13. Fee Petition for Reconsid.
i!~1
i ,\ ~ /1
.. .... I
"..: .-'-
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3220
Fax: (408) 777-3366
CUPEIQ"INO
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No: /3
Meeting Date: June 6, 2006
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Consider a Petition for Reconsideration regarding charging a fee for petitions for
reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
A public hearing was held at the April 4, 2006 City Council meeting to discuss the citywide fee
schedule. As part of the fees for fiscal year 2006/07, a new fee for petitions for reconsideration
was proposed at $500. This fee was to cover a portion of the actual costs of processing petitions
for reconsideration as set forth in Chapter 2.08096 of our Municipal Code. On April 12,2006
the City Clerk's office received two Petitions for Reconsideration of this fee, one from Keith
Murphy and one from Darrel Lum.
The petitions request reconsideration on the basis that the fee would:
~ Impose a great financial burden upon the majority ofthe public,
~ Keep citizens from their democratic right to participate fully in city governance and limit
their free speech rights, and
~ Be illegal;
In addition, the petitions stated that:
~ No historical data was provided on the cost of prior reconsideration hearings to
substantiate the staff estimated cost of $5,000 per hearing, and
~ No historical data was provided on the actual number of prior petitions or the
approval/rejection of these petitions to substantiate a concern for a recent high number of
merit less requests.
Staff specifically proposed a fee of $500 (approximately 10% of actual costs) so as not to deter
any resident from seeking reconsideration. Since the citizen has the opportunity to address City
Council on any items on or off the agenda, the citizens can participate fully in the democratic
process and are free to speak their views. As to the other concerns regarding documentation of
the costs and outcomes of prior hearings, attached for your review is a schedule denoting actual
costs of our last four reconsideration hearings and the outcome of those hearings. Finally, you
will find a memo from our City Attorney as to the legality of proposing a processing fee.
Printed on Recycled Paper
/3 -/
RECOMMENDATION
Consider and reject the Petitions for Reconsideration of our reconsideration fee.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
~a~
Carol A. Atwood
Director of Administrative Services
D'~ W~p
City Manager
/.3 -.7..
III
~
iij
c:
<C
CI)
CI)
LL CI)
c: E
~t=
ell:
CI) I'Cl
"'OU)
"iij ....
c: 0
0_
I.) III
CI) 0
0:::0
-
.. ...
o ::> ..
o ~ C)
CD _.!:
Cl.....
I!.!! m
........c:
~ 0
t!! ~
..-
..c:e-
- ::>
2:;;
1II..c:
=-
o "ij
I-~
l! ...
.. ..
E~
Ol ::>
1.)11I
.:!!Cl
- ..
0'"
3:C)
.. l:
> 0
';: t!!
0..
'lU~
~:I:
.. >0-
f!;
C)::!
l: 21
.. ..
~.Q
.."
:I: ,5
.......1
Ot::
.. ..
1;j.Q
C)~
8!g~
_d~
~goi
.;
Cl
l:
';:
Ol
..
..c:
l!!
l:
'E
o
N
....0>0>
O"'N
C'Joci
0>....0>
~ ~
N
o)~_O?fl.
__lO......O
..oc:Orio~
coo>c:oo
C)C"')C"')Il)-
cr) .,j' -
<XlN
N,,!
cOo>
coco
0')
0>
o
N
N
f'oo.-f'o..l"--COf'oo..
~O('l')""'CO
r--M~o:ic:i
O)MCO,-......
N N
....<Xl
<XlN
~~
"'....
<Xl'"
moo
'" N
N
~
Cl
l:
';:
Ol
..
..c:
e
l:
'E
'"
N
........0>
O....N
Nod
0>"'0>
~ ~
N
......U')NN
coco-co
~NN"":
l"--COON
N~
C"')r--oo~
t'-:'I""""Q)o~
.,..moo....
~~~gci
~ .,j' ....
........
coO')
,....:~
0>....
N
N"'....
0>"" <Xl
NMO
~ N ~
q
~
....'"
<Xl 0')
N'"
0')'"
~
Cl
l:
';:
Ol
..
..c:
l!!
l:
'E
'"
....
........0>
a~~
C\i..-o
0>0>0>
~ ~
N
-...
