CC 12-20-2022 Late_Oral_Written CommunicationsCC 12-20-2022
Written Communications
Oral
Communications
From:Jenny Griffin
To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:City Council Meetings in January
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 9:22:16 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:
Do we know how the City Council meetings will be conducted in the
Month of January? The vote on the meetings was very confusing and did not
Seem to indicate to the public what the status of the meetings are.
I must say this City Council meeting tonight has been the weirdest City Council
Meeting I have attended in 22 years.
I have grave concerns about the public being able to attend the City Council meetings
Because they are being running so differently.
I guess the first question is how are the City Council Meetings being conducted in
January?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jenny Griffin
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Democratic Meetings
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:45:58 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.
FYI. Please add to the Public Record for the City Council Meeting. Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Democratic Meetings
From: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 7:43 PM
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org,planningcommission@cupertino.org,cityclerk@cupertino.org
CC: grenna5000@yahoo.com
Dear City Council:
Am I going to be denied the ability to see my City Council in action in my City Council
Chambers? I think that it is very important that we have hybrid meetings. People
Can attend on Zoom or in person. When does democracy begin again in our
City Council Chambers?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:John Zhao
To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Luke Connolly
Subject:Coordination between Housing Element and VTA Planning Processes?
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 8:02:54 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 Councilmembers, et al.,
I am writing to highlight that VTA has begun the planning process for their Visionary
Network (VN) [1] [2] and Valley Transportation Plan 2050 (VTP 2050) [3]. Given how
interlinked housing, transportation, and land use are, I believe it would be wise for the City of
Cupertino to coordinate its Housing Element planning with VTA. To my understanding, VTA
staff will be meeting with city staff to get an understanding of our city's needs.
I know that many community members are unsatisfied with VTA service in Cupertino. Is the
City planning to conduct any of its own community engagement to ensure that our
community's needs are addressed in this process?
Additionally, repeating my points in my previous email regarding Housing Element feedback,
I think that our Housing Element's site inventory and programs and policies should encourage
transit-oriented development, particularly along Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza
Boulevard, which have been designated as Priority Development Areas (PDAs) under MTC-
ABAG's Plan Bay Area 2050 (see map).
Thank you for your consideration. I hope we can collaborate within our city and with VTA to
plan sustainably for our future.
Sincerely,
John Zhao
From:Marilyn Beck
To:City Council
Cc:Neil Park-McClintick; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Re: Comprehensive redo of housing element draft needed
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:40:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe.
I also agree with Neil's careful and thorough analysis of the housing element draft.
My kids can't afford to live here, just like so many other young adults who grew up in Cupertino. I would love to see
more affordable housing options going forward.
Marilyn
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 7:09 PM Frank Geefay <fgeefay@gmail.com> wrote:
Neil,
Your comprehensive summery of the inequities of the current Housing Element draft is great and good enough to use
as an outline for the next draft redo. It has vision of what is needed for the sustainable growth of our city to reduce car
dependency and traffic by strategic walkable housing and shopping developments. Thank you.
Frank
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:44 PM Neil Park-McClintick <neil@cupertinoforall.org> wrote:
To:
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia
Councilmember JR Fruen
Mayor Hung Wei
Councilmember Liang Chao
Councilmember Kitty Moore
City Manager Pamela Wu
Councilmember Sheila Mohan
Comprehensive redo of housing element draft needed
From the beginning of the housing element update process, community members have repeatedly demanded an
ambitious, honest, and conforming process from the City of Cupertino. This means a resulting product that
realistically outlines a path forward for not only building 4,000+ homes, but also transforming the affordable
housing landscape for families across all incomes and backgrounds. However, this outcome is only achievable if
the leadership of Cupertino truly believes that the HE update is a unique opportunity of a lifetime, rather than a
burdensome task. The recently released housing element draft unfortunately seems to indicate the latter rather
than the former. If we wish to preserve any hope of dictating our own future as a community, Council and
staff must conduct a comprehensive redrafting process, with the following changes:
1.
Site Inventory: Reduce reliance on pipeline projects, expand the number of planned units in the “heart of
the city,” and avoid planning homes that are unlikely to be built. Nearly ⅔ of the planned inventory is
pipeline projects, with roughly 80% of those projects being Vallco and the Hamptons. The Hamptons in
particular is unlikely to actually be built out as 600 units, given no recent developer interest and recent
renovations from Irvine Company. Meanwhile, less than 5% of the inventory is composed of the heart of the
city, the main portion of Cupertino, where most development should be slated.
2.
Programs and Policies: Urge staff and consultants to focus on new policies and programs modeled after
other cities’ housing elements–with a framework of the 3 Ps in mind: production of homes, preservation of
existing homes, and protection of renters. Cities like Emeryville and Mountain View have robust policies for
all three of these planks. Cupertino’s current draft introduces few new policies, instead relying almost
entirely on our existing ones, which have obviously failed to meet our housing needs. Additionally, the draft
unnecessarily restricts proposed policies, such as only limiting parking requirements for SROs and studios,
instead of applying a reduction in parking to all new homes.
a.
Sample 1: Adaptive Re-use. The City will examine opportunities to allow for the adaptive
reuse/conversion or replacement of vacant or underperforming commercial spaces and
parking structures to residential units. The City will analyze the feasibility of an Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance that would target the conversion of select types existing structures and of
spaces that may include ground-floor retail in an existing mixed-use structure, part or all of an
office building or parking structure
b.
Sample 2: Live/Work Units. Assess existing Live/Work regulations to see if any modification
needs to be made to encourage development of Live/Work units in an effort to diversify the
City's housing types. Encourage the development or conversion of affordable live/workspace
units, and ensure owners of existing Live/Work units are aware of the Homebuyer Assistance
Program available for their unit when marketing their unit for resale, in an effort to expand
affordable homeownership options.
c.
Sample 3: Family Friendly Housing. Promote housing designs and unit mix to attract
multigenerational households by encouraging developers to include housing features and
more bedrooms (including four-bedroom units), as well as other on-site amenities, such as
usable outdoor open space for multigenerational use, and multipurpose rooms that can be
used for after-school homework clubs, computer, art, or other resident activities.
d.
Sample 4: The creation of a tenant relocation assistance ordinance. r more rental units have
been displaced because of renovations, redevelopment, and similar activities. The City’s
ordinance is intended to help lower income households with moving costs, deposits, and
securing replacement housing.
e.
Sample 5: Rental Preservation Program. The City will provide low interest rate loans to
existing rental property owners to improve the habitable condition(s) of their rental units
occupied by very low, low and moderate-income tenants. Performance Metric(s) # of rental
units renovated; # of special need units assisted; Amount of Funds Expended
f.
Sample 6: Resident Engagement. The City will evaluate its current committees and
commission membership to determine if the membership is reflective of the socio-economic
and racial mix of Cupertino or if there are any missing voices. If it is determined, there are
missing voices, the City will enhance its outreach efforts to encourage residents from all
socio-economic groups and racial backgrounds to serve on committees and commissions
when position become available. The City will investigate the restructuring of the Housing
Committee to ensure that the committee has at least one member that resides in a BMR unit,
at least one member that is a tenant, and at least one member that is a homeowner.
g.
Sample 7: . Prohousing Designation. The City will seek a Prohousing Designation from the
California Housing and Community Development for enacting favorable zoning and land use
policies, policies to accelerate the production of housing, reduction of construction and
development policies, and providing financial subsidies. The Prohousing designation will
provide incentives, in the form of additional points or preferences in the scoring of
competitive applications for housing and infrastructure.
3.
Needs Analysis: The needs analysis is woefully inadequate for the unique housing context of Cupertino,
with no references to the extreme unmet housing needs of our daytime residents–instead choosing to focus
on those who already can afford to live here. In particular, we see tremendous housing struggles among De
Anza college students, adjunct faculty, teachers, low-wage workers, non-profit workers, young adults, and
seniors. For example, Cupertino severely lacks in apartments and smaller units that would be ideal for a
young professional or community college student. Additionally, with regard to AFFH, our draft does not
provide a realistic assessment of segregation in our region; we know that Cupertino has one of the lowest
Latino/Latinx populations of surrounding cities–of just 3-4% compared to San Jose’s 30%. As such, one of
our intended outcomes should be to bridge this gap and greatly increase housing opportunities for Latino,
Black, and Southeast Asian communities of color.
4.
