 City Council meeting under oral communications.
Thank you,
Melissa Robertson
Administrative Assistant
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-3148
From: j w <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 12:30 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Urgent Appeal for Assistance - Unjust Retaliatory Fine and Violation of Rights==: Injustice over play house
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 Councill,
I hope this message finds you well. We are reaching out to bring to your attention a pressing matter that requires your intervention and support. Our community has recently received an unexpected and unjust request to settle a loss of property and belongings, which has been exacerbated by the actions of the City's law firm.
Shockingly, without any prior notice, the City's outside law firm has taken the unprecedented step of obtaining a court order to impose a 'retaliatory' fine, doubling the initial loss. This alarming turn of events has left us in a state of immediate distress and deprivation of our rights.
We kindly request your assistance in speaking up for our community and raising awareness about the unfair treatment we are currently facing. The actions taken by the City's law firm are not only unjust but also serve to further strip us of our basic rights.
For additional details and to discuss potential avenues for resolution, please feel free to contact SMW Firm at 415-552-7272 and ask for Marlene Dillinger. Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated, as we urgently seek to rectify this situation and restore justice.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Huang Resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: j w <[email protected]
>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 04:33:26 PM PST
Subject: Fw: Injustice over play house
Please publish. Thank you!
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Andrew
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 03:33:35 PM PST
Subject: Injustice over play house
Dear council,
Please help this single mother facing the loss of her playhouse and belongings twice, this situation is already profoundly distressing. I urge you to consider the emotional and financial impact this matter has on the family (very young, very ill elder, no money for a roof, only able to patch the leaky park ) We kindly request that you prioritize a discussion on settling the matter before proceeding further with the proposed order. Since the beginning of this year, many requests, were made lasting several months We requested no more cost for each, and we were willing to compromise the belongings, but no there has been response, Now they enforce legal fees, while not allowing any voice. or resolution to the matter It is most disheartening that we must to remind all parties of the city's commitment to humanity, and justice which would entail the exclusion of legal fees Refer to matter . (Dept 6 judge Pennypacker)
Please find the attached document for your reference. Your understanding and cooperation in this matter are sincerely appreciated.
From: Deepa Mahendraker
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Do not de-fund cross guard
Date: Friday, February 16, 2024 8:46:34 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 Mayor Sheila, City Council, City Manager,
I request you to please kindly not cut the budget for pedestrian crossing guards at our Cupertino schools.
I see crossing guards and school fields are on the agenda for the CUSD-FUHSD meeting on Feb 16th. It appears the city may be considering cutting funding for crossing guards. I request council and staff to please not cut funding for crossing guards. School crossing safety is too important for the city to sacrifice in the name of cost cutting. We should be adding more crossing guards not less.
Please also do not cut field maintenance at school fields. Our school fields are vital to kids activities. They also serve as city local park space for families in the area. Please do not compromise the green space in our schools.
Thank you for prioritizing school kids pedestrian crossing safety and the maintenance and upkeep of school grounds.
Thank you
Deepa
Sent from my iPhone
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Agenda request for study session on draft Housing Element Date: Friday, February 16, 2024 2:27:57 AM
Please include the email below in written communication of the 2/21 Council meeting.
Thanks.
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 2:27 AM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Agenda request for study session on draft Housing Element
In the past year, there were two meetings where there was one item related to the Housing Element update. But, in neithor of the meeting, the draft Housing Element was in the agenda packet for the Council to deliberate and give direction on the draft Housing Element.
In the July 25 Council meeting, the only attachment to the agenda was a staff presentation. There was no staff report and the draft Housing Element was not included.
In the Jan. 17, 2023 Council Meeting, there was a consent agenda item, titled "Status update on the 6th Cycle Housing Element update", where the draft Housing Element was included basically as an information item before it is submitted to HCD.
As far as I know, there has never been any Housing Commission meeting or Planning Commission meeting where any draft Housing Element was on the agenda at all.
Therefore, up to now, there has never been one public meeting where any draft Housing Element was on the agenda for deliberation or for either any elected or appointed public officials to provide comment or direction.
I have looked at the practices in other surrounding cities, such as Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Milpitas, Palo Alto... in every city, their draft housing element was put on Council agenda. And the HCD comment letter is included so the Council can give direction or approve responses to HCD comments.
In fac, I see that one part of the staff recommendation is " authorizing the City Manager, or
designee, to respond to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HDC) findings letter dated January 10, 2023, and submit to HCD…”. This makes it clear that without authorization from the Council, the city manager cannot approve responses to the HCD comment. As we know that likely a large portion of HCD comments have to do with policy revision or policy addition, the City Manager has no authority to make such decision unless directed by the Council in a public meeting.
In NONE of the other cities, the Council is not allowed to even deliberate or give direction to the Housing Element until the day when the Housing Element is supposed to be adopted.
