The URL can be used to link to this page

Document Release - 05.12.2023From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:11 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <PiuG@cupertino.org> Subject: Property owner comment One more piece of information I had requested is the property owner’s desired density if they requested. We have received emails from property owners, but I don’t have time connect each email to the site map we have. Is it possible that the staff help add such info to the maps? Or have a brief summary sheet with property owner comments by site? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0001 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:47 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <PiuG@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Property owner comment And we also requested information on pipeline projects too, especially since some of them are not approved. And approved ones could come back and revise their projects. So, we should also include their site acreage, current zoning, current use, proposed density, proposed use, height, etc. Thanks. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 8:11 AM To: Pamela Wu Cc: Luke Connolly; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Subject: Property owner comment One more piece of information I had requested is the property owner’s desired density if they requested. We have received emails from property owners, but I don’t have time connect each email to the site map we have. Is it possible that the staff help add such info to the maps? Or have a brief summary sheet with property owner comments by site? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0002 From: Kitty Moore on behalf of Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 11:03 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Housing Element - Congrats Hi Pamela, There are no congratulations due because, if we look critically at what staff did in approving the Vallco SB35 project, when the previous City Council majority fired our previous City Attorney Hom who said the Vallco project was not compliant with SB35, staff approved a project which grossly increased the housing shortage (please request the confidential files). Hom was fired, Brandt took off, I sued and lost. People who could do math saw how bad the Vallco SB35 was and it was recently made worse. I realize that people on staff and Council (!) are pro union and pro-growth and think that having any project growing denser development will be good because they may get a new City Hall and want bad transit options built to provide lucrative contracts made with certain companies. I hope you are skilled in discernment. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Hi Scott, Thank you for your emails. I used the excel sheet to keep track of both Tier 1 and Tier 2 and feel pretty good about the distribution. That we have gone from 5 properties in 2014 to over 50 in 2022 with the final product still being a deficit for the city housing with the housing law, by right, ministerially approved, contaminated site, Vallco SB35 office park project masquerading as a housing project, made the exercise a painful exercise in futility I cannot get many hours beyond the last 14 back from. On the council are a PhD in computer science from Princeton, a Harvard Patent attorney, a PE in ME and myself, a PE in Civil Engineering, along with Councilmember Wei, each paid a little over $600 per month. The only congratulations due are for the completion, not for the product. We did the best we could, mathematically, in a really bad situation. The end result does not help the housing cost problem and is an effort to mitigate the housing deficit caused by the Vallco SB35 “housing law” project, even Councilmember Wei tried to add housing for the excess employees from it. I fully appreciate the irony that we need to assure HCD that Vallco will be built to cause us a greater housing deficit because the SB35 law is so badly written. Thank you for joining in the effort to get the sites selected, futile as it was. Sincerely, Kitty Moore but it is not engaging the community. We aren’t adding office, we aren’t adding employment. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 7:43 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Housing Element - Congrats Councilmember Moore, appreciate the wheel forward. I noticed that my city email was incorrectly cited so I have not been kept in the loop. Thank you for your support last night, but really, the congrats belong to the council and the dedicated CDD team. Pamela 0003 Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 On Aug 31, 2022, at 7:38 PM, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> wrote: FYI Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 7:36 PM To: scemail777@gmail.com <scemail777@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Housing Element - Congrats Hi Scott, Thank you for your emails. I used the excel sheet to keep track of both Tier 1 and Tier 2 and feel pretty good about the distribution. That we have gone from 5 properties in 2014 to over 50 in 2022 with the final product still being a deficit for the city housing with the housing law, by right, ministerially approved, contaminated site, Vallco SB35 office park project masquerading as a housing project, made the exercise a painful exercise in futility I cannot get many hours beyond the last 14 back from. On the council are a PhD in computer science from Princeton, a Harvard Patent attorney, a PE in ME and myself, a PE in Civil Engineering, along with Councilmember Wei, each paid a little over $600 per month. The only congratulations due are for the completion, not for the product. We did the best we could, mathematically, in a really bad situation. The end result does not help the housing cost problem and is an effort to mitigate the housing deficit caused by the Vallco SB35 “housing law” project, even Councilmember Wei tried to add housing for the excess employees from it. I fully appreciate the irony that we need to assure HCD that Vallco will