Constraints Analysis: Several constraints appear to be missing, including but not limited to (1) local
control and neighborhood opposition, (2) underutilized land such as dying strip malls, (3) relatively low
surface area for development, (4) state law evasion/loopholes, (5) permit processing times Additionally,
several other state laws are missing that are in need of compliance like AB 2097 and AB 2011.
5.
Community Outreach: While Cupertino has done some community outreach with regard to the housing
element, it does not seem to have actually translated into actual policies or programs. The purpose of
community outreach is to hear from traditionally underserved communities, so new ideas emerge for how to
meet these specific housing needs. Instead, there are dozens of pages of outreach, with no actual effect on
the resulting sites, programs, or policies. Additionally, much of the feedback critical of Cupertino’s approach
to the inventory appears to be missing. The City must also be honest about its failures in approaching
community outreach, such as the last City Council dismantling the stakeholder engagement group, or the
anti-housing bias within the housing survey.
6.
Transit-Oriented Development & mixed use: Cupertino’s housing element draft does not seem to contain
a vision for the built-environment, as it isolates the thousands of planned homes from a much needed
coinciding growth of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, reduced car use, and vibrant, mixed-use spaces.
Instead, it makes few references to transit-oriented development and even unnecessarily restricts mixed-
use. We should be planning our housing future around the reduction of car reliance and the promotion of
our Climate Action Plan 2.0.
7.
Timeline: Cupertino is last in the entire county and will no doubt lose local control under the builder’s
remedy. Council should direct its staff and consultant team to focus entirely on more-or-less redoing the
housing element draft as quickly as possible. The community would like to see an actual timeline and plan
of action for achieving an ambitious housing element in a short period of time.
8.
Rezoning of Vallco: The Rise (formerly Vallco) is the most important project for the City to meet its RHNA.
It includes more than half of the City’s total RHNA and 136% of its low income units. One impediment is that
the current GP and zoning do not allow for a feasible project. While the SB 35 approval is currently in effect,
if it were to lapse, the current GP/zoning designations are too restrictive and no project would occur. To be
consistent with other housing element inventory sites, the City should amend the General Plan and zoning
to be consistent with The Rise project. Strategy HE-1.3 that would make a residential-only project available
“by right” is insufficient. The HE assumes that half of the units will be affordable, but that is only feasible if
there are other supporting uses to help pay for the high cost of affordable housing, such as office space.
9.
Improving fee reduction language: The HE makes clear that the City’s impact fees are both very high
and an outlier in the region. This can inhibit the proliferation of new housing and deter affordable projects.
One of the HE strategies calls for a reduction in fees, but does not establish a clear path forward for which
fees would be reduced or which steps would be taken. Additionally, fee waivers beyond parkland fees
should be readily permissible in cases of affordable housing projects. As a whole, the fee regime should be
thoughtfully restructured and reevaluated to strike a balance between fulfilling important city functions, while
not impeding new housing development.
Members across the community look forward to working with this new council and City Manager’s office to
produce an ambitious housing element update that matches the innovation and ambition of our great town.
Sincerely,
Neil Park-McClintick
Chair, Cupertino for All
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "membership" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
membership+unsubscribe@cupertinoforall.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/cupertinoforall.org/d/msgid/membership/CALFFouPs-nYxfLeYXiSGWmhP-
Lk%3DQZZWNRZ1%3Duhf_WO5ncs2Gg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
-Frank
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "membership" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
membership+unsubscribe@cupertinoforall.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/cupertinoforall.org/d/msgid/membership/CACw8Sp0H2ndNKm33etZQXCsn8JSKsexCRD-
3A5ijvW064-jPOw%40mail.gmail.com.
From:Noel E
To:rajat mehndiratta
Cc:Frank Geefay; Neil Park-McClintick; City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; membership
Subject:Re: Comprehensive redo of housing element draft needed
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:36:56 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.
What an excellent, comprehensive, well thought out, and organized outline. I agree the council should use the outline for a
redraft.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 7:25 PM rajat mehndiratta <r@jats.email> wrote:
Seconding everything said above. Appreciate the work from Neil & I hope our city considers and incorporates Neil's
well-researched suggestions.
At the swearing in, Mayor Wei set an ambitious, commendable goal: representing not just present residents but also
future residents- daytime residents, residents, students who would be residents, teachers who should be residents, and
seniors who should be allowed to remain residents. I'm proud we have the kind of leaders that can set such a goal. But our
Housing Element draft from October/November could not be further from pursuing this goal.
If we want to set the bar high for Cupertino's future, our government must raise that bar in the Housing Element.
rajat mehndiratta
r@jats.email | [ɾə'dʒət̪] or /rəˈdʒat/ | rajats.site
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 7:09 PM Frank Geefay <fgeefay@gmail.com> wrote:
Neil,
Your comprehensive summery of the inequities of the current Housing Element draft is great and good enough to use
as an outline for the next draft redo. It has vision of what is needed for the sustainable growth of our city to reduce car
dependency and traffic by strategic walkable housing and shopping developments. Thank you.
Frank
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:44 PM Neil Park-McClintick <neil@cupertinoforall.org> wrote:
To:
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia
Councilmember JR Fruen
Mayor Hung Wei
Councilmember Liang Chao
Councilmember Kitty Moore
City Manager Pamela Wu
Councilmember Sheila Mohan
Comprehensive redo of housing element draft needed
From the beginning of the housing element update process, community members have repeatedly demanded an
ambitious, honest, and conforming process from the City of Cupertino. This means a resulting product that
realistically outlines a path forward for not only building 4,000+ homes, but also transforming the affordable
housing landscape for families across all incomes and backgrounds. However, this outcome is only achievable if
the leadership of Cupertino truly believes that the HE update is a unique opportunity of a lifetime, rather than a
burdensome task. The recently released housing element draft unfortunately seems to indicate the latter rather
than the former. If we wish to preserve any hope of dictating our own future as a community, Council and
staff must conduct a comprehensive redrafting process, with the following changes:
1.
Site Inventory: Reduce reliance on pipeline projects, expand the number of planned units in the “heart of
the city,” and avoid planning homes that are unlikely to be built. Nearly ⅔ of the planned inventory is
pipeline projects, with roughly 80% of those projects being Vallco and the Hamptons. The Hamptons in
particular is unlikely to actually be built out as 600 units, given no recent developer interest and recent
renovations from Irvine Company. Meanwhile, less than 5% of the inventory is composed of the heart of the
city, the main portion of Cupertino, where most development should be slated.
2.
Programs and Policies: Urge staff and consultants to focus on new policies and programs modeled after
other cities’ housing elements–with a framework of the 3 Ps in mind: production of homes, preservation of
existing homes, and protection of renters. Cities like Emeryville and Mountain View have robust policies for
all three of these planks. Cupertino’s current draft introduces few new policies, instead relying almost
entirely on our existing ones, which have obviously failed to meet our housing needs. Additionally, the draft
unnecessarily restricts proposed policies, such as only limiting parking requirements for SROs and studios,
instead of applying a reduction in parking to all new homes.
a.
Sample 1: Adaptive Re-use. The City will examine opportunities to allow for the adaptive
reuse/conversion or replacement of vacant or underperforming commercial spaces and
parking structures to residential units. The City will analyze the feasibility of an Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance that would target the conversion of select types existing structures and of
spaces that may include ground-floor retail in an existing mixed-use structure, part or all of an
office building or parking structure
b.
Sample 2: Live/Work Units. Assess existing Live/Work regulations to see if any modification
needs to be made to encourage development of Live/Work units in an effort to diversify the
City's housing types. Encourage the development or conversion of affordable live/workspace
units, and ensure owners of existing Live/Work units are aware of the Homebuyer Assistance
Program available for their unit when marketing their unit for resale, in an effort to expand
affordable homeownership options.
c.
Sample 3: Family Friendly Housing. Promote housing designs and unit mix to attract
multigenerational households by encouraging developers to include housing features and
more bedrooms (including four-bedroom units), as well as other on-site amenities, such as
usable outdoor open space for multigenerational use, and multipurpose rooms that can be
used for after-school homework clubs, computer, art, or other resident activities.
d.
Sample 4: The creation of a tenant relocation assistance ordinance. r more rental units have
been displaced because of renovations, redevelopment, and similar activities. The City’s
ordinance is intended to help lower income households with moving costs, deposits, and
securing replacement housing.
e.