But I seem to feel that is the plan of the city staff in Cupertino.
I have been waiting for the draft Housing Element to come to the Council but it does not seem to happen.
Therefore, I feel that I need to make this formal request, even thought I thought I should not even have to make such a request since what I am requesting is a common process being used by every city I have looked at.
As I have pointed out, this is a time sensitive matter and this request should not be delayed.
Another good practice used by other cities is to schedule a Planning Commission meeting in the middle of the public commenting period, even when there is only 7-day commenting period.
This is a good practice as the public can get a staff presentation and get better understanding by questions from the public or the commissioners and hear answers.
If we do not schedule such a meeting and expect the members of the public to simply read a revision and be able comment, this would be unfair to the majority of the residents who are not policy wonks.
I hope that Cupertino would at least do the very minimum that every other city has done to
1. allow the Council to do its job to deliberate in public meetings on policy matters.
2. allow the public to ask questions and comment in public meetings on policy matters.
Thank you for offering transparency and accountability to Cupertino residents.
Liang
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 1:37 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Agenda request for study session on draft Housing Element
Please disregard the previous email.
It was sent by accident.
I'd like to request a standalone study session on the draft Housing Element as soon as possible.
Since this will be a standalone special meeting, it's schedule should not be impacted whether we can fit it on a regular council meeting agenda.
Since we are already more than one year past the original deadline of January 31, 2023, it's imperative that we schedule this study session as soon as possible.
Since the settlement with YIMBY Law, puts us on an expedited schedule, we should schedule this as soon as possible to help inform the public and help expedite the process.
Please also include the stipulated judgement with YIMBY Law in the agenda packet since it's public information.
No matter how many public meetings we claim we've had on the Housing Element, there has not even been one public meeting so far where the draft Housing Element was on the agenda in order to receive input from the Council or allow deliberation of the Council. Not even one.
Therefore, I feel that we are deceiving the public and not complying the state law by simply claiming that we've had X number of public meetings.
Any rationale that somehow a public study session on the most important document on the city's work program in the last two years would "slow us down" is "false belief" that somehow a public agency serving the public interest would be "more efficient" by conducting business without interference from the public.
We all know that what would really "slow us down" is often surprises when the public found out later that the public agency adopted laws they did not support.
Thus, I trust that the city staff of Cupertino would not support such "false belief".
This, I hereby request a study session on the draft Housing Element as soon as the third draft is ready and open for public comment.
Councilmember Moore,
Would you kindly second this request?
Sincerely,
Liang
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 1:22 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda request for study session on draft Housing Element
I'd like to request a standalone study session on the draft Housing Element as soon as possible.
L
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Cc: Pamela Wu
Subject: Fwd: Agenda request for study session on draft Housing Element Date: Thursday, February 15, 2024 1:40:21 PM
City Clerk,
Please enter this agenda request into the written communication for the 2/21 Council agenda since I expect to make this request at the meeting under the Future Agenda item.
Thank you.
Liang
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 1:37 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Agenda request for study session on draft Housing Element
Please disregard the previous email.
It was sent by accident.
I'd like to request a standalone study session on the draft Housing Element as soon as possible.
Since this will be a standalone special meeting, it's schedule should not be impacted whether we can fit it on a regular council meeting agenda.
Since we are already more than one year past the original deadline of January 31, 2023, it's imperative that we schedule this study session as soon as possible.
Since the settlement with YIMBY Law, puts us on an expedited schedule, we should schedule this as soon as possible to help inform the public and help expedite the process.
Please also include the stipulated judgement with YIMBY Law in the agenda packet since it's public information.
No matter how many public meetings we claim we've had on the Housing Element, there has not even been one public meeting so far where the draft Housing Element was on the agenda in order to receive input from the Council or allow deliberation of the Council. Not even one.
Therefore, I feel that we are deceiving the public and not complying the state law by simply claiming that we've had X number of public meetings.
Any rationale that somehow a public study session on the most important document on the city's work program in the last two years would "slow us down" is "false belief" that somehow a public agency serving the public interest would be "more efficient" by conducting business without interference from the public.
We all know that what would really "slow us down" is often surprises when the public found out later that the public agency adopted laws they did not support.
Thus, I trust that the city staff of Cupertino would not support such "false belief".
This, I hereby request a study session on the draft Housing Element as soon as the third draft is ready and open for public comment.
Councilmember Moore,
Would you kindly second this request?
Sincerely,
Liang
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 1:22 PM
To: Pamela Wu <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda request for study session on draft Housing Element
I'd like to request a standalone study session on the draft Housing Element as soon as possible.
L
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council Agenda Item Oral Communications 2/21/24 Vallco Concerns Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 12:59:44 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.
