CC 05-18-2021 Oral Communications_Late Written CommunicationsCC 05-18-21
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 6:38 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:PPT for Oral Communications tonight
Attachments:Bedord Council - 2021-05-18 Oral Communication.pptx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Kirsten,
Please put this up while I am speaking. Also include in the public record.
Thanks much.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cell: 408‐966‐6174 / Land line: 408‐252‐5220
Whether City Relationship with Housing and
Community Development ( HCD) ?
•Jean Bedord
•Cupertino City Council
•May 18, 2021
Responsible Support of Education
Timeline for Density Bonus Ordinance
•December 15, 2020, Council approved Density Bonus resolution to avoid January 2021 effective date of AB 2345
•California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) warning –won in Los Altos SB35 case
•Warning letter from local attorney, J.R. Fruen
•February 23, Planning Commission approved ordinance on 4-1 vote
•April 9, Encinitas repealed similar ordinance
•April 20
•Lengthy letter from local attorney, J.R. Fruen with objections
•City Council approved ordinance on 4-1 vote, first reading
•May 3, Notice from Housing and Community Development (HCD) on potential violation of state law
•May 4, City Council approved on a 4-1 vote, second reading
Time to “mend fences” with HCD
•Rapid response with Technical Assistance letter addressing April 20 council approval –may trigger action by the Attorney General
•SB 35 compliance
•Vallco litigation by Kitty Moore, Ignatius Ding and Peggy Griffin –lost
•City failure to issue building permits for Vallco Town Center –potential litigation
•Misguided legal advice to council –see San Jose Insider https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/cupertino-electeds-adopt-new-development-rules-despite-warnings-from-housing-officials/
•Increased scrutiny of upcoming Housing Element
•Potential litigation for downzoning Vallco
Repealing of housing Density Bonus ordinance would be a “good faith” gesture
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:City of Cupertino Written Correspondence
Subject:FW: PPT for Oral Communications tonight
Attachments:Bedord-2021-05-18 HCD.docx
From: Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 8:38 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>
Subject: Re: PPT for Oral Communications tonight
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Kirsten,
Worked great. Would you be so kind as to add the attached narrative for the slides along with the PPT for the public
record?
Thanks much!
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
Cell: 408‐966‐6174 / Land line: 408‐252‐5220
May 18, 2010 City Council – Oral Communications
Good evening, Mayor Paul and council members,
My name is Jean Bedord and I am a resident of Cupertino. I am here
tonight to request that this council repeal the Housing Density Bonus
ordinance that you passed on May 4. This council needs to think long
and hard about its relationship to state Housing and Community
Development Department (HCD). Through its actions, Cupertino has
developed a reputation as a bad apple (no pun intended) in providing
housing for the community.
Next slide
Most recently, the city has received a warning that the recently passed
Density Bonus ordinance may be in violation of state laws. However,
this is not a new development. Council has repeatedly ignored feedback
that their approach was problematic, starting on Dec. 15 when CaRLA
gave a stern warning. Despite being warned about the potential of a
lawsuit, the city pushed ahead.
Next slide
What are the results? The very rapid response of HCD to the April 20
approval indicates Cupertino is on an informal watch list for the agency.
The city may be able to skirt legal action, but the fact that this occurred
damages the city’s reputation – it now the only jurisdiction with this
type of law.
There is also the matter of the city compliance with SB35 laws. Is the
city headed toward expensive litigation with Sand Hill Properties?
What about the lawyers? The housing attorney, Barb Kautz of Goldfarb
Lipman, failed to fully disclose to council, even when asked, that her
client, Encinitas, had repealed a similar ordinance several weeks before
consideration by this city council.
https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/cupertino-electeds-adopt-new-
development-rules-despite-warnings-from-housing-officials/
Even more importantly, what about the scrutiny for the upcoming
Housing Element? At this point, it’s highly unlikely that the first pass
will be approved, given Cupertino’s reputation.
Doesn’t it make more sense to repeal the Density Bonus ordinance as a
“good faith” measure?
Thank you for your consideration.
CC 05-18-21
#15
HDL Contract
Amendment
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 4:58 PM
To:City Council; Deborah L. Feng; Benjamin Fu
Cc:City of Cupertino Audit Committee; City Clerk
Subject:2021-05-18 CC Meeting - Agenda Item #15 HDL Econ Dev Contract
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council, City Manager Deb Fu and Director Ben Fu,
After reading the Staff Report for Item #15 – extension of the HDL Economic Development Contract I am very concerned
about the financial oversight controls that the City does NOT have in place. I was a contractor for many, many years and
not once EVER exceeded the maximum dollar amount or number of hours my contract specified! It’s sloppy to allow a
contractor to even submit more than has been approved much less pay them over the amount!
1. Who is monitoring the number of hours/totals?
2. Why even accept an invoice that exceeds the contracted amount?
3. This is serious. How many other contracts have exceeded the approved/contracted amounts?
4. Isn’t there a column in the financial database that checks against the max allowed?
PLEASE put controls, alerts, stops on payments that exceed the max allowed!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 05-18-21
#17
Initial Study Session
on FY 21-22 Budget
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 11:26 PM
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item 17 - Peggy's Slides
Attachments:2021-05-18 Item 17 - Peggys Slides.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.
Hi Kirsten,
Here are my slides for Item 17.
Thank you,
Peggy Griffin
2021-05-18 CC Meeting
ITEM 17 – Proposed Budget FY 2021-22 Study Session
FEEDBACK/REQUEST:
- Provide a file with ALL the chapters
- Name the files to match their names listed in the Agenda Item.
QUESTIONS:
- Administration Chapter
o $1.5M for what?
o Economic Development is left blank?
o $600k for City Manager Contingency – for what?
CC 05-18-21
#18
Community
Funding Grant
Program
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Xiangchen (Minna) Xu
Sent:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 5:25 PM
To:Deborah L. Feng; Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Jon Robert Willey; Hung Wei
Subject:Regarding Agenda #18
Dear Councilmember and City manager,
I just read tonight's meeting agenda and found the Agenda item #18 looks a little bit confusing to me.
From two years ago, Park Commission voted to remove the Cupertino Historic Society (CHS) from Community
Funding Program. It seems they worked very closely with our city, we don't think we should let them compete
with other non‐profit organizations for community funding, since it may be unfair for other small
organizations. From that time, we stopped reviewing application and Annual report from the Cupertino
Historic Society in our commission meeting. We believed that it should be City Council's responsibility to make
decision about the funding to CHS.
But if you read the Agenda #18, it sounds like Park and Rec. commission already reviewed application of the
CHS and recommended $20k funding amount to council. So, I write this email just to clarify that Park and Rec.
commission didn't do any review work. And we didn't see any report from CHS, especially this part in our
meeting agenda or staff report:
We only voted to let Counci do the reviewing job. Hope this clarification may help you understand agenda #18
better.
Thank you!
Minna
2
Xiangchen (Minna) Xu
Parks and Recreation Commission Vice Chair
Xxu@cupertino.org