Sample 5: Rental Preservation Program. The City will provide low interest rate loans to
existing rental property owners to improve the habitable condition(s) of their rental units
occupied by very low, low and moderate-income tenants. Performance Metric(s) # of rental
units renovated; # of special need units assisted; Amount of Funds Expended
f.
Sample 6: Resident Engagement. The City will evaluate its current committees and
commission membership to determine if the membership is reflective of the socio-economic
and racial mix of Cupertino or if there are any missing voices. If it is determined, there are
missing voices, the City will enhance its outreach efforts to encourage residents from all
socio-economic groups and racial backgrounds to serve on committees and commissions
when position become available. The City will investigate the restructuring of the Housing
Committee to ensure that the committee has at least one member that resides in a BMR unit,
at least one member that is a tenant, and at least one member that is a homeowner.
g.
Sample 7: . Prohousing Designation. The City will seek a Prohousing Designation from the
California Housing and Community Development for enacting favorable zoning and land use
policies, policies to accelerate the production of housing, reduction of construction and
development policies, and providing financial subsidies. The Prohousing designation will
provide incentives, in the form of additional points or preferences in the scoring of
competitive applications for housing and infrastructure.
3.
Needs Analysis: The needs analysis is woefully inadequate for the unique housing context of Cupertino,
with no references to the extreme unmet housing needs of our daytime residents–instead choosing to focus
on those who already can afford to live here. In particular, we see tremendous housing struggles among De
Anza college students, adjunct faculty, teachers, low-wage workers, non-profit workers, young adults, and
seniors. For example, Cupertino severely lacks in apartments and smaller units that would be ideal for a
young professional or community college student. Additionally, with regard to AFFH, our draft does not
provide a realistic assessment of segregation in our region; we know that Cupertino has one of the lowest
Latino/Latinx populations of surrounding cities–of just 3-4% compared to San Jose’s 30%. As such, one of
our intended outcomes should be to bridge this gap and greatly increase housing opportunities for Latino,
Black, and Southeast Asian communities of color.
4.
Constraints Analysis: Several constraints appear to be missing, including but not limited to (1) local
control and neighborhood opposition, (2) underutilized land such as dying strip malls, (3) relatively low
surface area for development, (4) state law evasion/loopholes, (5) permit processing times Additionally,
several other state laws are missing that are in need of compliance like AB 2097 and AB 2011.
5.
Community Outreach: While Cupertino has done some community outreach with regard to the housing
element, it does not seem to have actually translated into actual policies or programs. The purpose of
community outreach is to hear from traditionally underserved communities, so new ideas emerge for how to
meet these specific housing needs. Instead, there are dozens of pages of outreach, with no actual effect on
the resulting sites, programs, or policies. Additionally, much of the feedback critical of Cupertino’s approach
to the inventory appears to be missing. The City must also be honest about its failures in approaching
community outreach, such as the last City Council dismantling the stakeholder engagement group, or the
anti-housing bias within the housing survey.
6.
Transit-Oriented Development & mixed use: Cupertino’s housing element draft does not seem to contain
a vision for the built-environment, as it isolates the thousands of planned homes from a much needed
coinciding growth of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, reduced car use, and vibrant, mixed-use spaces.
Instead, it makes few references to transit-oriented development and even unnecessarily restricts mixed-
use. We should be planning our housing future around the reduction of car reliance and the promotion of
our Climate Action Plan 2.0.
7.
Timeline: Cupertino is last in the entire county and will no doubt lose local control under the builder’s
remedy. Council should direct its staff and consultant team to focus entirely on more-or-less redoing the
housing element draft as quickly as possible. The community would like to see an actual timeline and plan
of action for achieving an ambitious housing element in a short period of time.
8.
Rezoning of Vallco: The Rise (formerly Vallco) is the most important project for the City to meet its RHNA.
It includes more than half of the City’s total RHNA and 136% of its low income units. One impediment is that
the current GP and zoning do not allow for a feasible project. While the SB 35 approval is currently in effect,
if it were to lapse, the current GP/zoning designations are too restrictive and no project would occur. To be
consistent with other housing element inventory sites, the City should amend the General Plan and zoning
to be consistent with The Rise project. Strategy HE-1.3 that would make a residential-only project available
“by right” is insufficient. The HE assumes that half of the units will be affordable, but that is only feasible if
there are other supporting uses to help pay for the high cost of affordable housing, such as office space.
9.
Improving fee reduction language: The HE makes clear that the City’s impact fees are both very high
and an outlier in the region. This can inhibit the proliferation of new housing and deter affordable projects.
One of the HE strategies calls for a reduction in fees, but does not establish a clear path forward for which
fees would be reduced or which steps would be taken. Additionally, fee waivers beyond parkland fees
should be readily permissible in cases of affordable housing projects. As a whole, the fee regime should be
thoughtfully restructured and reevaluated to strike a balance between fulfilling important city functions, while
not impeding new housing development.
Members across the community look forward to working with this new council and City Manager’s office to
produce an ambitious housing element update that matches the innovation and ambition of our great town.
Sincerely,
Neil Park-McClintick
Chair, Cupertino for All
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "membership" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
membership+unsubscribe@cupertinoforall.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/cupertinoforall.org/d/msgid/membership/CALFFouPs-nYxfLeYXiSGWmhP-
Lk%3DQZZWNRZ1%3Duhf_WO5ncs2Gg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
-Frank
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "membership" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
membership+unsubscribe@cupertinoforall.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/cupertinoforall.org/d/msgid/membership/CACw8Sp0H2ndNKm33etZQXCsn8JSKsexCRD-
3A5ijvW064-jPOw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "membership" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
membership+unsubscribe@cupertinoforall.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/cupertinoforall.org/d/msgid/membership/CAFO24cBrsHc%2Bx4-KTan%3DsfN%2BkTK-
8ZmgtCdm90WTnLE2pgN%2Bug%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Noel E
From:Jenny Griffin
To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:City Council in City Council Chambers
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:13:38 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:
When are we going to be conducting City Council Meetings in the Cupertino City Council Chambers?
Do we need to ask Senator Cortese or Evan Low or Mr. Simitian to ask the City Council to have our
City Council meetings in person or hybrid?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Frank Geefay
To:Neil Park-McClintick
Cc:City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; membership
Subject:Re: Comprehensive redo of housing element draft needed
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:09:39 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.
Neil,
Your comprehensive summery of the inequities of the current Housing Element draft is great
and good enough to use as an outline for the next draft redo. It has vision of what is needed for
the sustainable growth of our city to reduce car dependency and traffic by strategic walkable
housing and shopping developments. Thank you.
Frank
On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 2:44 PM Neil Park-McClintick <neil@cupertinoforall.org> wrote:
To:
City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia
Councilmember JR Fruen
Mayor Hung Wei
Councilmember Liang Chao
Councilmember Kitty Moore
City Manager Pamela Wu
Councilmember Sheila Mohan
Comprehensive redo of housing element draft needed
From the beginning of the housing element update process, community members have
repeatedly demanded an ambitious, honest, and conforming process from the City of
Cupertino. This means a resulting product that realistically outlines a path forward for not
only building 4,000+ homes, but also transforming the affordable housing landscape for
families across all incomes and backgrounds. However, this outcome is only achievable if
the leadership of Cupertino truly believes that the HE update is a unique opportunity of a
lifetime, rather than a burdensome task. The recently released housing element draft
unfortunately seems to indicate the latter rather than the former. If we wish to preserve
any hope of dictating our own future as a community, Council and staff must
conduct a comprehensive redrafting process, with the following changes:
1.
Site Inventory: Reduce reliance on pipeline projects, expand the number of
planned units in the “heart of the city,” and avoid planning homes that are unlikely
to be built. Nearly ⅔ of the planned inventory is pipeline projects, with roughly 80%
of those projects being Vallco and the Hamptons. The Hamptons in particular is
unlikely to actually be built out as 600 units, given no recent developer interest and
recent renovations from Irvine Company. Meanwhile, less than 5% of the inventory
is composed of the heart of the city, the main portion of Cupertino, where most
development should be slated.
2.
Programs and Policies: Urge staff and consultants to focus on new policies and
programs modeled after other cities’ housing elements–with a framework of the 3
Ps in mind: production of homes, preservation of existing homes, and protection of
renters. Cities like Emeryville and Mountain View have robust policies for all three
of these planks. Cupertino’s current draft introduces few new policies, instead
relying almost entirely on our existing ones, which have obviously failed to meet our
housing needs. Additionally, the draft unnecessarily restricts proposed policies,
such as only limiting parking requirements for SROs and studios, instead of
applying a reduction in parking to all new homes.
a.