0') '" N ~ ....NN 0 .... .... 0') co .... ....0> '" g~ "
....co ~ .... co.... 0> N <Xl <Xl co 0> .... <Xl'" .... ..
O>N No:) .....:~N N ci N ai cO ci triM ai ,m '0
0....
0> <Xl 0.... o>....~ .... ~ 0') 0> .... <Xl 0') <Xl ~ o ' ,~
N ~ N 0_ ~ q <Xl'" .... "'....
.n uS ..
~ ~ II::
....<Xl0>
C) o":C\1
C N..-O
"C O)NO>
." ......'1""""'1""""
~ N
e
l:
'E
o
'"
---
NN <Xl .... N .... co .... .... .... 0> 0>00 0 :.!! "
co~ .... co NO> ~ <Xl <Xl <Xl <Xl 0>00 0 . ..
o)N 0-; ,...: cicci o:i ci N N ai MM ci N ~
....
coo .... 0> 0> co .... ~ 0') 0') 0') N'" 0 ci
0') ~ N .... ~ ~ N ....'" '"
-q: oF ~ ..
II::
'"
~
::l
o
.<:
rJ):; M C)
2 0 en I.S:
I~ ~ 5r .~ el~c:n:; a.m
~5 5 c. c5 .E~':E ~ ~~
e..c::..c::1 10. CI)..c:: U')~a.Q) 0 II
ocog>'I;f"3..lll::~ SMO> o>r-~~~ r-O>'-'-
cn"':":a;.,- Co.,' =0- g-~ a.g>i ~~ a.~ ~_cn ~ I . ~~~~
-,.. a. l5. 0 I .- Q. ~ Q) ~ Q) ~ ~ (i) (i) ~ Q) ClJ D'~ D'~
CD ~ E l5.cn I .?;t~w~ c.E a.E a.C)o>o>'- l5.E
Ea.'~~..lll::._Q)ClJ I I I l~mroroOI I
0~~L.,-,-00EQ,-,-,-,-L.CCC~,-,-cc
-ClJQ)s~~.?;t'-IcooQ)Q)romroro oororo
~EE~OO~~~~uucc!~~~~uu~~
,..oBo,...?;ta.cClJc~~iio"'bb~~~~'~
5~~~5o~~u~oo~~~5oo~oo~~
"
Ol
..
.s::;
cf!.i
0>
~o
@loll
" ..
"''''-
u;~:g..~
8(i)o.fCl)
lI::>lI:: >
roos-gS
U5~~,g~
- .- m Q.
S'li-o'O
00.0...
I-<(....D..~
"
..
'0
,~
..
II::
-g
'0
,~
..
II::
l:
o
'jjj
'u
..
o
'u
l:
::>
o
I.)
/3-3
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Charles T, Kilian, City Attorney
RE:
Legal Authority to Impose a Processing Fee for Requests Seeking
Reconsideration of a Prior City Council Decision
DATE:
May 3, 2006
In the petitions seeking reconsideration of the $500 processing fee for reconsideration
requests imposed by the Council at its meeting of April 4, 2006, the issue was raised as to
the legal authority for the imposition of such a fee.
A city has the legal authority to impose fees and charges under its police power, As long
as a local enactment is not in conflict with general laws, the power to impose a valid fee for
processing applications which seek a city council determination of a matter is not
dependent upon any legislative taxing power, but exists pursuant to the direct grant of
police power under the California Constitution Article XI g7; County of Plumas v, Wheeler
149 Cal. 758, 87 P 909 (1906). It is this grant of authority which allows cities to impose
reasonable fees for processing various types of applications, See Associated Home
Builders Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 4 Cal. 3d 633, 94 Cal. Rptr. 630 (1971),
Any fee imposed under this legal authority may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the service for which the fee is charged, Carlsbad Municipal Water District v,
OLC Com, 2 Cal. App, 4th 479,3 Cal. Rptr, 2d 318 (1992); City of Dublin v, County of
Alameda, 14 Cal. App. 4th 264, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 845 (1993), In addition, fees and charges
must be reasonable, fair and equitable in nature and proportionately representative of the
costs incurred by the city, Associated Homebuilders of the Greater East Bav v, City of
Livermore, 56 Cal. 2d 847, 17 Cal. Rptr, 5 (1961); United Business Commission v. City of
San Diego, 91 Cal. App, 3d 156, 154 Cal. Rptr. 263 (1979).