be built to cause us a greater housing deficit because the SB35 law is so badly written. Thank you for joining in the effort to get the sites selected, futile as it was. Sincerely, Kitty Moore 0004 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 10:31 AM To: Piu Ghosh (she/her) <PiuG@cupertino.org>; scemail777@gmail.com <scemail777@gmail.com> Cc: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; pwu@cupertino.org <pwu@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Housing Element - Congrats Scott, Just wanted to second Piu’s comments. You’ve provided many insightful comments throughout the process and have recognized the difficult balance involved between meeting HCDs requirements and maintaining a community’s identity and vision for its future. Luke Luke Connolly Senior Planner Community Development LukeC@cupertino.org (408)777-1275 From: Piu Ghosh (she/her) <PiuG@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 10:00 AM To: scemail777@gmail.com Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; pwu@cupertino.org Subject: Re: Housing Element - Congrats Scott Thank you for your kind words. They are really appreciated. Thank you for your continued involvement in the project. We hope to deliver a Housing Element that the community can rally around, is legally adequate and that HCD will certify. Regards Piu Sent from my iPhone 0005 Piu Ghosh (she/her) Planning Manager Community Development PiuG@cupertino.org (408) 777-3277 On Aug 31, 2022, at 9:48 AM, scemail777@gmail.com wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Piu/Luke, Just wanted to send you a quick email of “congrats” for your efforts over the past 12 months, and especially your efforts over the past two nights. Your support and knowledge throughout the process, made issues & facts comprehensible for the Council and in my opinion, that was invaluable. One thing I noticed over the past two nights, was that Staff took the lead in ALL aspects of the presentations & in the answering of questions…instead of letting the consultant lead (like had been done in the past). Whoever made this decision to go this route, should be commended, as it was the right choice. Lastly, your efforts in the last 2 hours of the meeting last night, to keep notes and to keep them accurately, was very impressive, as you did all of that on the fly. I did not envy your position. In all of the different cities Housing Element discussions that I’ve participated in, the common theme is that when the Council makes their final vote, everyone feels sort of weird b/c HCD has put such onerous requirements on all these cities. It’s almost bittersweet. I pulled my hand down last night at the end of the meeting, b/c I had wanted to congratulate all of you and thank you, but Peggy Griffin & Lisa Warren (who both spoke just before I was about to speak), sounded really disappointed, and so I felt it was not appropriate for me to follow that with a positive message of thanks. But in the end, you did what you set out to do and that was to get a draft Recommended Sites Inventory approved and you did that. The City is lucky to have both of you. Scott 408-640-0383 0006 From: Kitty Moore on behalf of Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2022 6:04 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Claudio Bono for Cupertino City Council 2022 Hi Pamela, Candidate Bono is President of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce and a board member of the Rotary. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 3:01 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Claudio Bono for Cupertino City Council 2022 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. https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/? url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.claudioforcupertino.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ckmoore%40cupertino.org%7Cc226749356e74537c6f608da8c657d56%7C19e13f83dce947c3ae6712c6a63e2ed6%7C0%7C0%7C637976664785588763%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CKgv%2F2JJs342qs3nypGrfnPd7oLCBS4otNVEgjgJi08%3D&reserved=0 Best regards, 0007 From: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2022 4:53 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Apparently homeless woman fyi Also, we should talk to CalTrans. The guy who had the tents at Lawrence Mitty, it looks like he’s right off 280 northbound now off the Wolfe exit area. They are these big blue canopies that look just like the ones that were at Lawrence Mitty. I’ll coordinate another Lawrence Mitty cleanup soon to keep the foot traffic there but we should come up with a plan soon and keep the work and activity going there. We should have supportive facilities and services. LifeMoves really does seem like a good org. Hopefully you and Consuelo manage to re-connect soon. I know there’s community concern about supportive housing and facilities but LifeMoves for example is temporary. The five-year term may not seem all that brief, but it will go by fast, and for the Simeon property, it makes a lot of sense because it is unlikely that a build-out could happen in the next five years there anyway given the surroundings. Sent from my iPhone Darcy Paul Mayor City Council DPaul@cupertino.org (408) 777-3195 Begin forwarded message: From: kathy <kathy.difrancesco@gmail.com> Date: September 3, 2022 at 12:45:33 PM PDT To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Apparently homeless woman 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 Paul and all City Council Members, My name is Kathy DiFrancesco, and I am a long time home owner at 10423 Norwich Ave, Cupertino. For at least one week, a woman has been sitting all day at the corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. and N. Portal Avenue surrounded by shopping bags. I contacted the Code Enforcement Department of the City last week, and was instructed by a very helpful man to call the non-emergency number for the Sheriff and request a wellness check. A Deputy returned my call to confirm the woman was OK, and did not want any their help. The Deputy said