Sample 1: Adaptive Re-use. The City will examine opportunities to allow
for the adaptive reuse/conversion or replacement of vacant or
underperforming commercial spaces and parking structures to
residential units. The City will analyze the feasibility of an Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance that would target the conversion of select types
existing structures and of spaces that may include ground-floor retail in
an existing mixed-use structure, part or all of an office building or
parking structure
b.
Sample 2: Live/Work Units. Assess existing Live/Work regulations to
see if any modification needs to be made to encourage development of
Live/Work units in an effort to diversify the City's housing types.
Encourage the development or conversion of affordable live/workspace
units, and ensure owners of existing Live/Work units are aware of the
Homebuyer Assistance Program available for their unit when marketing
their unit for resale, in an effort to expand affordable homeownership
options.
c.
Sample 3: Family Friendly Housing. Promote housing designs and unit
mix to attract multigenerational households by encouraging developers
to include housing features and more bedrooms (including four-
bedroom units), as well as other on-site amenities, such as usable
outdoor open space for multigenerational use, and multipurpose rooms
that can be used for after-school homework clubs, computer, art, or
other resident activities.
d.
Sample 4: The creation of a tenant relocation assistance ordinance. r
more rental units have been displaced because of renovations,
redevelopment, and similar activities. The City’s ordinance is intended
to help lower income households with moving costs, deposits, and
securing replacement housing.
e.
Sample 5: Rental Preservation Program. The City will provide low
interest rate loans to existing rental property owners to improve the
habitable condition(s) of their rental units occupied by very low, low
and moderate-income tenants. Performance Metric(s) # of rental units
renovated; # of special need units assisted; Amount of Funds
Expended
f.
Sample 6: Resident Engagement. The City will evaluate its current
committees and commission membership to determine if the
membership is reflective of the socio-economic and racial mix of
Cupertino or if there are any missing voices. If it is determined, there
are missing voices, the City will enhance its outreach efforts to
encourage residents from all socio-economic groups and racial
backgrounds to serve on committees and commissions when position
become available. The City will investigate the restructuring of the
Housing Committee to ensure that the committee has at least one
member that resides in a BMR unit, at least one member that is a tenant,
and at least one member that is a homeowner.
g.
Sample 7: . Prohousing Designation. The City will seek a Prohousing
Designation from the California Housing and Community Development
for enacting favorable zoning and land use policies, policies to
accelerate the production of housing, reduction of construction and
development policies, and providing financial subsidies. The
Prohousing designation will provide incentives, in the form of
additional points or preferences in the scoring of competitive
applications for housing and infrastructure.
3.
Needs Analysis: The needs analysis is woefully inadequate for the unique housing
context of Cupertino, with no references to the extreme unmet housing needs of
our daytime residents–instead choosing to focus on those who already can afford
to live here. In particular, we see tremendous housing struggles among De Anza
college students, adjunct faculty, teachers, low-wage workers, non-profit workers,
young adults, and seniors. For example, Cupertino severely lacks in apartments
and smaller units that would be ideal for a young professional or community college
student. Additionally, with regard to AFFH, our draft does not provide a realistic
assessment of segregation in our region; we know that Cupertino has one of the
lowest Latino/Latinx populations of surrounding cities–of just 3-4% compared to
San Jose’s 30%. As such, one of our intended outcomes should be to bridge this
gap and greatly increase housing opportunities for Latino, Black, and Southeast
Asian communities of color.
4.
Constraints Analysis: Several constraints appear to be missing, including but not
limited to (1) local control and neighborhood opposition, (2) underutilized land such
as dying strip malls, (3) relatively low surface area for development, (4) state law
evasion/loopholes, (5) permit processing times Additionally, several other state
laws are missing that are in need of compliance like AB 2097 and AB 2011.
5.
Community Outreach: While Cupertino has done some community outreach with
regard to the housing element, it does not seem to have actually translated into
actual policies or programs. The purpose of community outreach is to hear from
traditionally underserved communities, so new ideas emerge for how to meet these
specific housing needs. Instead, there are dozens of pages of outreach, with no
actual effect on the resulting sites, programs, or policies. Additionally, much of the
feedback critical of Cupertino’s approach to the inventory appears to be missing.
The City must also be honest about its failures in approaching community outreach,
such as the last City Council dismantling the stakeholder engagement group, or the
anti-housing bias within the housing survey.
6.
Transit-Oriented Development & mixed use: Cupertino’s housing element draft
does not seem to contain a vision for the built-environment, as it isolates the
thousands of planned homes from a much needed coinciding growth of bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure, reduced car use, and vibrant, mixed-use spaces. Instead,
it makes few references to transit-oriented development and even unnecessarily
restricts mixed-use. We should be planning our housing future around the reduction
of car reliance and the promotion of our Climate Action Plan 2.0.
7.
Timeline: Cupertino is last in the entire county and will no doubt lose local control
under the builder’s remedy. Council should direct its staff and consultant team to
focus entirely on more-or-less redoing the housing element draft as quickly as
possible. The community would like to see an actual timeline and plan of action for
achieving an ambitious housing element in a short period of time.
8.
Rezoning of Vallco: The Rise (formerly Vallco) is the most important project for
the City to meet its RHNA. It includes more than half of the City’s total RHNA and
136% of its low income units. One impediment is that the current GP and zoning do
not allow for a feasible project. While the SB 35 approval is currently in effect, if it
were to lapse, the current GP/zoning designations are too restrictive and no project
would occur. To be consistent with other housing element inventory sites, the City
should amend the General Plan and zoning to be consistent with The Rise project.
Strategy HE-1.3 that would make a residential-only project available “by right” is
insufficient. The HE assumes that half of the units will be affordable, but that is only
feasible if there are other supporting uses to help pay for the high cost of affordable
housing, such as office space.
9.
Improving fee reduction language: The HE makes clear that the City’s impact
fees are both very high and an outlier in the region. This can inhibit the proliferation
of new housing and deter affordable projects. One of the HE strategies calls for a
reduction in fees, but does not establish a clear path forward for which fees would
be reduced or which steps would be taken. Additionally, fee waivers beyond
parkland fees should be readily permissible in cases of affordable housing projects.
As a whole, the fee regime should be thoughtfully restructured and reevaluated to
strike a balance between fulfilling important city functions, while not impeding new
housing development.
Members across the community look forward to working with this new council and City
Manager’s office to produce an ambitious housing element update that matches the
innovation and ambition of our great town.
Sincerely,
Neil Park-McClintick
Chair, Cupertino for All
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "membership"
group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
membership+unsubscribe@cupertinoforall.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/cupertinoforall.org/d/msgid/membership/CALFFouPs-
nYxfLeYXiSGWmhP-Lk%3DQZZWNRZ1%3Duhf_WO5ncs2Gg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
-Frank
From:Jenny Griffin
To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Oral Communications
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:07:21 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:
The Oral Communications should be limited to three minutes. Why are people using
The Oral Communications to become a ten minute long session on subjects? We should be
In council chambers so we can all participate in oral communications equally.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Connie Cunningham
To:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:December 20, Oral Communications; Biodiversity
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:02:35 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.
2022-12-20 Oral Communications, Biodiversity
Good evening, Mayor Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan, and Councilmembers:
My name is Connie Cunningham. Resident 34 years
First! Welcome to Councilmember JR Fruen and Vice-Mayor Mohan to the Council!
On November 15 & Dec 6, I spoke to City Council about Plunging Biodiversity
worldwide.
Tonight, is a good time to discuss the interaction of the draft Housing Element and the
Climate Action Plan 2.0 to protect Biodiversity. There is an international call for planting
native trees, plants, grasses to protect biodiversity. Environmental advocates advise that
Protecting biodiversity and Climate Action Plans are equally urgent pillars. They will produce
a combined effect greater than each working alone. The Climate Action Plan is part of the
draft Housing Element.
Some governments are beginning to think about housing inside Climate Action Plans. The
abstract of an ACSP published article, Angelo et al 2022, states, in part, “We find that
equity language correlates with an increased presence of more systemic policy interventions,
such as dense and/or affordable housing, in Climate Action Plans.”
Cupertino has a strong organizational structure for sustainability. The Sustainability Team
resides in the City Manager’s office and oversees the Climate Action
Plan. Secondly, there is an Environmental Programs Team that resides
in the Public Works Department. Thirdly, there is a Sustainability
Commission that provides advice to City Council.