City Council Agenda Item Oral Communications 2/21/24 Vallco Concerns Dear City Council,
I have a number of concerns with the Vallco project:
1. The developer is not being community-minded by selecting the antiquated 2016 building codes for the entire project. Building codes are improved every 3 years. Since 2016, the codes have improved to require better energy-efficiency, zero net energy, solar, no gas, bird-safe, and enhanced fire codes. This is an environmental issue, a public safety issue, and an affordability issue. Please have this project use the most up-to-date building codes during each phase of its construction.
2. The project removes ~700 trees. That’s really bad. Even though trees are being replaced – they can’t truly be replaced. Please do what you can to prevent the loss of beautiful and unreplaceable mature trees.
3. Do know, that by reducing the height of some of its buildings to 85 feet, the developer will be able to take advantage of a new law (SB423) that allows SB35 projects to avoid using "skilled and trained" workers. That means the developer is not required to hire union labor.
Note also that the plan includes 200-ft high skyscrapers.
4. The project has fewer affordable units and fewer of those units are very affordable - a new law (SB423) reduces the affordability requirements. Sad.
5. It is shocking that this is an "SB35" projects, because these projects are not allowed to have hazmat - - - and there are at least 2 open cases for hazmat onsite. I hope that the County will make sure that the land is cleaned up to avoid health impacts (and I hope that the workers there have not been affected). I urge the City to support the County in protecting the public’s health.
6. The developer reneged on its promises to our community on Cupertino's Main Street project (and in multiple other cities). The affordable-housing needs to be built in advance of the more lucrative aspects of this project. I urge the City hold the developer accountable.
Sincerely,
Rhoda Fry
PS – see images from plan set below
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Liang Chao
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Assume Positive Intent, Respect Diversity and Treat Everyone Fairly Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 10:06:05 PM
Please enter this response into the written communication for Feb. 21 Council meeting.
I would like to submit my answers to the resident JB as written communication since other residents would likely have similar questions as JB and might be making certain false assumptions because of misunderstanding. So, I hope my answers help clarify things up. I have used the abbreviation JB and removed his/her email address.
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 7:33 PM
To: JB
Subject: Re: Cupertino Matters: TONIGHT - Planning Commission, Tues., Feb. 13,2024, 6:45 p.m.; RECAP - City Council, Tues., Feb. 6, 2024, 6:45 p.m.
Dear JB,
I was planning to attend the State of City Address this year.
But a meeting with a few UC Merced students was rescheduled to Thursday night last week.
Between attending a meeting, as one of 200 attendees, which I could watch on video afterwards and attending a meeting to help a few Computer Science students on their projects, I decided that my time is better spent at the meeting with students.
For me, attending a meeting just for publicity's sake is not a priority; for some others, it may be. I hope you understand that different councilmembers have different priorities and respect the diversity on the Council.
As for the City Manager's statement regarding my question at the last meeting on Feb. 6, I confirmed with her later that the answer she claimed was in the staff report and the fee allocation report was not even there. And at the same meeting, Councilmember Hung also asked questions when I knew the answer and in fact had screenshots of the answer in my notes. But the City Manager did not answer Hung's question with "it's in the staff report".
I don't have a photographic memory. When I study an agenda item, I often focus on certain aspects and skim through other aspects. But sometimes based on the comment from the public or other councilmembers, I might find that I wish to know certain information later. At a public meeting, whether any answer is in the agenda packet or not is irrelevant, providing the answers at the public meeting is more important, since the members of the public won't always read the agenda packet.
Thus, it really does no one any good to argue at a public meeting whether certain information was already provided in any report earlier.
In order to have a collaborative environment, we need everyone to assume positive intention and to treat everyone fairly.
I hope that you write your blog with the same mindset too.
Thank you.
Liang
Liang Chao
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: JB
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 7:01 PM
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Cupertino Matters: TONIGHT - Planning Commission, Tues., Feb. 13,2024, 6:45 p.m.; RECAP - City Council, Tues., Feb. 6, 2024, 6:45 p.m.
Councilmember Chao,
Missed you at the State of the City event last night. As a member of the public, I expect council members to support the current mayor and meet the community...there were over 200 attendees, not counting Zoom, YouTube and after-the-fact viewing. That's part of a council member's job.
In the future, please do your homework in advance of council meetings, and get questions answered before the meeting starts. Those of us in the council chamber on Feb. 6 did not appreciate the extra two hours to consider the Consent Calendar items that you pulled.
Unhappy resident,
JB
CC 2-21-2024
Item No. 2
Cessation of Hybrid
Commission and
Committee
Meetings
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Agenda Item #2 2/21/24- please reinstate livestreaming and recording of Parks and Rec Commission meetings Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 7:43:10 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,
Agenda Item #2 - please reinstate livestreaming and recording of Parks and Rec Commission meetings.
I was very upset that the City Manager made a unilateral decision to cease livestreaming and recording of Parks and Rec meetings without Council or public input.
The two top goals for our City listed in the budget are TRANSPARENCY and PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
Especially because the minutes for meetings have been thin, it is important that we have an actual record of what happened.