these wellness checks were all the Sheriff’s Department could do if the woman did not want help, but I was always welcome to continue to make these requests whenever I had a concern. Over the past week this woman has moved herself and all her belongs from one side of N. Portal Avenue (in front of the Yoshinoya restaurant) to the other corner (in front of the shopping center in which Chuck E. Cheese is located). This is not a safe situation for her. Continuous wellness checks by the Sheriff’s Department does not seem to be an actual remedy for this woman’s apparent homeless and refusal of help, or for the environment of our City. Surely the City’s solution is not to simply let people set up camp along the sidewalks within our residential and business areas. I would like to understand what can be done by the City or the County of Santa Clara to help her. Does Cupertino have a plan in place to deal with the homeless situation, specifically with those persons who do not want any assistance? Would you please explain if the City has policies or codes to handle this type of situation? Thank you, Kathy DiFrancesco Sent from my iPad 0008 0009 From: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2022 9:27 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <PiuG@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Hampton development Letter of Intent to Develop URGENT I need this post-haste. Will be at city hall 730-8am. Meeting with the Irvine people this evening but I have the apple event to attend and then I have to get on a plane. I plan to provide a paper copy of the letter of intent when I have dinner with the Irvine Co reps tonight in Long Beach. Sent from my iPhone Darcy Paul Mayor City Council DPaul@cupertino.org (408) 777-3195 On Sep 2, 2022, at 2:59 PM, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> wrote: Piu, can you forward a signed copy of the Letter of Intent to Develop from the Irvine Company for the Hampton development to Mayor, Chris and myself? Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0010 From: Liang Chao on behalf of Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:50 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Piu Ghosh (she/her) <PiuG@cupertino.org> CC: Albert Salvador, P.E. <AlbertS@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Concerned Cupertino Resident Has a response been sent to “Nancy Harper”? Could you bcc me on the response? Thanks. It seems this is the area described in the letter from Nancy Harper: “Regnart Road ravine area from the Lindy Lane area to the end of Regnart Road.” Is that an area which belongs to the County? Do you have a map of the area? She asked: “So wh at agency is responsible for the MASSIVE number of flammable materials that are in and alongside the ravine of Regnart Road? What actions are being taken?” Your answer addresses two scenarios out of three, I think: 1. the property is a private property = > the complaint and notice of violation would be handled by County Fire. 2. The property is a city property = > the city is responsible 3. If the property is From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 1:42 PM To: Liang Chao; Matt Morley; Piu Ghosh (she/her) Cc: Albert Salvador, P.E.; Benjamin Fu; Debra Nascimento Subject: FW: Concerned Cupertino Resident Vice Mayor Chao, Normally, issues described in the attachment is within the jurisdiction of County Fire as County Fire enforces defensible spaces around buildings and structures. County Fire is the enforcement agency when a violation to their regulations are found. Here is a link to their defensible space requirements: https://www.sccfd.org/education-and-preparedness-overview/emergency-preparedness/rsg/ However, there is also an organization to meet with property owners to walk their property and point out what needs to be done to slow or stop the spread of wildfire. See link below - https://sccfiresafe.org/prepare/defensible-space-and-hazardous-fuel-reduction-hfr/ City staff normally do not get involved if a violation is found. County Fire’s protocol is to issue a Notice of Violation to the property owner. In this case, However, if there is a potential on City property. If this is the case, Public Works Street Tree Division might provide adequate assistance to clean up any city-owned property. I’ve cc’d Director Morley to provide any follow up. Simply put, if a fire hazard concern is on County property, then County Fire will be the responsible agency. Similarly, if the concern is regarding a City of Cupertino property, Public Works Street Tree Division would handle it. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> 0011 Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2022 1:42 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Concerned Cupertino Resident This is a good question. Which agency is overseeing fire safety on the city property? Another resident has also complained about fire hazard from fallen woods in the Stevens Creek Trail area, although specific locations were not given. How often does the city clean up the area around Regnart Creek Road area? Or is it not the city’s responsibility? If so, whose responsibility is it? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Nancy Harper <nmhhnonni@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 10:25 AM To: Darcy Paul; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Hung Wei; Jon Robert Willey Subject: Concerned Cupertino Resident 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 Cupertino City Council Members: I am attaching a letter to you explaining my concerns. Thank you, Nancy Harper 11660 Regnart Canyon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Landline: 408-216-9091 0012 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 4:24 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Business License Collections per CMC Hi Pamela, I had mentioned this request of Jim to post our business licenses. He showed me where to get Paso Robles’ licenses to look at. I would like to see ours finally posted. Paso Robles has a pretty great business license page and a couple of different ways to download their lists. https://www.prcity.com/155/Existing-Licenses https://www.prcity.com/DocumentCenter/View/10204/Directory-of-Business-Licenses-PDF The public has a right to know who is doing business here and who is licensed to do so. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 5:30 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Business License Collections per CMC Hi CC member Moore I will work with Finance on the topics you mention below. Jim Jim Throop City Manager City Manager's Office JimT@cupertino.org (408) 777-1402 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 2:17 PM To: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Subject: Business License Collections per CMC Hi Jim, When I looked into 3 businesses recently, including the BBF Golf Course maintenance company which has had a contract under two names for 20 years, I found no business licenses. The Collector for the city is the Manager. Please provide an update as to how the business licenses have been collected and monitored to ensure the debts to the city have been paid according to the CMC, when was the last time the city received interest and0013 penalties for unfiled business licenses? How has progress been made in bringing businesses into compliance with the CMC? I would like the business licenses (attached and obtained by my PRR) made public similar to how Paso Robles has them listed. It is public record, the list has already been compiled and it helps people make sure that the municipal code for business license is being followed and that individuals are not complying and others are not, establishing fairness. 5.04.070 Collector–Powers and Duties. There is conferred upon the Collector those powers and duties necessary for the administration of this chapter. In addition, there is also conferred upon the Collector the authority and power to designate such City officers and employees as may be required to carry out the intent and purposes of this chapter, and to promulgate and adopt rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions contained herein. (Ord. 1612, § 1 (part), 1992) 5.04.080 License–Required. There is imposed upon all businesses conducted within the City, excepting those as may be exempted under Section 5.04.110 of this chapter, a business license tax in an amount hereinafter prescribed. It is unlawful for any person to transact or carry on business within the City without first having procured a business license from the City and paying the tax hereinafter prescribed or without complying with any and all applicable provisions of this chapter. This section shall not be construed to require any person to pay a business license tax prior to doing business within the City if such requirement conflicts with applicable statutes of the United States or of the State of California. No license shall be issued hereunder until all applicable regulations and ordinances of the City have been complied with. (Ord. 1612, § 1 (part), 1992) (…) 5.04.240 Tax Constitutes a Debt to City–Collection of Unpaid Taxes. The amount of any license tax imposed by this chapter shall be deemed a debt to the City. Any person carrying on any business covered in this chapter without having lawfully procured a license from the City to do so shall be liable to the City. The Collector is authorized to cause to be filed a civil action in the name of the City in any court of competent jurisdiction for the amount of the required license tax, together with any penalties thereon and costs of suit. (Ord. 1612, § 1 (part), 1992) 5.04.250 Interest and Penalties. A. Interest. Any person who fails to pay any tax required to be paid by this chapter shall pay interest at the rate of one percent per month, or fraction thereof, on the amount of the tax, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the tax first becomes due and payable until paid. Interest shall run during any period of time for which an extension of time has been granted by the City for payment of the tax. Interest required by any of the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to waiver or compromise by the Collector. The interest shall not be compounded, but shall be on principle only. B. Penalties. All taxes imposed by this chapter shall be subject to the following penalties: 1. Delinquency. Any person who fails to pay any tax, or any fraction thereof required to be paid by this chapter within the time required, shall pay a penalty of twenty percent per month of the amount of unpaid tax. Such penalty shall not exceed one hundred percent of the tax for any calendar year for each year that the tax is unpaid. This penalty shall accrue on the first day of each calendar month for which the tax remains unpaid. 2. Fraud. If the Collector, after notice to the applicant or licensee and hearing, determines that the nonpayment of any tax due under this chapter is due to fraud, a penalty of ninety percent of the amount of the unpaid tax shall be added thereto, in addition to any other penalties set forth in this section. Where after notice and hearing to the applicant or licensee, the Collector determines that a corporate officer, director or shareholder is responsible for the fraud resulting in the nonpayment of the tax of a corporation, the Collector may designate the tax, interest and penalties unpaid, including the penalty provided for in this subsection due to such fraud, as a personal debt of the officer, director or shareholder. 3. Merger of Interest and Penalties. Such interest as is accrued, and every penalty imposed under the provisions of this section, shall become a part of the tax required to be paid under this chapter. 4. Penalties on Principle. All penalties imposed hereunder shall be calculated on principle only, and shall not be compounded. (Ord. 1612, § 1 (part), 1992) Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0014 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 8:17 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Challenge Contaminated Site Exemptions from CEQA McClellan Project Sure! Some time after Tuesday. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 4:57 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Challenge Contaminated Site Exemptions from CEQA McClellan Project Councilmember Moore, I would like to walk you through the project history and what took place at Planning Commission on Tuesday evening. Are you available to meet sometime next week? Debra can assist with coordination. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 4:08 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Challenge Contaminated Site Exemptions from CEQA McClellan Project Hi Pamela, I would like to challenge the exemption of the McClellan Rd. project as opposed to defending staff’s actions. When I look at LA’s sheet on infill exemptions (which may or may not be applicable), it seems to indicate that the mitigation would need to have already happened. https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/ad70d15e-11b8-49ef-aba3- b168f670a576/Class%2032%20Categorical%20Exemption.pdf “d. Phase I and/or II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). A Phase I ESA may be required if the project site was previously developed with a dry cleaning, auto repair, gasoline station, industrial/manufacturing use, or other similar type of use that may have resulted in site contamination. If the Phase I ESA states that the site is contaminated, a Phase II ESA will be required. If a Phase II is required, only if the Phase II ESA demonstrates that the site has been fully remediated without mitigation is the project still eligible for the Class 32 Exemption.” This site has not been fully remediated, in fact myself and PC Chair Scharf were both asking for additional soil testing because the consultants’ work seemed inadequate. For instance no testing for pesticides along the east side of the car barn was performed and the consultant lied to me and said the area was impervious when a look at the photograph showed bare soil inside and outside of the car barn. The site also had a UST removed without documentation. Regardless, if the LA sheet is correct, it seems to indicate they do not qualify because the mitigation has not concluded. This project came to the ERC for an MND/EIR determination and then, without telling myself or anyone on planning or council, a 30 day HAA clock somehow seemed to have started and ended with the developer claiming they are now exempt as an infill development. Did someone on staff suggest this approach? It is definitely not my preference to have this project or others which have hazmat skirt CEQA, yet with Vallco and this project, staff appears to have that will. That’s not in the residents’ or construction workers’ best interest. 0015 Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0016 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 10:08 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Financial Policy on Verbal Contracts Hi Pamela, I would like to have a financial policy to the effect that all contracts will be in some form of writing and that the city does not honor/pay invoices on verbal contracts which have no record. I will ask for this again at council. Dianne had said she would send a memo to staff to this effect and I do not seem to have a copy, but I think it needs to be codified. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0017 From: Kitty Moore on behalf of Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:09 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> CC: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Financial Policy on Verbal Contracts Hi Pamela, Please demonstrate that having verbal contracts is an accepted practice within the city’s financial policies by sharing when the applicable policy to allow verbal contracts was put in force and by whom. I will be asking for examples of verbal contracts to be included in the agenda item. I have also asked that the city require that contacts be in writing. Sorry for the inconvenience. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 4:00 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Financial Policy on Verbal Contracts Councilmember Moore, thank you for the heads up. I’ve cc’d Director Alfaro on this email as well. Let us confirm if this is a direction provided by Council prior already. If so, we will have a response provided to your questions soon. Thank you Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 7:09 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Financial Policy on Verbal Contracts Hi Pamela, I would like to have a financial policy to the effect that all contracts will be in some form of writing and that the city does not honor/pay invoices on verbal contracts which have no record. I will ask for this again at council. Dianne had said she would send a memo to staff to this effect and I do not seem to have a copy, but I think it needs to be codified. 0018 Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0019 From: Kitty Moore on behalf of Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 8:54 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Contract Fw: September 26, 2022 Audit Committee Meeting - Draft Agenda Attachment(s): "0 - Draft Meeting Agenda 9.26.22.docx" Hi Pamela, Could someone please forward me the contract link for Lizz, I haven’t been able to locate it for her as acting finance manager. I was wondering what the specifics were. Kitty Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Lizz Cook <lizz@boucher.law> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 5:00 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: September 26, 2022 Audit Committee Meeting - Draft Agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings Chair/Council member Moore, I hope this email finds you dry on a damp Monday evening! Attached is the draft agenda for the September 26, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee for your review and comment. Please note that items five and six are continued from the August 22 meeting, as requested. To allow for the continuation of these items the Budget Format Review Study Session has been moved to a future meeting. In addition, it would be great to have direction from Budget Format Review Subcommittee prior to scheduling the study session. Please reply all with any questions or comments. Have a great evening! Respectfully, Lizz Cook Lizz Cook, Senior Consultant Offices in Northern and Southern California Mail: 2081 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Berkeley Office: (510) 838-1000 | Option 2 Glendale Office: (626) 838-1000 | Option 2 Firm-wide Fax: (510) 838-1111 Website | Firm Services | Connect on LinkedIn CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. INTENDED FOR RECEIPT BY ADDRESSEE(S) ONLY. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this e-mail [and its attachment, if any] is prohibited. Please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message [and its attachment, if any]. 0020 0021 From: Liang Chao Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 3:14 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Comment on #20 Campo De Lozano Easement in 09/20/2022 Cupertino City Council meeting FYI Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Xingchi He <he.xingchi@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 11:48 PM To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Jon Robert Willey <JWilley@cupertino.org>; Hung Wei <HWei@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Comment on #20 Campo De Lozano Easement in 09/20/2022 Cupertino City Council meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please kindly read the following comment regarding #20 Campo De Lozano Easement in the public comment time: 1. Regarding the easement and the proposed signage: Campo De Lozano Easement states that it is a pedestrian pathway for day time use only. The proposed signage should not include "Trail" as it incorrectly implies this pathway is a part of the Regnart trail. "Dismount Bike" is not sufficient because nothing (including bikes, skateboards, scooters, and so on) except pedestrian use should be allowed. We still request the City Council to vacate this pathway portion of the easement as its original purpose does no longer apply. Closing the pathway will remove safety and liability risks (e.g., poor visibility and no ADA access) and maintenance cost. If the City of Cupertino decides not to vacate this easement, the City of Cupertino should be responsible for all the liability and maintenance of this pathway. 2. To our City Council members, City Staff, and Commissioners: We trust that you are elected to make the right decisions on the behalf of us, the Cupertino residents, not for the group with the loudest voice. This responsibility requires integrity, wisdom, and unbiased judgement based on facts. We are thankful for the times when you made objective assessments and informed decisions. We are disappointed and ashamed when you are distracted by misinformation, or are biased, or even worse, abuse your power for your personal interests. One example is the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission meeting on 06/15/2022, in which Commissioner Erik Lindskog was clearly biased toward his personal preference, disregarded the comments from Campo De Lozano residents, and refused to have a rational discussion with his fellow commissioners to make a fair decision. Please uphold your integrity, use your best judgement and make the right decisions for the good of all Cupertino residents. 3. To some Cupertino residents who are opposing the vacation of the Campo De Lozano Easement: We are your neighbours, not your enemy. We respectfully ask you to be respectful and be empathetic. Please refrain from using aggressive language and extreme rhetoric to portray the Campo De Lozano residents so negatively with misinformation. Our society needs no more extremism and bipolar politics. Let's show that rational, constructive, and respectful conversations can happen despite different opinions. Best Regards, -- Xingchi 0022 From: Liang Chao Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 3:21 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Issues and suggestions about Lozano subject in 9/20 city council meeting FYI. Since this item is continued to Oct 18 and the staff mentioned a potential trail opening day in November, I wonder when the signage will the finalized? I do think that the Signage should not say “Trail” since the easement is not part of the Trail. It is a Pedestrian Walkway. And I agree with the residents that the proposed signage as seen in the staff report shows an item with a bicycle, which might be read as permitting bicycles, since most people are likely not going to read the text. And school children who might use the easement might not be able to read the text. So, a bicycle sign with a cross might be more clear. It is a good idea to show that skateboard is not allowed since it likely is nosier than bicycles and create more wear and tear to the pavement. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Qi Zhu <zhuqi@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 4:25 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Issues and suggestions about Lozano subject in 9/20 city council meeting 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 Council Member: I'm the resident in Lozano Lane. I've some issues and comments about the Lozano subject in 9/20 city council meeting. On agenda item 20, regarding Lozano related items, 1. I have issue with the signage wording. 1.a The word "TRAIL RULES" in the proposed signage is wrong. The easement is for "pedestrian walkway", It should be pedestrian only (no bike), as described in all leagal document. This walkway is not a trailhead. City should not use the opportunity to sneak in "TRAIL" on a pedestrian walkway and take advantage of the Lozano residents. It should say "Pedestrian Walkway Rules" or "Walkway Rules", instead of the proposed "TRAIL RULES". 1.b "DISMOUNT BICYCLE" should be "NO BIKES" and "NO Skateboarding". 