Throughout Cupertino’s planning documents, from the General Plan, to
the Housing Element, to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and
Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan 2.0, city leaders and residents have
expressed strong environmental goals, particularly mentioning parks,
open space, and trees. A search for the word “tree” would find dozens
of references.
These documents also, include the goal of equity—that all our
residents, including low-income residents, will benefit from all the
changes being planned. A search for the word “equity” would find
dozens of references.
Kudos to Council who had a 2022 work program item for analyzing the future of Blackberry
Farm Golf Course. It included an option to restore nature. That our Council thought in such
terms is a testament to the values of this community.
What can City Council do? Two things:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->To protect biodiversity include a goal of 80%
California Bay Area native trees, plants and grasses, in the goals of the General
Plan, the Housing Element, the Climate Action Plan 2.0, and the Parks and Rec
Master Plan.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->In 2023, approve restoring nature, Option B, to
Blackberry Farm Golf Course.
Thank you for this time to speak.
From:John Kolski
To:RICHARD LOWENTHAL; City Council; Jean Bedord; Jean Bedord; Rod Sinks; Kitty Moore; City Clerk
Cc:John Kolski
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 7:00:35 PM
Attachments:WebPage.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.
Is’nt this something. And no one told the residents that this was going on with the grand
jury. Even jean Bedford said nothing to anyone in her publications. Why did they not say
anything, because they all make money off the corruption they continue to engage in.
I have been saying for years now the Darcy Paul and moore were corrupt and destroying this
city.
Then only thing it does not cover is the corruption of the so-called…. COUNCIL OF
MAYORS….. WHO RUN THIE CITY WITH POLITICAL GAMES AND CORRUPTION
ALL TO FILL THEIR POCKET WITH MONEY. AND THE ROTARY CLUB WHO
ENGAGES IN THE RUNNING OF THE CITY WITH CORRUPTION AND MONEY.
To bad one one told the people of the city the issues were sign to a grand jury.. if they had I
and many more would have given proof of the corruption.
All of the above named committed illegal acts to benefit themselves and should go to jail as to
people who call themselves the council of mayors
Greed, power and control is all these people are about.
And what’s really interesting is…who suffered and will suffer for year?…the residents of
cupertino. All the while the rich corrupt people go off and live their lives laughing at
cupertino and keep feeding off the people in cupertino.
The issue will never change until Cupertino gets a entirely new city council, city attorney who
are honest, transparent and accountable.
John kolski
https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2022/A House Divided -
Cupertino City Council and City Staff.pdf
From:Neil Park-McClintick
To:City Clerk
Subject:Presentation for oral communication
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:54:18 PM
Attachments:Presentation to Council.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.
Hello!
I would like to present the following presentation to Council+Staff tonight if that is possible. I
plan on asking to borrow the time of a few community members to make this possible. Could
this be screenshared as I go through it?
From:Liana Crabtree
To:Lauren Sapudar
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Re: written communication, 12/20/2022 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Consider the Appointment of 2023
Councilmember Committee Assignments
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:20:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Lauren, Thank You!
Liana
> On Dec 20, 2022, at 4:14 PM, Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon (Council Bcc’d on this e-mail), your email has been received and will be included with the written
comments for Item No. 9 on the December 20, City Council meeting agenda.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lauren Sapudar
> Deputy City Clerk
> City Manager's Office
> LaurenS@cupertino.org
> (408) 777-1312
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 4:06 PM
> To: Hung Wei <HWei@cupertino.org>; Sheila Mohan <SMohan@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao
<LiangChao@cupertino.org>; J.R Fruen <JRFruen@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>
> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
> Subject: written communication, 12/20/2022 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Consider the Appointment of 2023
Councilmember Committee Assignments
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
> Honorable Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan, Council Members Chao, Fruen, and Moore:
>
> Please include this letter as written communication for the 12/20/2022 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 9, Consider
the Appointment of 2023 Councilmember Committee Assignments.
>
> I am writing to request that Council Member Kitty Moore be reinstated as Cupertino’s representative to the VTA
Policy Advisory Committee (VTA PAC) for the current term.
>
> Council Member Moore has served honorably as the Chair of the VTA PAC for the last 2 years. I have attended
some of the VTA PAC meetings during Council Member Moore’s tenure and have appreciated that meetings under
her lead run efficiently, that she demonstrates respect for the public, staff, and fellow committee members, and that
she encourages and allows adequate time for public comment for each agenda item.
>
> The learning curve for anyone coming into a VTA leadership role is steep. In 2022-2023 VTA launches its Valley
Transportation Plan 2050 (VTA 2050) at a time when there is no plan to add BART or light rail service to
Cupertino. Cupertino’s western neighborhoods and schools are also underserved by transit or not served at all,
despite the fact that Cupertino is a major tax revenue generator for the County.
>
> Cupertino needs a VTA PAC representative who is familiar with VTA service and operations and can advocate
for the needs of West Valley residents and commuters from Day 1.
>
> Council Member Moore has the knowledge and wisdom to represent Cupertino effectively on the VTA PAC.
Please reinstate Council Member Moore to the VTA PAC for the term beginning in 2023.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Liana Crabtree
> Cupertino resident and public transit rider
>
>
>
From:S B
To:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Housing
Cc:City Clerk; Kitty Moore; Liang Chao
Subject:Re: Housing Element Comments
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 4:58:56 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 the city manager and Acting Director of Community Development,
The following is my feedback on the document
Some positive points about the document:
(1) Very pleased to see that the pipeline projects have been taken into consideration. City council’s
jurisdiction is only up to approving projects, they have no control over the timeline for building these
projects. Not taking the pipeline projects into consideration does not make any sense, very happy to
see that this has been considered.
(2) It is very nice to see that the projects suggested are distributed all over the city, often when
development occurs only on one side of the city, the amenities and services such as parks and
schools become compromised. We don't want to create multiple Cupertinos, we want to have one
city and one city that has to bear the burden of the RHNA requirements, even if that happens to be
in my backyard.
(3) Last but not the least, I am very glad we have the opportunity to review this document, seeking
your customer's (Cupertino’s residents specifically) input is very critical and kudos to you for doing
this,
A few ideas that we may consider with other cities in our county, to improve the buffer for the
middle income level.
(1) Apply a vacancy tax. This way the much needed housing is used up as it should be, and not have
rents and house prices rising while apartments and homes are staying vacant. Especially those that
qualify for the middle income category. Anyone in the middle income category can benefit from this.
(2) Apartment owners receive a tax rebate or some other incentive so that they offer 10%, of the
available apartments to middle income essential service personnel that work in each city, at a discounted
rate. My definition of middle income essential services personnel, are teachers, firefighters, police and
some essential city staff. I do not believe that school district administrative staff qualify for this. Also, the
assumption here is that the household income falls into the category of middle income level, and
qualification is not based upon an individual’s income if married, or not based upon occupation.
(3) For middle income essential services personnel, like teachers, police and fireman, an option of rent to
buy with some incentives to sellers, must also be considered. Also, the assumption here is that the
household income falls into the category of middle income level, and qualification is not based upon an
individual’s income if married, or not based upon occupation.
Now the changes to be made to the document:
Chapter 4:
(1) Page 4-1 Section 4.2, Under the paragraph “RHNA Summary”, second sentence has a typo there
are only four income categories not five as stated in the document
(2) Page 4-2 Table 4-2 There is no purpose to unless it is filled out, given the tight schedule,
perhaps it makes more sense to remove the table unless the information is readily available
(3) Page 4-3 Table 4-3 Add a NOTE to make it clear that the ADUs are not accounted for in the total.
So, if the ADUs are added, the percentage is much better than 117%.
Appendix B4
(1) Section B4.1 Introduction is the same as the introduction for Chapter 4, with the exception that
the words RHNA and HCD have been expanded. Since this report is for HCD, I think this whole
section must be removed, with the Appendix starting at the Site Inventory. It is referenced in
Chapter 4 that the site selection will be provided in Appendix B, so the appendix can start at the site
selection and repeating everything serves no purpose
(2) Section B4.2 Page B4-3 In the section titled “Overview of Selected Sites”, The 3rd paragraph,
bullet (4) is unnecessary, this is not about schools, we are not building housing for filling the schools,
we are building housing because HCD believes we need it. So, there is no need for this sentence.