In fixing the fee, it is proper and reasonable to take into account not only direct expenses,
but all the incidental consequences that may be likely to subject the public to cost. United
Business Commission v, City of San Diego (supra),
Based upon the above legal authority, we conclude that a processing fee with respect to any
application seeking council reconsideration is legal.
cc: Dave Knapp
Kimberly Smith
Carol Atwood
2
/3 -Lj
City of Cu perti no
10350 Toree Ave.
Cupertino, California 95014
April 12, 2006
Attention of:
Kim Smith, City Clerk of the City of Cupertino
Richard Lowenthal, Mayor
Kris Wang, Vice Mayor
Patrick Kwok, Councilman
Orrin Mahoney, councilman
Dolly Sandoval, Councilwoman
f5)[E~[E~W[EfRI
tru APR 1 3 2005 l1J)
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
David Knap, City Manager
Carol Atwood, Director of Administrative Services
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
Charles Killian, City attorney
Re: A Petition for Reconsideration
At the April 4th, 2006 Cupertino City Council meeting Agenda Item #14, 2006/07 Fee
Schedule, Resolution #~' city staff's Summary page with amendment,
requesting a $500 Reconsi ration cost recovery fee be implemented, and was
approved. 0 c;. - 0 ".s~
A $500 fee would impose a great financial burden upon the majority of the public,
It will improperly limit the rights of all Cupertino residents requesting to initiate any
required and fully mandated request for reconsideration of any city council action,
The $500 fee, as currently proposed by the city's staff, is purportedly being offered
as a very "low amount," so as to "not deter" any resident from seeking
reconsideration, and then stopping any access to due process, or limiting any due
diligence, as that resident may be required to do so, all the same,
A perhaps punitive fee, of this high amount, would clearly deter many residents from
filing a petition for reconsideration then,
Why should any citizen want to pay this large fee, and then to the exact same entity
which this resident is now also formally requesting for reconsideration - the City
Councils own prior actions, and perhaps a conflict of interest then, as that same
entity now imposes a financial hurdle for that resident to jump past, before that
resident can do the fully mandated steps as required by Municipal code, which each
resident must follow, as part of the reconsideration code, and then all before
perusing any additional litigation, as that resident will be limited to only what has
been submitted to the city in the actual reconsideration petition, as mandated by city
code, and if that is not done, then the City Councils decision will be final for all
purposes,
"Cost Recovery" was cited as one reason to impose this $500 fee, It was inferred
from the Administrative Staff report that the final cost of the original application was
approximately $10,000, and the cost of a reconsideration hearing was $5000,
/3 -S
These costs were used as the city staff's basis for determining the $500 fee,
No historical data was provided on the cost of any prior applications, and No data
was provided on the costs of any prior reconsideration hearings,
Another reason cited to impose the $500 fee was the recent high number of so called
"merit less" requests submitted to the city for reconsideration,
No historical data was provided by city staff of the actual numbers of all prior
petitions submitted to the city for reconsideration or of the actual numbers of
approvals or rejections of these petitions, for any grounds,
No Data was provided on the actual number of merit less petitions then as well.
In any event, should this new $500 fee now be the sole limiting factor in determining
whether a petition submitted to the city, by a resident for reconsideration, has any
merit, based on any resident's actual ability to pay this new fee alone?
No petition submitted to the city for reconsideration should ever be considered merit
less or then means tested before hand, as this would be a clear violation of that
residents civil rights - of my own rights then - as I honestly believe exposing each
and every petition to the bright light of sunshine found only in a full open
disclosures, deliberations, and then with a full vote of the city council - all performed
in the light of an open public hearing - this alone will fully insure every residents civil
rights are adequately respected, and then also allowing for the legal fulfillment of the
city's own reconsideration code too, as it was perhaps intended to do so all along,
The imposition of a $500 fee for any submission of a petition for reconsideration may
expose the City of Cupertino to private attorney general actions,
Therefore, I formally request that all of the above be considered as a my own
petition for reconsideration of the new $500 fee, one now imposed on any petitioner
submitting a petition for reconsideration of any City Council decisions, as part of the
2006/07 Fee Schedule, Resolution #06-065 and approved by the City Council on
April 4, 2006.