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
(ps, apologies if livestreaming and recording have already been reinstated. They should never have been taken away)
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-02-21 City Council Meeting ITEM2-Cessation of Hybrid Mtgs-WHAT WAS DECIDED? Date: Monday, February 19, 2024 9:59:27 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 INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ALL ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Mohan, Council Members and City Clerk,
REQUEST: Please provide some material, staff report, etc. to indicate what action the staff is recommending.
They were supposed to come back with options. The staff doesn’t like surprises and neither does the public.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-02-21 City Council Meeting ITEM2-Cessation of Hybrid meetings Date: Monday, February 19, 2024 9:50:35 PM
Attachments: 2024-02-06 ITEM11-Supplemental Reports (Updated 02-06-2024).pdf 2024-02-06 ITEM11-Staff Report.pdf
2024-02-06 ITEM11-Presentations (Updated 02-07-2024).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 ALL ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Mohan, Council Members and City Clerk,
During the Feb. 6, 2024 City Council meeting, agenda item 11, the Council instructed the staff to come back with some alternatives to eliminating the hybrid meetings for all commissions and committees due to an enormous pushback from residents. I saw this item as hopeful because it was being addressed early in the upcoming meeting but NO MATERIAL is provided-not even a revised Staff Report indicating what the staff decided! Nothing to indicate anything was done as requested.
NOTHING!
Due to this lack of response and information I have attached the materials from the 2-6-2024 Council meeting as part of Written Communication for this agenda item. That way, the public will at least see what was planned.
This is doing the public a dis-service. We do not have any indication of what is planned to be done, only that the item was continued.
From the lack of a revised Staff Report, it appears the staff did not go back and review the item and continues to proceed full speed ahead with cessation of hybrid meetings.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 02-06-2024
#11
Cessation of Hybrid
Commission & Committee
Meetings
Supplemental Report
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: February 6, 2024
Agenda Item #11
Subject
Cessation of Hybrid Commission and Committee Meetings
Recommended Action
Conduct City Council and Planning Commission meetings in a hybrid format while continuing to utilize in‐person only meetings for all other commissions and committee meetings.
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.
Q1: What other cities still offer hybrid meetings for commission meetings? (Chao)
A survey was conducted with nine cities, revealing that seven of them, namely Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Campbell, and Saratoga, have provisions in place to enable remote participation during certain Commission Meetings.
On the contrary, Milpitas and Los Gatos did not have such provisions available.
Q2: Please provide the number of views of commission meeting recordings. (Chao)
Following past practice, only Council or Commission meetings that are broadcast live on television are simultaneously streamed on YouTube. The table below displays YouTube views for Council and Commission Meetings that were streamed on YouTube during the period from November 2022 to July 2023.
2 Number of YouTube Views
Legislative
Body
Nov‐
22 Dec‐
22 Jan‐
23 Feb‐
23 Mar‐
23 Apr‐
23 May‐
23 Jun‐
23 Jul‐
23 Parks and
Recreation
Commission
49 42 * 87 69 98 60 78 *
Housing
Commission
91 City Council 857 1364 672 845 989 1164 1736 857 1995 Planning
Commission
71 58 45 80 177 56 138
*No Meeting
Q3: On the 2022‐23 Work Program agenda we had an item titled ʺHybrid Meeting for City Council and Commission Meetingsʺ with description ʺDevelop policy and infrastructure to allow hybrid meetings for both City Council, Commission meetings and future community workshops. This allows seniors, caretakers, parents with young children to participate and speak.” (Chao)
The 2022‐23 Q4 update shows that the item is ʺcompleted.ʺ
Could you please provide an update on what hybrid meeting options were considered during the 2022‐23 year?
The City explored hybrid meeting options from Zoom, Microsoft, and Cisco ultimately opting for Zoom due to its advanced features
and user‐friendly interface. Zoom also
seamlessly integrated with our TV broadcast solution. With Zoom chosen, we evaluated using Zoom meetings or webinars for public meetings. Zoom webinars were preferred for large audiences, audience control, registration, reporting, panelists, monetization, security, branding, and practice sessions, while Zoom meetings suited smaller, informal gatherings.
3 Q4: Could you provide a cost estimate for the requested options? (Chao)
4.1 The minimum option: post audio recordings and retain it for the meeting records.
An additional $50.00/meeting in staff time to trim recording and post audio recording.
4.2 Provide video recording (without call‐in option or any video operation): This could only need a stationary camera and a microphone to
record the meeting. But it is still a
good meeting record.
An additional $70.00/meeting in staff time to setup meeting, trim recording, and post video recording.
4.3 Provide audio‐only recording and hybrid option to allow call‐in: This would allow the seniors and families with young children to participate in the meeting.