This sentence is copied below for your reference:
“(4) The housing Element should include new housing sites that could support the City’s public
schools and help counteract declining enrollment trends that are occurring city and county wide."
(3) Page B4-4 3rd Paragraph on the page This paragraph is incorrect and therefore needs to be
removed. The first two lines are the controversial statements. The reasons for it being unnecessary
are the following:
(a) HCD has not stipulated that the housing element cannot consist of pipeline units.
(b) HCD has not stipulated that the Very Low Income, Low income and Moderate Income RHNA
requirements have to be met through pipeline projects either.
(c) Also the city meets all the RHNA requirements in all categories. For the Moderate income level
we do not meet the HCD “recommended” buffer. The HCD requirements is 755 and we have
allocated 769 as Moderate Income Level units. This is not including the 60 ADU units, which would
make our allotted number increase to 829.
(d) the obvious grammatical error in the first sentence
The paragraph is copied below for your reference:
“Due to the significant amount of pipeline and units, the City is already exceeding its RHNA for the
Low and above-moderate income categories for the 2023-2031 planning period. The city, however,
was unable to meet its Very Low and moderate income RHNA requirements through the pipeline
projects. Additionally, HCD recommends a “buffer” of between 15-30% additional units be included
in the sites inventory for each of the below market rate income categories ( Very low, Low and
Moderate incomes) in accordance with the State “No Net loss” Law.
(4) Page B4-5 the paragraph under the Figure B4-1 is not relevant to the Figure, nor does it contain
any information that makes sense. This paragraph would also be removed for the following reasons:
(a) The three areas listed in the paragraph are not shown in the picture.
(b) the number provided are incorrect - Stelling gateway/homestead should be 339 not 440, south
de Anza should be 471 not 462.
(c) Providing a statistic of 71% of the 2090 recommend units, is unnecessary, it is not clear where did
the 2090 recommended units come from?
(5) Page B4-91 the ADUs have not been added into the totals, a NOTE needs to be added to clarify
that should these ADUs be added the percentage would be much better than 117%
regards
Sashi
PS; to my feedback you received from an earlier Email, it was accidentally sent from my Cupertino
email. I am providing this input as a Cupertino resident and not in any other capacity. City Clerk
please make a note of it.
From:Sashi Begur
To:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Housing
Cc:City Clerk; Kitty Moore; Liang Chao
Subject:Housing Element Comments
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 4:53:45 PM
To the city manager and Acting Director of Community Development,
The following is my feedback on the document
Some positive points about the document:
(1) Very pleased to see that the pipeline projects have been taken into consideration. City council’s
jurisdiction is only up to approving projects, they have no control over the timeline for building these
projects. Not taking the pipeline projects into consideration does not make any sense, very happy to
see that this has been considered.
(2) It is very nice to see that the projects suggested are distributed all over the city, often when
development occurs only on one side of the city, the amenities and services such as parks and
schools become compromised. We don't want to create multiple Cupertinos, we want to have one
city and one city that has to bear the burden of the RHNA requirements, even if that happens to be
in my backyard.
(3) Last but not the least, I am very glad we have the opportunity to review this document, seeking
your customer's (Cupertino’s residents specifically) input is very critical and kudos to you for doing
this,
A few ideas that we may consider with other cities in our county, to improve the buffer for the
middle income level.
(1) Apply a vacancy tax. This way the much needed housing is used up as it should be, and not have
rents and house prices rising while apartments and homes are staying vacant. Especially those that
qualify for the middle income category. Anyone in the middle income category can benefit from this.
(2) Apartment owners receive a tax rebate or some other incentive so that they offer 10%, of the
available apartments to middle income essential service personnel that work in each city, at a discounted
rate. My definition of middle income essential services personnel, are teachers, firefighters, police and
some essential city staff. I do not believe that school district administrative staff qualify for this. Also, the
assumption here is that the household income falls into the category of middle income level, and
qualification is not based upon an individual’s income if married, or not based upon occupation.
(3) For middle income essential services personnel, like teachers, police and fireman, an option of rent to
buy with some incentives to sellers, must also be considered. Also, the assumption here is that the
household income falls into the category of middle income level, and qualification is not based upon an
individual’s income if married, or not based upon occupation.
Now the changes to be made to the document:
Chapter 4:
(1) Page 4-1 Section 4.2, Under the paragraph “RHNA Summary”, second sentence has a typo there
are only four income categories not five as stated in the document
(2) Page 4-2 Table 4-2 There is no purpose to unless it is filled out, given the tight schedule,
perhaps it makes more sense to remove the table unless the information is readily available
(3) Page 4-3 Table 4-3 Add a NOTE to make it clear that the ADUs are not accounted for in the total.
So, if the ADUs are added, the percentage is much better than 117%.
Appendix B4
(1) Section B4.1 Introduction is the same as the introduction for Chapter 4, with the exception that
the words RHNA and HCD have been expanded. Since this report is for HCD, I think this whole
section must be removed, with the Appendix starting at the Site Inventory. It is referenced in
Chapter 4 that the site selection will be provided in Appendix B, so the appendix can start at the site
selection and repeating everything serves no purpose
(2) Section B4.2 Page B4-3 In the section titled “Overview of Selected Sites”, The 3rd paragraph,
bullet (4) is unnecessary, this is not about schools, we are not building housing for filling the schools,
we are building housing because HCD believes we need it. So, there is no need for this sentence.
This sentence is copied below for your reference:
“(4) The housing Element should include new housing sites that could support the City’s public
schools and help counteract declining enrollment trends that are occurring city and county wide."
(3) Page B4-4 3rd Paragraph on the page This paragraph is incorrect and therefore needs to be
removed. The first two lines are the controversial statements. The reasons for it being unnecessary
are the following:
(a) HCD has not stipulated that the housing element cannot consist of pipeline units.
(b) HCD has not stipulated that the Very Low Income, Low income and Moderate Income RHNA
requirements have to be met through pipeline projects either.
(c) Also the city meets all the RHNA requirements in all categories. For the Moderate income level
we do not meet the HCD “recommended” buffer. The HCD requirements is 755 and we have
allocated 769 as Moderate Income Level units. This is not including the 60 ADU units, which would
make our allotted number increase to 829.
(d) the obvious grammatical error in the first sentence
The paragraph is copied below for your reference:
“Due to the significant amount of pipeline and units, the City is already exceeding its RHNA for the
Low and above-moderate income categories for the 2023-2031 planning period. The city, however,
was unable to meet its Very Low and moderate income RHNA requirements through the pipeline
projects. Additionally, HCD recommends a “buffer” of between 15-30% additional units be included
in the sites inventory for each of the below market rate income categories ( Very low, Low and
Moderate incomes) in accordance with the State “No Net loss” Law.
(4) Page B4-5 the paragraph under the Figure B4-1 is not relevant to the Figure, nor does it contain
any information that makes sense. This paragraph would also be removed for the following reasons:
(a) The three areas listed in the paragraph are not shown in the picture.
(b) the number provided are incorrect - Stelling gateway/homestead should be 339 not 440, south
de Anza should be 471 not 462.
(c) Providing a statistic of 71% of the 2090 recommend units, is unnecessary, it is not clear where did
the 2090 recommended units come from?
(5) Page B4-91 the ADUs have not been added into the totals, a NOTE needs to be added to clarify
that should these ADUs be added the percentage would be much better than 117%
regards
Sashi
Sashi Begur
Parks and Recration Commission Vice Chair
SBegur@cupertino.org
From:Connie Cunningham
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Talking points on Blackberry Farm
Date:Wednesday, December 21, 2022 10:25:47 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 Kirsten,
For yesterday’s Oral Communications, a friend of mine wanted to make a statement. She
could not be there herself so asked another friend to read it for her. Unfortunately, Rani had
difficulties making the connection so could not read it. Is it possible at this time to put the
email from Rose Grymes into the Written Communications for last night?
The email we exchanged with you earlier about whether you, as City Clerk, could read it, did
come out in the Written Communications. Upon your guidance, we tried this other method
and failed. Perhaps the Mayor would approve this late addition to the Written
Communications for Dec 20.
Best regards,
Connie
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rose Grymes <ragrymes@gmail.com>
Subject: Talking points on Blackberry Farm
Date: December 19, 2022 at 11:22:19 PM PST
To: ranifisc@gmail.com
Cc: Connie Cunningham <cunninghamconniel@gmail.com>
Thanks, Rani, for your willingness to do this. My daughter and grandson—he’s 4
—are visiting this week, just arrived today, and he keeps me hopping! In a very
good way.