Submitted by:
~~~
Darrel Lum
Orogrande Place
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-255-4899 H
408-446-1343
,) r {v m e p '" c- be I I, 1'> <> -j-
d.-
13 -(,
To:
The City of Cupertino
Cupertino City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Telephone: (408) 777-3200
Fax: (408) 777-3366
[is) [E t [E ~ \Yl [E fnI
ln1 APR 1 3 2006 lW
April 12, 2006
CUPERTINO CITY CLERK
Attention of: Kim Smith, Cupertino City Clerk, (408) 777-3223
To the honorable City Council and City Staff of the City of Cupertino:
Richard Lowenthal, Mayor
Kris Wang, Vice Mayor
Patrick Kwok, Councilman
Orrin Mahoney, councilman
Dolly Sandoval, Councilwoman
David Knap, City Manager
Carol Atwood, Director of Administrative Services
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
Charles Killian, City Attorney
Petition for Reconsideration
.:i:l- dO-(Yo,?
At the April 4, 2006 Cupertino City Council meeting, regarding a new supplement to Agenda Item
#14, 20062007 Fee Schedule, Resolution #864:106, City staffs Summary page with new
amendment, requesting a $500 Reconsideration "cost recovery" fee be implemented as part of
the new fee schedule, and then the new schedule was approved, except for the parking permit
fees I believe, that same night.
I wish to petition for reconsideration of the $500 Reconsideration fee itself, and for reasons fully
described in various letters I sent, and then also replied to, from various city council and city staff
who attempted to assist me with my concerns, yet only as a direct foliow up to the actually
concerns, that were orally described by Oarrel Lum himself, who actually spoke the night of the
April 4, 2006 City Council hearing, and against the $500 fee for Reconsideration for his own given
reasons, and which I fully agree too.
I wish to submit the following emalls, as an outline for rationalizing my own request for
reconsideration, as I believe City Staffs own official comments are best testimony as to why and
for what grounds I am seeking reconsideration, and why I also have come to believe, petitioning
for reconsideration is in fact the onlv means to do so now, having exhausted all due diligence in
contacting the city in the hopes to address Mr. Lum's orally discussed concerns, and then for my
own many concerns for impacts to our community's civil rights, raised by Mr. Lum's comments as
well.
Respectfully,
1t:::~~
10159 East Estates drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-252-6503
I
/3-7
E IBIT
E
Cc &/& 10& -tF-f3
Grace Schmidt
1" -J
From: KeithddI527@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11 :24 AM
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Reconsideration petition and hearing, for the new $500 fee
Dear City Councilmembers
I was very disturbed to find out that the City Clerk had not properly supplied a complete copy of my "petition" for reconsideration
to all of you in a timely manner, and that my "petition" was only partially posted on the Cupertino.org website in a similar fashion
too.
The City Clerk described the city website as being a "public convenience," is it also a "public convenience" to have a fair public
hearing, and have all petition documents sent in complete and timely way to all of the city council beforehand?
Does this make any of you wonder why many Cupertino residents feel all of you are out of touch with us, like when even simple
administrative tasks, like giving each of you a complete reconsideration petition before the hearing tonight, is not considered
important enough by city staffers to double check, and perhaps this is the root of all of our residents complaints to begin with,
that the city council is routinely denied timely and complete data and information before you make any important decisions.
I had to both call, and email, the City Clerk yesterday, before the Clerk would act, as her first response to me, was that I should
just bring up the "omission" of my pages form my petition tonight at the hearing .... is that really the way you want our residents
to believe that our city does it's public business, governance by omission?
Will my complete petition get a fair hearing tonight, and actually be considered in it's proper full context?
I have also included today, several other emails between the City Clerks office and Carol Atwood, regarding the basic difference
between a reconsideration "petition hearing" and an actual "reconsideration hearing" - you might be confused as well, as Carol
Atwood appears to be.
I believe the City Clerk does explain the difference between a "petition hearing" and a "reconsideration hearing" and as the
Clerk's comments are worth reading.