4.4 Provide audio‐only recording and allow public comments to be read into the meeting records if submitted in time for an agenda item, this allows the public who cannot attend in person to participate. (But I am not sure if this might be easier to coordinate than Option 3)
For questions 4.3 & 4.4 the answer would be the same. $210 for first hour of the meeting, plus an additional $105 for each hour thereafter. Cost increase is due to at least one Video staff member being present.
4.5 Provide video recording with hybrid option with
minimal staff support: Most people
have experiences conducting zoom meetings nowadays. Provide trainings to Commission members and staff liaison to conduct zoom meetings without additional support. (We might need disclaimers that in case that hybrid meeting option will be best effort in case of technology issues.) This way we wonʹt allow rare technology issues to become roadblocks to regular hybrid video meetings.
An additional $70.00/meeting in staff time to setup meeting, trim recording and post video recording. Staff would strongly recommend against this procedure due to potential Brown Act Violations caused by technical difficulties.
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 6, 2024
Subject
Cessation of Hybrid Commission and Committee Meetings
Recommended Action
Conduct City Council and Planning Commission meetings in a hybrid format while continuing to utilize in‐person only meetings for all other commissions and committee meetings.
Reasons for Recommendation
In May 2023, the City Manager directed staff to cease hybrid (both remote and in‐ person) meetings for commissions and committees except for the City Council and Planning Commission, citing resource reallocation, public engagement metrics, and operational efficiencies. This report explains that decision and recommends the continuation of this in‐person only practice, ensuring the Cityʹs commitment to effective governance and fiscal responsibility.
Background
In 2020, responding to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the City initiated remote teleconference meetings for the Council, commissions, and committees, aiming to ensure the continuity of city governance while prioritizing public health. With the diminishing impact of the pandemic and the Cityʹs adaptation to the changing health scenario, a transition was made to hybrid meetings, accommodating both remote and in‐person participation for all legislative bodies. However, following Governor Newsomʹs declaration in February 2023, marking the end of California’s COVID‐19 State of Emergency, the City began moving to in‐person only meeting for meetings with low remote attendee participation. To ensure consistency, the City Manager, in May 2023, directed the cessation of hybrid meetings for all commission and committee meetings, except for those of the City Council and Planning Commission. This decision was reinforced by the observation that the average remote attendance for the City 2 Council and Planning Commission meetings was significantly higher than for other meetings. Additionally, these two meetings are the only meetings broadcast on television, which meant their continuation in a hybrid format required no additional staff resources or time.
Analysis
Our evaluation has revealed the following key points:
Resource Intensiveness: Each hybrid meeting necessitates extensive preparatory and follow‐up actions, including technological setup, active coordination, and subsequent video processing, which cumulatively demand a minimum commitment of two hours per meeting.
Overtime Implications: The execution of these tasks often extends beyond conventional work hours, leading to additional overtime remuneration for the staff involved. Minimum Cost = $210 / Meeting
Operational Challenge: In compliance with the Brown Act, the uninterrupted presence of video staff at hybrid meetings is vital. Their role is to ensure a stable Zoom connection to avoid potential meeting cancellations or postponements, thereby guaranteeing real‐time public access. A failure of the link requires immediate resolution to uphold the integrity of the meeting proceedings and legal compliance.
Low Public Engagement: The below data denotes the number of virtual attendees per meeting per month as well as when meetings transitioned to in‐person only.
Average Number Zoom Attendee by Month
Nov‐
22 Dec‐
22 Jan‐
23 Feb‐
23 Mar‐23 Apr‐23 May‐
23 Jun‐
23 Jul‐23 In‐
Person
Arts and Culture
Commission
2 * 3 * In‐
Person
Mar‐23
Public Safety 0 * 1 * In‐
Person
Mar‐23
Sustainability
Commission
* * 1 * In‐
Person
Mar‐23
Technology,
Information &
Communication
Commission
0 1 0 * In‐
Person
Mar‐23
Teen Commission 0 0 1 0 In‐
Person
Mar‐23
Administrative
Hearing Meeting
* * * 6 * In‐
Person
Apr‐23
3 Library Commission 2 2 * 1 * In‐
Person
Apr‐23
Audit Committee 2 * 8 3 4 3 2 * In‐
Person
Jul‐23
Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission
4 4 5 6 7 2 9 1 0 Aug‐23
Parks and Recreation
Commission
4 0 * 11 11 3 1 4 * Aug‐23
Housing Commission * 1 2 * 5 * 1 * * Sep‐23
City Council 62 49 43 27 113 56 74 48 253 N/A Planning Commission 17 5 3 9 17 6 9 * * N/A
No Meeting
The following chart illustrates the average number of remote participants per meeting during the period from November 1, 2022, to July 31, 2023.
Cost‐Benefit Assessment: The cost and staff time expended on facilitating Hybrid meetings are disproportionate to the level of public engagement observed.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the continued practice of conducting City Council and Planning Commission meetings in a hybrid format while continuing to utilize in‐person only meetings for all other commissions and committee meetings.