:)
I gather that, with the new process, I don’t need to send these remarks to Kristen
or the Council, since it will be you raising your hand to read them into the record
at the meeting.
Thanks again,
Rose
For the Council:
I wish to speak once again today to voice my support for the popularly supported
—in fact, majority supported—plan option which transitions Blackberry Farm
from its current golf course operation to a natural habitat with non-intrusive
public enjoyment of trails, vistas, and open spaces. While the majority of
Cupertino residents polled by city staff share my view, no doubt for a variety of
reasons, such a cross-section is not always available to speak directly to the
Council during meetings. I’m an example of that today, as my comments are
being read for the record by a generous volunteer.
While there are many reasons for selecting the natural habitat option presented to
the Council, today I will focus on the impacts to Cupertino quality of life caused
by undue disturbance to the habitat we share.
A recent scholarly article in the journal American Scientist describes how
wildlife, from insects to birds to small mammals and larger predators, adjusts to
living alongside human developments. Characteristically, across species they seek
to avoid people; their immediate presence, certainly, but also their distant sounds
and their artificial lights. Leaving isolated corridors for wildlife to pass is an
inadequate response. We generally DO acknowledge that insects, birds, and
animals contribute to our quality of life. But as they struggle with changing
climate and water scarcity, and also with human construction and development
activities, they alter roaming behaviors and activity levels. Sometimes these
changes drive them further into conflict with human neighbors. The solutions we
must strive to prioritize are those which lead to the greatest good. In the case of
Blackberry Farm, the greatest good for this wonderful open space environment is
allowing nature to re-create and restore a habitat as unobtrusive as possible to the
wildlife it contains, so as to maximize the benefit of this land and minimize or
eliminate unnaturally and undesirably driving wildlife into nearby neighborhoods
under stress.
I will quickly add, if time allows, the enormously significant issue of watershed
and water resources. Water requirements for golf course operations are expensive
—both financially and in their use of an increasingly scarce resource. In contrast,
restoring the natural habitat increases watershed availability, improves ground
water recharge, and reduces water pollutants from fertilizer application and pest
control.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sent from my iPad
From:Hal and Janet Van Zoeren
To:Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan; Liang Chao; J.R Fruen; Kitty Moore
Subject:Cupertino Housing Element Draft 1
Date:Wednesday, December 21, 2022 11:23:39 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 Cupertino City Council Members,
As many of you know, I am a long-time advocate for the adults in our community who have
Developmental Disabilities and who would like the opportunity to live in the community where they
grew up, but in their apartments where they can enjoy the freedom to live as other adults do and to
make their own choices.
The previous Housing Element was completely ineffective in both
v Identifying the needs of people who have developmental disabilities and
v Meeting the needsNo units of extremely low or very low-income units were built with a preference tohouse adults with developmental disabilities.
Unfortunately, the current Draft of the Cupertino Housing Element does little to Affirmatively
Further Fair Housing for Cupertino’s community members who have developmental disabilities
because its incentives fall short.
v Sadly, it fails to identify their significant disparities in housing needs and it, unfortunately,
seems to imply that people with developmental disabilities need specially designed units.
Although some also have physical disabilities, many do not need special physical
accommodations. Those units are not more costly to create. People with developmental
disabilities were not interviewed and the report indicates that there are no people with
disabilities that are unemployed in Cupertino. That is not the case for many who have
developmental disabilities.
v It does not set any goal for how many units of extremely low housing units set aside for
people with developmental disabilities are to be created during the upcoming housing
element cycle.
v It misses the opportunity to incentivize the AUD program. The city could create a
forgivable loan program for homeowners who build ADUs and rent them for at least 15 years
at Extremely Low-income rent levels to people with developmental disabilities. This
program might be able to add to the number of housing units created.
v Although it aims to provide some financing assistance using the Below Market-Rate
Affordable Housing Fund, it does nothing to revise the BMR priorities that discriminate
against people with developmental disabilities.
v It does not indicate a clear pathway between the needs of people with developmental
disabilities and incentive pathways toward the creation of housing units for them!
v However, it does suggest that the city will prepare to identify the connection, or “nexus
between new developments and the need for affordable housing.” To ensure the mitigation
fees continue to be adequate to mitigate the impacts of new development on affordable
housing needs. This is important.
v It also states that the city will continue to explore and pursue various affordable housing
resources available at the local, regional, state, and federal levels that could be used to
address housing needs in the community. This is also good.
1.4 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
o The AFFH requirement AFFH is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which
prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on
race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial
status and disability.
o The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandates that
each jurisdiction take meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing
needs and access to opportunity.
For many years our surrounding communities have been able to figure out ways to includehousing for people who have developmental disabilities. I do not believe that this is somethingthat Cupertino cannot do as well, especially because its residents would like to see it happen. The Housing Element is a huge project and an opportunity to help people obtain housing inCupertino. Let's make it happen even for people who have developmental disabilities. Thankyou!
Enjoy your holidays and have a great 2023!
Most sincerely,
Janet Van Zoeren
CC 12-20-2022
Written Communications
Item No.8
Consider approval of
response to 2022 Civil
Grand Jury of Santa Clara
County
From:J Shearin
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Agenda item 8 --Consent calendar; December 20, 2022 City Council meeting
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 6:03:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Honorable City Councilmembers,
I will be speaking this evening at City Council, but I am also writing to add my input to the public
written record.
My comments are regarding the findings on December 19, 2022 of the Civil Grand Jury of the Santa
Clara County Superior Court, specifically their report titled, “A House Divided”.
Though there are many items in the report that are a great cause of concern and require attention, I
specifically wish to speak to the Ethics Policy section.
In November 2019, when I was formerly a Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioner, all commissioners
were asked to give feedback on the draft Code of Ethics. My written feedback at that time that was,
“The largest omission seems to be how will these ethics be policed…Having a Code of Ethics that
neither Councilmembers nor Commissioners must abide by will make it a document that is without
authority and therefore likely without meaning. “
I was concerned with the lack of reporting, enforcement, and consequences for violation that were all
missing in the proposed code of ethics and even provided examples of violations within the previous
12 months by Councilmembers and Commissioners that were not addressed in any way. Since then,
including on social media posts during the past year, I have restated my concerns with the policy.
This recent judgement by the Civil Grand Jury conclusively affirms these problems with the current
code. As the report states, “A comprehensive Code of Ethics …includes sanctions and consequences
for deviations from the standard. The City’s Ethics Policy is generic and lacks enforcement
provisions and therefore fails to provide a framework to address ramifications for policy violations.”
I urge you today to follow the recommendations of the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
regarding the current Ethics Policy. These recommendations include adding an independent
Public Ethics Commission, adding enforcement procedures to the Code of Ethics, and publishing
the Code of Ethics on the City’s website, where it has not been available since January 2019.
Thank you for your time and considering on this issue, and your service on behalf of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Resident of Cupertino
From:S B
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Agenda items 7.8 and 9
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:01:37 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 the mayor and members of the council.
I think we need see items 7.8 & 9on the regular agenda with an opportunity for members of the public to comment
and not be not he consent calendar
regards
Sashi
CC 12-20-2022
Written Communications
Item No.9
Consider appointment of
2023 Councilmember
Committee Assignments
From:Tessa Parish
To:City Clerk
Subject:Public comment item #9
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 6:16:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor, vice, mayor, and city council. I would like to request Kitty Moore remain on the
Audit committee. Her hard work and attention to detail has uncovered many items previously
unknown.
Her attention to detail has uncovered things such as contractors being paid without a written
contract, violations to contract limits, etc. Kitty has a proven record and attention to detail
necessary to do the job.
I urge this counsel to keep her in the audit committee.
Thank you,
Tessa Parish
Resident of Cupertino
Speaking only for myself
--
Tessa Parish
DRE#01158499
RHM Realty
www.ParishRealEstateGroup.com
408.396.8377
From:Claudio Bono
To:Lauren Sapudar
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Re: City of Cupertino Economic Development Committee Interviews
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 6:00:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please note that I wish to also apply for Parks/Rec committee.
Claudio Bono
On Nov 28, 2022, at 6:35 PM, Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hi Claudio,
I apologize but we are not able to move the interview dates at this time. If anything changes, I will be sure to let you know.