Note that I had tried to request Carol Atwood to supply a complete historical review of the number and costs for all (1.)
reconsideration "petition" hearings and for the actual (2.) "reconsideration" hearings which might have been granted, and the
data she posted on cupertino.org does not have any dates, who the petitioner was (resident, property owner, or developer etc.),
or what the petition was requesting to be reconsidered - it appears that only a handful of petitions were processed by the city in
the last three years, as Mr. Lum did some quick research, and that appears to be the case - so no huge flood of reconsideration
hearings have taken place even in the last three year period.
It's hard to tell what Mrs. Atwood's data really means, as it appears to be incomplete, not properly identified, no context is given,
and no correlation is being given as to basing a new $500 fee on her "new" data.
Are claims of "cost recovery" of about 3 x $500 = $1500, if three reconsideration petitions is the rough average per year that are
heard by your members (not sure if any of the data Mrs. Atwood supplied is for an actual (1.) reconsideration hearing by itself,
or just a (2.) petiton hearing, as the city council appears to deny all "petitions" historically, before a reconsideration hearing is
ever granted.
Is a new $500 financial means test really warranted under these historically limited circumstances then?
I can only ask each of you if the city council wants our city's reconsideration process to be an honest "public convenience" or is
the current city council viewing the reconsideration process as an administrative nuisance and is that your rationalization for a
$500 financial obstacle, a political hurdle, that you each want placed in front of a once basically sound democratic
process, using "cost recovery" as a weak excuse - a few thousand dollars a year in revenues - does not seem to justify the slap
6/6/2006
in the face to all of our resident's rights to be fairly heard, and in a non discriminatory way.
Understand, that having an administrative and legislative right to impose a new fee was never in question by Mr.Lum and
myself.
Mr. Lum and I had petitioned because we felt that the reconsideration process "was" once about being fair and considerate to
all of those residents who elected you to office. You all have to weigh any so called "cost recovery" schemes against the very
real financial hurdle of C! new $500 fee, and then for the very real limitations to a once democratic process, one which will limit
all Cupertino residents participation in there own governance.
Please maintain the reconsideration process as a free democratic tool as it once was envisioned for everyone, both wealthy
developer and average Cupertino resident alike.
I hope you will review all of my submitted emails and petition documents, as they were originally submitted to our city staffers.
Keith Murphy
<><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Subject: Re: Reconsideration Petition & Hearing Questions
Date:5/18/06
From:KeithddI527@aol.com
To:CaroIA@cupertino.org, cityclerk@cupertino.org, DaveK@cupertino.org
Mrs, Atwood,
Thank you for your quick reply,
My own replies, to your comments alone, are in red, {Keith Murphy)
In a message dated 5/17/06 4:40:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, CaroIA@cupertino.orgwrites:
Hi Keith-
Let me answer your questions since I was at the Council meeting and am working on the Reconsideration staff report
regarding Reconsideration fees which is scheduled for June 6th. I have put my answers in blue for easy reading.
Carol Atwood
Director of Administrative Services
You did not answer all of my questions, just to be clear, so I still request the city clerk to answer all questions
official as well, as i still have many unanswered questions which I have a reasonable expectation can be
easily addressed, (Keith Murphy)
-----Original Message-----
From: Keithddl527@aol,com [mailto:KeithddI527@aol,com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 20068:25 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Carol Atwood
Subject: RE: Reconsderation Petition & Hearing Questions
Dear City Clerk
1.) I understand that on the May 16, 2006 City Council Agenda, Item No. 21, a reconsideration "petition," was
discussed by the City Council for its "possible" acceptance or denial, is this correct?
2.) That reconsideration "petition" was actually "DENIED" that night, and done so primarily based on a prior written
opinion found in the Summary notes for that agenda item, for that nights City Council meeting, is this correct?
6/6/2006
3.) No additional "Reconsideration" hearing was then requested by the City Council on that matter, is this
correct?
4.) The City Council was performing a "normal" public hearing of city business, and the "petition" for
Reconsideration, Item No. 21, was but 1, of 25 agenda items, all normal public business items which have to be
heard and then decided by the City Councilmembers, as mandated by law, is this correct?