Sustainability Impact
No impact.
Fiscal Impact
No impact.
4 California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
____________________________________
Prepared by: Bill Mitchell, Chief Technology Officer
Reviewed by: Chris Jensen, City Attorney
Approved by: Matt Morley, Assistant City Manager
CC 2-6-2024
#11
Cessation Hybrid
Commission & Committee
Meetings
Presentation
Innovation & Technology
Cessation Hybrid
Commission & Committee Meetings
CC 02-06-2024 Item No. 11
Introduction
• Background
• Evaluation Criteria
• Recommendation
Background
• COVID-19
• Prioritize Health
• Uninterrupted City
Governance
• Rescind Emergency
Order
• Reevaluate
• Phased Transition
• Current Status
Background (cont'd)
• Resources
• Overtime Implications
• Operational Challenge
• Low Public Engagement
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria (cont'd)
Recommendation
Conduct City Council and Planning Commission
meetings in a hybrid format while continuing to
utilize in-person only meetings for all other
commissions and committee meetings.
Questions?
CC 2-21-2024
Item No. 6
Ratifying Accounts
Payable for December
29, 2023, January 5,
2024, January 12,
January 19, and January
26 Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council 2/21/2024 Agenda #6
Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 9:00:36 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.
Hi City Clerk,
Please add the following to my comment on City Council 2/21/2024 Agenda #6
Regarding the BMR Housing Fund #265 (the Below Market Rate Housing Fund) in the Accounts Payable agenda item #6 for City Council February 21, 2024, and going back to April of last year,
~$170K BMR money has been used for Legal Fees and the Settlement with California Housing Defense Fund and YIMBY (an organization with which Vice-Mayor Fruen has been associated).
The BMR Housing Fund 265 is funded by development mitigation fees with the understanding that BMR funds shall be used exclusively for BMR housing expenses.
Legal Fees and Settlement money are not BMR housing expenses.
WHY?
Requests:
1. Please do not approve Accounts Payable until the BMR issue is resolved
2. Please look at all transactions charged to BMR, adjust accordingly, return to council, and explain how funds were misallocated.
3. Please make sure that billings from law firms are split up in accounts payable so that it can be easily determined as to which fees went to litigation, housing element etc…
4. Please explain the mechanism by which City staff gave away the public’s right to CEQA for the Housing Element without public input
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Cc: City Attorney"s Office
Subject: Feb 21, 2024 Please remove #6 from Consent Calendar Date: Monday, February 19, 2024 6:27:16 PM
Attachments: Questions about Use of BMR Housing Fund 265.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,
Please print attachment as public comment for Agenda #6 for Feb 21, 2024 City Council Meeting
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
City Council February 19, 2024 Please Remove Agenda #6 from the Consent Calendar Please do not approve Agenda #6 Ratifying Accounts Payable until questions about the use of BMR Housing Fund 265 are answered. Also, please request staff to examine all uses of BMR Housing Fund 265 and report back at the next public City Council meeting.
Why was BMR Housing Fund 265 used for the City’s legal costs to
1. Settle with California Housing Development Fund and YIMBY?
2. Defend itself against California Housing Development Fund and YIMBY?
The BMR Housing Fund 265 is funded by development mitigation fees with the understanding that these funds shall be used exclusively for BMR housing expenses.
What was the Overall Cost to the City of the Lawsuit Anyway?
1. City contracted with Goldfarb and Lipman up to $50K. Billings from April 2023 through January 2024 add up to nearly $160K. How much of this was related to the lawsuit?
2. City paid California Housing Development Fund ($9000) and YIMBY ($6000)
3. Staff time
4. Was a unilateral decision made by staff to forgo CEQA, which had been promised to the Citizens of Cupertino? When did City Council get a say? (Vice-Mayor Fruen, who is associated with YIMBY was quoted in the news, “the city is right to welcome the result”)
265 BMR Housing Fund Definition (FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget page 100) • Accounts for activities related to the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program. • Revenues include BMR Housing Mitigation Fees collected from developers to mitigate the impact of housing needs.
• Monies in this fund are governed by the program's rules.
BMR Program Rules Restrict Fees to affordable housing (RESOLUTION NO. 20.055 page 4)
2.2.2 Permitted Use of Fees
A. Affordable housing mitigation fees deposited into the BMR AHF shall only be used for the provision of affordable housing in Cupertino.