Regards,
<image009.png>
Lauren Sapudar
Deputy City Clerk
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
<image010.png><image011.png><image012.png><image013.png><image014.png><image015.png><image016.png>
From: CLAUDIO BONO <bonoclaudio@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 11:20 AM
To: Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: City of Cupertino Economic Development Committee Interviews
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 for the email. Traveling that day and in Europe. Sadly, if we cannot move it to another day, I won’t be able to be part of it this time. Please advise.
Thank you,
Claudio Bono
On Nov 23, 2022, at 10:21 AM, Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org> wrote:
Hi Claudio,
We can offer you a zoom interview at the same time on Tuesday. Please let me know if you’d like to have a zoom interview on the 29th at 6:20pm.
Thank you.
<image001.png>
Lauren Sapudar
Deputy City Clerk
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
<image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> <image007.png> <image008.png>
From: CLAUDIO BONO <bonoclaudio@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 7:12 PM
To: Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: City of Cupertino Economic Development Committee Interviews
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.
Lauren;
Thank you for your email. Sadly I am not in town on that day. I will be back on December 4th and available anytime afterwards.
Thank you,
Claudio Bono
On Nov 22, 2022, at 6:44 PM, Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org> wrote:
Dear Committee applicant:
Council will conduct interviews for the Cupertino Economic Development Committee on Tuesday, November 29th beginning at 6:00
p.m. This will be an in-person meeting held in Community Hall, Council Chambers located at 10350 Torre Avenue. This is the building
between City Hall and the Library. Attached is the interview schedule with your specific time slot listed. Please email me back to
confirm your attendance.
Be prepared to provide a personal statement for up to one minute. Councilmembers will then have an opportunity to ask you
questions. Enclosed are sample questions that you may be asked.
Regards,
<image001.png>
Lauren Sapudar
Deputy City Clerk
City Manager's Office
LaurenS@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1312
<image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> <image007.png> <image008.png>
<112922.pdf>
<A - Interview Schedule.pdf>
<E - Economic Development Committee Interview Questions.pdf>
From:Claudio Bono
To:Hung Wei; Sheila Mohan; Liang Chao; jfruen@cupertino.org; Kitty Moore; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s
Office; City Clerk
Cc:Claudio Bono
Subject:Item number 9 on City council Agenda December 20th, 2022.
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:57:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor Wei, CouncilMembers, City Attorney; Madame Clerk & Staff;
Good evening. Attach, please find a link of the recently published Santa Clara
Country Superior Court grand Jury report entitled "A House Divided - Cupertino City
Council & City staff pdf version', detailing councilmanic interference amount a variety
of various issues involving the difficult council/staff relationship.
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:6cf7e899-2bd3-3342-b7d6-4e232fe45b94
I hope you will consider this report and its findings as you deliberate on committee
assignments tonights based upon this report's findings. I think that Mayor Wei's
proposed committee assignments/changes are well warranted.
Regards,
Claudio Bono
Cupertino Resident
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Clerk
Cc:Jennifer Griffin
Subject:Fw: Committee Assignment on Stevens Creek Corridor and Highway 85 Corridor
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:41:07 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.
FYI. Please add to the Item 9 Public Record comments for tonight's City Council
meeting. Thank you very much.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>
Cc: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
<planningcommission@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 05:39:25 PM PST
Subject: Committee Assignment on Stevens Creek Corridor and Highway 85 Corridor
Dear City Council:
Since Item 9 is being pulled from the Consemt Calendar for tonight's December
20, 2022 City Council meeting, we need to discuss who is being appointed to\
the Stevens Creek Cooridor Tarnsit Steering Committee as well as the Star Route
85 Cooridor Policy Advisory Board.
The Cupertino delegates to these two important transportation committees should
be the Mayor as well as either Kitty Moore or Liang Chao. We would therefore
have an excellent mix of 2022 and 2023 city council members with experience
on these two prominent committees.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:Jennifer Griffin; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:Committee Assignment on Stevens Creek Corridor and Highway 85 Corridor
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:39:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
Since Item 9 is being pulled from the Consemt Calendar for tonight's December
20, 2022 City Council meeting, we need to discuss who is being appointed to\
the Stevens Creek Cooridor Tarnsit Steering Committee as well as the Star Route
85 Cooridor Policy Advisory Board.
The Cupertino delegates to these two important transportation committees should
be the Mayor as well as either Kitty Moore or Liang Chao. We would therefore
have an excellent mix of 2022 and 2023 city council members with experience
on these two prominent committees.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:S B
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; City Attorney"s Office; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Committee assignments
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:23:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Mayor,
I would like to understand your analysis for your committee assignments; wouldn’t it make
more sense to have continuity on committees with new members being added to bring in new
perspectives. Replacing existing members with completely new members can create issues.
Here is an the example of one such committee:
Audit Committee (City of Cupertino) Council member Moore should have continued, two new
members, for an important committee such as this does not make sense. Council member
Moore focuses on details that I think new members of council are probably not aware and
possibly will not understand.
Also why are the following committees Economic Development committee and Fiscal
Strategic Planning committee on hold?
I look forward to a reply from you explaining your though process
regards
Sashi
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Fw: City Council Committee Appointments
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:15:19 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
FYI. Please add this item to the Public Record for Item 9 from the Consent
Calendar, Thank you.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jennifer Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com>
To: CityCouncil@Cupertino.org <citycouncil@cupertino.org>; cityclerk@cupertino.org
<cityclerk@cupertino.org>
Cc: grenna5000@yahoo.com <grenna5000@yahoo.com>; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
<planningcommission@cupertino.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 05:13:27 PM PST
Subject: City Council Committee Appointments
Dear City Council:
I would like to pull Item 9 from the Consent Calendar for the City Council
meeting tonight, City Council Committee Appointments. on December 20, 2022.
The ABAG Committee should contain the Mayor and either Kitty Moore
or Liang Chau. This is a very important committee considering the Housing
Element and the issues concerning the miscalculations of the RHNA
numbers.
Because of these issues, the ABAG commission should have representatives
from the 2022 City council as well as the Mayor who is somewhat familiar with
these issues and concerns with ABAG.
Thank you for your kind attention in this matter,
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject:City Council Committee Appointments
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:13:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council:
I would like to pull Item 9 from the Consent Calendar for the City Council
meeting tonight, City Council Committee Appointments. on December 20, 2022.
The ABAG Committee should contain the Mayor and either Kitty Moore
or Liang Chau. This is a very important committee considering the Housing
Element and the issues concerning the miscalculations of the RHNA
numbers.
Because of these issues, the ABAG commission should have representatives
from the 2022 City council as well as the Mayor who is somewhat familiar with
these issues and concerns with ABAG.
Thank you for your kind attention in this matter,
Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Lisa Warren
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:2023 Committee Assignments Item 9 Dec 20 2023 CC mtg
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:08:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor and Council,
I am quickly sending this message with some general thoughts.
I am just now looking at meeting attachments for this evening and seeing
the list for Committee Assignments.
I am noticing that there are four committees with no assignments at this
point. I am actually surprised that there are not more 'unassigned' spots
since I feel as though there have been open discussions about
assignments in the past.
It is not clear what committees may 'require' that type of process , if any,
but this seems to have been different. Including being a consent item.
I note a few things that I hope get some discussion tonight.
The Legislative Review Committee has not had the Mayor in the past.
This statement seems new *Mayor Recommended to serve for efficiency
I question the decision to replace Council Member Moore from both the
Audit Committee and VTA PAC. This seems misguided, unless
Councilmember Moore has indicated she is not interested in remaining on
these two committees where she has served the city and community as a
whole, so well. She is well respected by VTA and professionally handled
some key issues and situations. CM Moore is also deserving of
appreciation for recognizing, along with others, that the city needed a
deep dive on financial issues.
Thank you
Lisa Warren
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2022-12-20 CC Mtg Item 9- Committee Assignments missing
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 4:52:06 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 Mayor Wei and Council Members,
There are 4 committees that have “No appointment” on them for 2023:
Economic Development Committee: 2 City Councilmembers
Environmental Review Committee: 1 City Councilmember
Fiscal Strategic Planning Committee
Legislative Review Committee – important for our city!
These should be discussed and decided in public. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From:S B
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Agenda items 7.8 and 9
Date:Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:01:37 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 the mayor and members of the council.
I think we need see items 7.8 & 9on the regular agenda with an opportunity for members of the public to comment
and not be not he consent calendar
regards
Sashi