[Carol Atwood] Questions 1-4. Keith, I suggest you might want to watch the telecast of the item on our website at
www.cupertino.ora to clarify what happened last night.
I am asking for the city's official clarifications, of our city's procedures - you may not be the appropriate
city official to reply to this question then - please understand that I was lectured early on in the
"petition" submission process, by the City Clerks office, that it was only going to be a "petition" hearing
and not a "reconsideration" hearing that was going to take place on May 16th, as the "petition" hearing
would have to be decided "first," by the City council, and if they approved it, then they might choose to
call for a "special" reconsideration hearing to be held as soon as that same night, or continued to another
date, That "petition" was denied by written opinion of the entire city council well beforehand, and that
would support the fact that no reconsideration hearing was being granted as well, as the petition was
being DENIED,
I do request this to be fully clarified, disagreed with, or agreed with all based on our city's public hearing
codes, I would direct you to read the full Summary report for that agenda Item yourself, if it was
overlooked perhaps, {Keith Murphy}
5.) Many residents were misled, by several City Councilmember's comments that night, that an actual
Reconsideration hearing had taken place, yet only an agendised Item was discussed during a regularly scheduled
City Council Meeting; the "possible" acceptance or denial of a "petition" was discussed, then voted on, then
Denied, and no additional public hearing (like a formal Reconsderation hearing) was requested by the City
Council, is this correct?[Carol Atwood] I disagree that the public was misled. The item was agendized and the
staff report was available to any interested party both on the web site and from the City Clerk's office. The item
was heard appropriately and the City Council discussed and voted on the issue.
I disagree with your own disagreement - the "News Media" attending that night - for one example - did
ask me many questions, as they clearly thought that a "reconsideration" hearing was indeed taking place
that night, but it was only a "petition" hearing that was taking place, and that "petition" had clearly been
DENIED beforehand in the written opinion found in the summary, and that nights' agenda item was just
going to be dispensed with as a matter of order, You may not be the best qualified city official to
comment on the city council process and rules, as you appear confused as well - as were many residents,
the media, and perhaps as myself was too, (Keith Murphy}
6a.) I would like to recieve copies of any resident's or city official's actual reauests, one asking for an accounting of
the city costs associated with May 16, 2006, agenda Item 21a,b & c.
- and-
6b.) I would also like to request a copy of those costs which you might send in reply, also be supplied to myself as
well.
Can both of these requests be supplied?[Carol Atwood] In conjunction with your request of reconsideration of our
reconsideration fee, I need to go back and do an accounting of our most recent reconsideration hearings to
ascertain the cost of staff time in conjunction with those items. 6a and 6b will be included in that analysis. I can
also supply you with the original requests for each of the reconsiderations that we will be analyzing.
A "petition" was filed, first by Mr, Darrel Lum, before I submitted my petition after him, both regarding the
$500 Reconsideration Fee itself, I recall that Mr, Lum and myself had WONDERED why city staff and the
City council had not BEFOREHAND researched the costs of reconsideration "petitions" and then for any
"reconsideration hearings" costs that might have been granted as a result of any prior petitions being
submitted in the past history of our city - and certainly this should have taken place long before city
staffers and the city council acted in it's "administrative" and "legislative" capacities - and you our city
officials agree, that city staffers did not do this research, analyze it, then supply any such data at a public
hearing, and that CONCERN is what was being commented on by Mr, Lum and myself, I would suggest
that any research that is now being considered by city staffers already, as requested by "others" should
properly include all data, and not "selected" data, to allow for a fair and complete discussion about the
true historical costs of reconsideration, both past and present, for all time frames - a ture historical
perspective,
To be clear, I am asking for copies of any "City councils" or "city staffers" or "other intrested parties"
request for our city staffers to compile any reconsderation data and then also calling for any analysis of
6/6/2006
that data, along any guidelines - I am aware of Mr, Lums and my own "petitions" and please do not
confuse those "petitions" with my seperate request for these other public documents - oral or written
requests - from any other "intrested parties" requesting city staffers to collect specific reconsiderstion
data, analyze it along any suggested guidelines - I would like tI1os~ intrested parties names to be made
clear, and then what thQy_are themselves requesting of city staffers to do as well, and then copies of that
compiled data and its' anlysis too - is this a better clarification of my request? {Keith Murphy}
7.a) I would also like copies of all other past reconsideration "petitions" costs (as requested by other parties)
- and-
7b.) then there associated reconsideration hearing costs - if actually granted - which the City of Cupertino has
incurred in the past. ( which might be requested by any resident or city official.)