B. The options for use of the fee revenue include, but are not limited to the following:
1. BMR Program Administration
2. Land Acquisition
3. New Construction
4. Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of buildings for permanent affordability
5. Preserving “at-risk” BMR Units
6. Substantial Rehabilitation
7. Rental Operating Subsidies
8. Down Payment Assistance
9. Direct gap financing
10. Fair Housing
C. A portion of the BMR AHF will be targeted to benefit the following groups, to the extent that these target populations are found, to be consistent with the needs identified in the nexus study:
1. Extremely low-income households and
2. Persons with special needs (such as the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities).
Settlement Fees in Accounts Payable Charged to BMR Fund
Selected Payments to Goldfarb & Lipman from Accounts Payable
Transactions charged to BMR Housing. These billings did not show up in PRA, perhaps they are for different services.
Transactions split between BMR Housing and General Fund. These billings did not show up in PRA, perhaps they are for different services.
Transaction charged to General Fund. Looks correct.
Do individual billings contain lawsuit services and other services?
Transaction charged to BMR Housing.
Transactions charged to BMR Housing. Invoice 465713 not part of PRA. Perhaps it is for other services. But all have the same description.
Transactions charged to BMR Housing.
Transactions charged to BMR Housing.
Transactions charged to BMR Housing.
Transactions charged to BMR Housing.
Note – 470095 & bills were not included in PRA. Perhaps these applied to other services? By looking at A/P, it should be possible to determine what costs are attributable what services.
Note – 463698 & 469494 bills were not included in PRA. Perhaps these applied to other services? By looking at A/P, it should be possible to determine what costs are attributable what services.
Goldfarb & Lipman Billing Summary obtained by transcribing receipts provided by PRA.
CITY OF CUPERTINO/ CALIFORNIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND AND YIMBY Date
Invoice
Number
Amount
in $
Accounts
Payable #
4/21/2023 463553 6748.82 36881
5/15/2023 464209 7062.00 37114
6/27/2023 464881 32850.00 37598
7/18/2023 465777 9185.50 37598
8/17/2023 466488 10172.00 37838
9/18/2023 467225 12093.50 38111
10/19/2023 467994 39173.00 38315
11/16/2023 468648 35050.00 38514
12/20/2023 469410 2607.00 38735
1/18/2024 470094 2282.00 38884
TOTAL $157,223.82
CC 2-21-2024
Item No. 8
Potential November
2024 Revenue Tax
Measure Opinion
Research
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council 2/21/2024 Agenda #8 - yes Forego opinion polling and additional efforts Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 8:36:56 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,
City Council 2/21/2024 Agenda #8 - yes Forego opinion polling and additional efforts I am glad you are considering this item. It is clear that a new ballot measure for sales tax would likely fail if it were placed on the November 2024 ballot.
However, I remain dismayed that the City had entered into a contract with TeamCivX, LLC to conduct Revenue Measure Polling and Consulting Services for a sales-tax measure in a contract not to exceed $170K BEFORE COUNCIL AGREED that the City should consider a sales-tax measure (rather than a parcel tax, business tax, hotel tax etc…). Note also that the majority of the business community ultimately wanted a hotel tax (although the survey was unclear and that 2 to 3% increase actually translated to a 25% increase in taxes). https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?
id=1059128&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino
The agreement was signed on 11/6/2023 but the City Council Meeting to determine the direction that staff should take was on 12/5/2023 agenda item #1.
This gives the appearance that City Staff regards our City Council and residents as irrelevant.
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-02-21 City Council Meeting ITEM8 - Potential Nov 2024 Revenue Tax Date: Monday, February 19, 2024 11:14:39 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.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ALL ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Mohan, Council Members and City Clerk,
I support the Staff’s Recommendation to stop pursuing a revenue tax for the November 2024 ballot.
I’d like to thank the staff and the consultant for deciding to NOT spending $71,000 extra we do not have to spend.
Instead, I and many people, would like to see spending stopped on the “extras” that continue to be charged, extra consultants, studies, agreements with groups for work that is beyond the approved work plan. How many lawyers and law firms do we need? Please review and cull these excesses.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
From: Long Jiao
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Cupertino Voice Survey Results for New Taxes
Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 9:10:42 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.
Dear City Council,
Please include this email as written communication for the City Council meeting on 02/21/2024, for agenda item #8.
Cupertino Voice is a group of Cupertino residents who care passionately about our community and the welfare of our city. We performed many surveys related to Cupertino issues. Please see https://cupertinovoice.org/?page_id=13 for a full list.
In January 2024, we performed a survey about the new taxes weighed by the City Council.
The survey was sent to about 15,000 registered Cupertino voters and people who subscribed to our surveys. We received 341 total responses, including 296 responses from registered Cupertino voters. Given there are a little more than 33,000 registered Cupertino voters, the margin of error is ±5.67% with 95% confidence level.
The conclusion is people who participated in the survey rejected most of the new taxes except the hotel tax.
But people who participated in the survey overwhelmingly (78%) agreed on a measure to reduce spending: “scale back the Staff Per 1,000 Residents to FY 2014-15 level”.
Please see https://cupertinovoice.org/?p=111 for detailed results.
Below is a table for the support level of each tax measure.