Can both of these requests be supplied?[Carol Atwood] please see my reply for 6a and 6b.
Please see my reply for 6a & 6b {Keith Murphy}
8.) I do not wish to be the "originator" of any request for any cost studies to be compiled - at this time - I only
wish to be included in any official response, which the City Clerk, the City Accountant, or any other city
official, who may be requested to provide such information, to another interested party, as I am specifically
requesting to receive a copy of that reply alone, and then of that actual request which initiated that reply be sent in
the first place.
Is this clearly stated, or do I need to clarify anything before you act?[Carol Atwood] Well Keith, you are the
originator as you have requested a reconsideration of the reconsideration fee, and to bring that back to Council I
am now obligated to support actual costs versus the $500 proposed fee that they approved.
Well, Mrs, Atwood, I believe two residents officially submitted two "petitions" if that fact is what you are
pointing out. City staffers - you and Mr, Knapp - were obligated to supply all DATA to the City Council,
with, or before, you and the city manager submitted the new $500 fee proposal for public discussions, and
that was clealy not done, and why the City Council's now has to formally reply to both formal public
requests to now have to support it's (the city councils) own bases for the acceptance and passage of a
new $500 Reconsideration city fee, The City Council now has to back track, requesting city staffers to
perform duties which should have been required in he first place, and that request by the city council is
a mandated procedure as part of the Council acting as the guiding authority over city staffers and then as
administration head of all city business - and this not unique as much as it is explicit, and not an unusual
public request at all(l) as the city council does have to respond to those residents who elected that
legislative body, those same residents who now seek a reasonable redress of that same legislative bodies
actions - all very normal civil democratic processes, Mrs, Atwood, {Keith Murphy}
9.) Please reply using email, and any documents which cannot be sent by emaH, please inform me if I can pick
them up in person (my first choice) or if they can be sent by USPS mail (my second choice).[Carol Atwood] Given
the current workload with trying to get the budget out, we anticipate that the staff report and back up analysis on
this item will not be available until June 1 st. I will be happy to e-mail the staff report and analysis to you at that
time.
There should never be any short cuts of the administrative process, and by default, any punitive short
cuts of the public oversight process as well - public transparency of all city affairs -like when a new
public service fee is being proposed, it needs to be fully researched and documented before it is put
before the city council and then before that fee is debated publicly, as our residents have an equal right to
be fully informed before hand, of all data, to be able to comment intelligently on any ramifications to one's
civil rights or for any additional community impacts which might not be readily understandable, based
on mere anecdotal commentary coming from city staffers - and the city council members themselves - on
the actual night of that public hearing - the attending public is unable to properly weigh the merits of city
staffers recomendations for a new $500 reconsideration fee, based on anecdotal comments alone, and
why factual data and a sound unbiased summary of that data is very import, and should always be made
publicly available well beforehand, to allow for informed public commnet, before any City Council
decision is made,
This did not happen Mrs, Atwood, {Keith Murphy}
1 D.) Can you give any update on the status of the "two" recently filed reconsideration petitions -
both were petitioning for reconsideration the new $500 Reconsideration fee itself - what has been decided (pro or
con) and then officially scheduled for, if anything ?[Carol Atwood] See above and again, they are officially
scheduled for June 6th.
All of my questions still require an official reply by the City Clerk as well, as Mrs, Atwood, Director of
Administrative Services, is perhaps not the best city official to comment on the workings of our city
6/6/2006
council. i,e, proper rules and proceedures for preparing and holding a fair public hearing, {Keith Murphy}
Thank you.
Keith Murphy
10159 East Estates Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-252~503
keithddl527ailaol.com
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Subject:RE: Reconsderation Petition & Hearing Questions
Date:5/18/06 9:23:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:graces@cupertino.org
Reply To:
To:KeithddI527@aol.com, CityClerk@cupertino.org
CC:CaroIA@cupertino.org, DaveK@cupertino.org
Hello Mr. Murphy,
A letter was sent to you yesterday from the City Clerk's office regarding the City Council action of the
Toll Brothers Petition for Reconsideration item, You should be receiving that letter in the mail today or
tomorrow, but let me briefly respond to your questions below, My answers will be in purple.
-----Original Mes5age-----
From: Keithddl527@aol,com [mailto:KeithddI527@aol,com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:25 AM
To: City Clerk
ec: Carol Atwood
Subject: RE: Reconsderation Petition & Hearing Questions
Dear City Clerk
1.) I understand that on the May 16, 2006 City Council Agenda, Item No. 21, a reconsideration "petition,"
was discussed by the City Council for its "possible" acceptance or denial, is this correct? Yes, the item
was on the May 16 agenda and discussed by Council at that meeting.
2.) That reconsideration "petition" was actually "DENIED" that night, and done so primarily based on a prior
written opinion found in the Summary notes for that agenda item, for that nights City Council meeting, is
this correct? The City Council adopted Resolution No, 06-098 denying the petition for reconsideration
(see attached resolution), Staff makes recommendations to Council, but the final decision always lies
with the Council.
3.) No additional "Reconsideration" hearing was then requested by the City Council on that matter, is this
correct? Yes, Council denied the petition for reconsideration and did not request any further
hearings on the matter.
4.) The City Council was performing a "normal" public hearing of city business, and the "petition" for
Reconsideration, Item No. 21, was but 1, of 25 agenda items, all normal public business items which have
to be heard and then decided by the City Councilmembers, as mandated by law, is this correct? A
petition for reconsideration must be heard by the City Council within 60 days of receiving the
petition. The item was on the May 16 agenda for City Council to discuss and decide whether to accept
6/6/2006
the petition or not,
5.) Many residents were misled, by several City Council member's comments that night, that an actual
Reconsideration hearing had taken place, yet only an agendised Item was discussed during a regularly
scheduled City Council Meeting; the "possible" acceptance or denial of a "petition" was discussed, then
voted on, then Denied, and no additional public hearing (like a formal Reconsderation
hearing) was requested by the City Council, is this correct? Yes, Council denied the petition for
reconsideration and did not request any further hearings on the matter,
6a,) I would like to recieve copies of any resident's or city official's actual reauests, one asking for an
accounting of the city costs associated with May 16, 2006, agenda Item 21a,b & c.
- and -
6b.) I would also like to request a copy of those costs which you might send in reply, also be supplied to
myself as well.
Can both of these requests .be supplied? The Administrative Services Dept, can give you this
information,
7.a) I would also like copies of all other past reconsideration "petitions" costs (as requested by other
parties)
- and -
7b.) then there associated reconsideration hearing costs - if actually granted - which the City of Cupertino
has incurred in the past. ( which might be requested by any resident or city official.)
Can both of these requests be supplied? The Administrative Services Dept, can give you this
information.
8.) I do not wish to be the "originator" of any request for any cost studies to be compiled - at this time - I
only wish to be included in any official response, which the City Clerk, the City Accountant, or any other
city official, who may be requested to provide such information, to another interested party, as I
am specifically requesting to receive a copy of that reply alone, and then of that actual request which
initiated that reply be sent in the first place.
Is this clearly stated, or do I need to clarify anything before you act? I'm sure the cost information will
be provided during the fee petition for reconsideration item on June 6, You are welcome to call the
City Clerk's office and ask for a copy of the staff report that will be in the packet for that item for
the June 6 meeting, The staff report will also be on-line on or around June 1st.
9.) Please reply using email, and any documents which cannot be sent by email, please inform me if I can
pick them up in person (my first choice) or if they can be sent by USPS mail (my second choice).
10.) Can you give any update on the status of the "two" recently filed reconsideration petitions-
both were petitioning for reconsideration the new $500 Reconsideration fee itself - what has been decided
(pro or con) and then officially scheduled for, if anything? You should have already received a letter in
the mail stating that the item is scheduled for June 6.
Grace Schmidt
Cupertino Deputy City Clerk
408-777-3224
408-777-3366 (fax)
Thank you.
Keith Murphy
10159 East Estates Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-252-6503
keithddI527@aol.com
6/6/2006