Measure Support Oppose Not Sure %Support
0.25% TUT 102 230 6 29.9%
2-3% Hotel Tax 254 77 6 74.5%
Flat Rate Parcel Tax 53 271 14 15.5%
Progressive Rate Parcel
Tax(*)
121 190 26 35.5%
Business Operations Tax 146 166 24 42.8%
Sincerely,
Long Jiao on behalf of Cupertino Voice
CC 2-21-2024
Item No. 9
Accept the City
Manager's Mid-Year
Financial Report for FY
2023-24
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-02-21 City Council Meeting ITEM 9-City Manager"s Mid-Year Report-OLD ITEMS? Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 2:13:34 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.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ALL ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM.
Dear Mayor Mohan, Council Members, Budget Manager Leung and Staff,
Thank you for providing Attachment C which contains the list of Carryovers and Adjustments. I see that the total of these items totals the $64M in carryovers mentioned in the Staff Report. In looking at the list in Attachment C, some of the items seem to have either been done already or cancelled due to the budget deficient. I don’t understand why funds are being “carried over” if the projects are done or sidelined.
Q0: Can items that are no longer planned or have been sidelined be marked as “DEFUNDED” and be subtracted from the totals?
When the city is financially able to do these items, it can re-fund them since costs will change over time.
My questions below are specific to Attachment C – Council-approved Adjustments, and Encumbrance Carryovers:
Q1: Do you have dates or years when each item first appeared on the list?
On Page 1
Q2: Is the City still planning to spend $19.4k on a new logo now? This is not necessary. Wasn’t it put on hold/sidelined?
Q3: $80k for what community survey?
Q4: ERP implementation. Adjunct Staffing? $720.8k…I thought all the work on the new Torre building that was purchased and supposed to house the ERC was stopped so why carryover the money?
On Page 2
Q5: New PT Business Systems Analyst position…I thought we were not hiring?
Q6: PR Strategy items totaling $175k…I do not remember the Council approving PR consultants.
Why does the city need a PR consultant when we have a Communications person?
Q7: Redesign of City Website…$104.4k…Again, why are we doing this if we are trying to save money?
Q8: Small to Medium Business Resiliency…$500k – When was this approved?
On Page 3 (top)
Q9: These are all Vallco Town Center costs. Are they old/outdated or is it really The Rise? Q10: Doesn’t the developer pay these costs directly? If not, what is the lag time between incurring the cost and the developer paying the city?
On Page 3 (bottom)
Q11: The Memorial Park Ponds have already been repurposed. Why is this $1.1M still being carried over?
Q12: Bike Plan Implementation $8.6M!!! This is HUGE! This must be the entire plan. What is the date this item was created?
The city does not need to implement the entire bike plan now. Which items have been sidelined? Defund them.
Q13: City Hall & Community Hall Improvements $454k…Is this really still being done?
On Page 4
Q14: City Hall Annex $1.9M…City Manager Wu said this has been stopped so why do you need $1.9M?
Q15: Full-size Outdoor Basketball Court is being used right now at Wilson Park. Is it not completed?
Q16: Library Expansion – We were told it was completed. What else is being done for $396k?
Q17: Mary Ave Protected Bikeway $49k…It’s done and being used. Why is this still here?
Q18: School Walk Audit Implementation $939.4k…Is this what is remaining to be done from the 2017 Walk Audit?
I realize this involves a lot of work from all departments to get to this point. I hope some of these items can be “defunded” or corrected if they are in error.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Kitty Moore
To: Pamela Wu
Cc: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar
Subject: Agenda Item 9 Information Request Written Communications Date: Monday, February 19, 2024 10:51:52 PM
Hi,
Beginning PDF 172 of the agenda packet there is a list of “Detailed Budget Carryovers, Council approved Adjustments, and Encumbrance Carryovers.” Please provide the year each was budgeted for and why the item was not removed from the budget. Several items appear to be needing revisions and a timeline to do so, can that also be provided.
Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: City Council 2/21/2024 Agenda #9 mid-year budget Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 9:57:34 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 Council,
Regarding City Council 2/21/2024 Agenda #9 mid-year budget I do not see any funds for art-in-lieu. My understanding is that some funds were earmarked for a project at Jollyman and other funds remain available. Can you clarify?
I am dismayed to see that the City is continuing to increase staffing in spite of budget shortfalls. Please explain.
I am also dismayed to see continued rampant spending in spite of budget shortfalls. Please explain.
Finally, keep in mind that the $30M shortfall is not explained in context. That number is used to compare our extraordinary sales-tax windfall during COVID. It wasn’t long ago that the City’s net sales tax income was around $24M. So please keep that in perspective.
Regards,
Rhoda Fry
Virus-free.www.avg.com
CC 2-21-2024
Item No. 10
Ordinance 24-2255
Administrative
Purchasing Policies
Written Communications