1.c This is serious safety and liability concerns. The walkway is not safe at all with bicycle and city should not encourage bikers to use it in any way. There are trailhead nearby which is safe for bicycle, and city should encourage bikers to use them. 1.d Lozano HOA legally owns the walkway. It's a courtesy to provide it as a pedestrian walkway. However it's unfair for HOA to support the entire City usage. We need to discuss with City on the maintenance cost and liability. 2. Regarding the crosswalk options, I lives here I know the vicinity inside out. If you come down to check, you will agree with me. 2.a The best and most logical choice is Concept A. It's directly connected to the trailhead. I couldn't think of any reason why not Concept A. 2.b Concept B is dangerous and will cause accident. In fact, it had accident in the past just a few yard away from Concept B. If you come and see, you will know it's the worst place to make crosswalk. It shouldn't even be an option. Thank you for considering my feedback,0023 John Z 0024 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2022 5:15 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: All publicity material requires written approval from the city? I wonder about the implementation process for the approval of publicity materials. The two paragraphs below come from the agreement. I labeled them A and B for easier reference. Part A says any use of the city logo must require written permission from the city. Part B says that "City of Cupertino" must be displayed in all flyers etc. => Then, are we asking Cupertino Historic Society to submit all publicity materials to the City for written approval? A: “City may, in its sole discretion, require Grantee to identify or credit City as the funding agency or source for all materials or products generated or produced by Grantee pursuant to the Grant Project Description. This identification or credit may take the form of a logo or other representative mark of City or representative wording (e.g. “funded in whole or in part by the City of Cupertino”) which is printed or applied directly on or to those materials or products. Grantee shall not use City materials including logos, flyers, etc., without written permission from City.” B: "Publicity. Any publicity generated by Grantee for the Grant Project under this Agreement, during the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, will reference the City’s contributions in making the Grant Project possible. The words “City of Cupertino” will be displayed in all pieces of publicity, including flyers, press releases, posters, brochures, public service announcements, interviews, and newspaper articles. No signs may be posted, exhibited, or displayed on or about City property, except signage required by law or this Agreement, without prior written approval from the City." Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0025 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2022 7:44 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Attachment(s): "Chamber Pages from 06-21-2022 Searchable Packet (1).pdf" Hi Pamela, There was a very misleading Staff Report regarding the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce on 6/21/2022 which was Throop’s last meeting where he brought up ‘evergreen agreements’ with regards to the money given to the Chamber. Those who looked up what the term meant were appalled. There has never been a discussion to form an agreement with the 501(c)(6) Chamber Lobbying organization organized to support their members, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. The staff report went completely off-topic making it sound as if an agreement would be made. Vice Mayor Chao and I requested this item be brought back for discussion on 6/21 and we have thus far been blocked by you to have it become a discussion item citing the election. The embezzlement revelation was not put off due to the election in 2018, which was Mayor Paul’s election year. We do not schedule agenda items based on election outcomes. The city failed to form written contractual agreements with the Chamber and gave them money with no accountability. The city has been bilked out of thousands of dollars and this can not continue. Staff cannot even account for what the money was used for and the Chamber discriminates against businesses which are not paying members while pretending to ‘be for small businesses’ when they have Apple, CUSD, FUHSD, and the City of Cupertino, the largest employers in the city, as members. The Chamber endorses candidates. This is an unacceptable organization for the city to be unaccountably gifting money to. Why is Tina Kapoor advocating to continue to gift them money and why has the city waived their Fundraiser they call Diwali fees? This is unacceptable. Chris advised the Council from going off agenda topic on 6/21 but he did not admonish staff for their report. I would like Chris to review the staff report from June 21, 2022 and correct it, because staff should not be making a recommendation beyond whether the $8k should be accepted in the accounts payable. I am also very concerned that your staff will not stop having verbal contracts. This is absolutely absurd. Verbal contracts are unacceptable. Please put it in writing now and I again implore the city to put the Chamber item on the agenda as requested in June. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0026 From: Liang Chao on behalf of Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2022 4:05 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Westport web page has not been updated with approval status It seems almost all the project sites have not been updated since December 2021 or earlier. I am trying to find out what exactly did the Council approve for the De Anza Hotel (Goodwill Tire site): https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/de-anza-hotel But the latest information is a Planning Commission meeting date and agenda. It is hard for me to find out on which date the Council approved the project in order to find the minutes. Since this might involve a record search for Council meeting minutes, I am cc'ing the City Clerk. I just hoped to find some basic info, like how many rooms, how many floors etc. But such basic info cannot be found on the website. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 12:18 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org> Subject: Westport web page has not been updated with approval status I just noticed that the Westport page has not been updated after it was approved by Council https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/major-projects/westport-cupertino The latest status is "This item is to beard by City Council on December 7, 2021. " This is very out-dated. The page contains some good detail information with meeting dates and links to agenda, which is great. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0027 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2022 8:06 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Diwali Fees and Campaigning Hi Pamela, Did the Chamber of Commerce pay to have the 2022 Diwali festival at Memorial Park? Were their fees waived? Please show the documentation. What are the policies regarding festivals and fee waivers? What are the ordinances regarding political signs on city property? What ordinances apply when a space is permitted under the festival policies? Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0028 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2022 8:07 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Budget Fee Waivers FYI Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:19 AM To: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Budget Fee Waivers FYI Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 at 8:26 AM To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Cc: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Budget Fee Waivers Hi CC member Moore, I will get with Finance to look into your question. Jim Jim Throop City Manager City Manager's Office JimT@cupertino.org (408) 777-1402 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2022 10:10 AM To: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Budget Fee Waivers 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 Jim, The budget is to include the Festival Fee Waivers. I would want it combined with the Grants item on Tuesday’s agenda, but I am not seeing that. Here is the manual on fees: 0029 https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/30607/637801830043770000 I did, during the fee schedule meeting, specify and clarify that non-profit means 501(c)(3) and the manual needs to add the (3) because the city has been granting the lobbying organization, Chamber, multiple fee waivers, while they are a political lobbying organization with 1/8 of licensed Cupertino businesses as exclusive members who enjoy their advertising and support. https://sanjosespotlight.com/state-watchdog-fines-san-jose-water-executive-cupertino-political-committee-for-campaign-violations/ https://www.fppc.ca.gov/content/dam/fppc/documents/Stipulations/2020/november/5.%20Cupertino%20Chamber%20PAC%20- %20Stip.pdf https://cupertino-chamber.org/cupertino-chamber-announces-endorsements-for-city-council/ NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release: September 18, 2020 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Announces City Council Candidate Endorsements CUPERTINO, CA – At a special meeting Thursday afternoon, the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce made0030 endorsements for the Cupertino city council election this November 3. “The Covid-19 pandemic and its economic fallout have fundamentally challenged the wellbeing of our community,” said Chamber President-Elect Sean Panchal. “Successfully healing our community will come from leaders who know the community, understand the issues, and bring our diverse community together. The Chamber board believes that Hung Wei and J.R. Fruen are the candidates that will best represent Cupertino.” The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce is working for a healthy and resilient community and supports the candidates committed to the same. Cupertino residents and businesses are extraordinary resources that must be included in our diverse and innovative community’s public processes. Collaboration, not litigation, is the path to success. The Manual states that Council “will” adopt the fee waivers with the Budget. Please if it is in the agenda, point it out to me. Thanks! Kitty Moore 0031 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2022 8:09 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Cupertino Festivals Grants FYI Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 4:36 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Cupertino Festivals Grants 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. Festival Date Festival Producer Estimated Total Funding Kids 'N Fun Festival August 14, 2021 Taiwanese Cultural and Sports Association $18,975 Night Market Moved to De Anza September Chamber of Commerce $9,545*** (Funds won't be spent) Silicon Valley Day n Night Fun Fest Formally Fall Festival September 11, 2021 Cupertino Rotary $17,323 Diwali October 16, 2021 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce $16,803 Veteran's Day November 11, 2021 Cupertino Veteran's Memorial $3,154 Holi April 3, 2022 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce $6,104 Cherry Blossom Festival April 30 to May 1, 2022 Toyokawa Sister City $33,937 World Journal Festival Date TBD World Journal/Cupertino Chinese School $13,901 Konark Dance & Music Festival Date TBD Cupertino Bhubaneswar Sister City $7,339 Relay for Life June 18, 2022 American Cancer Society $2,884 Tournament of Bands Date TBD Cupertino Tournaments of Bands $7,800 Heroes Run Moved to San Jose VMC Foundation $5,880 (Funds won't be spent) TOTAL $143,645** * Event was canceled due to COVID-19 **Total includes funds approved for festivals that were canceled due to COVID. ***Due to the size of this event, it has been moved this year to De Anza in September. Fiscal Year 2021 to 2022 Community Funding Grant Program 0032 Through the Community Funding Grant Program, the City of Cupertino provides funding to local non-profit organizations in the areas of social services, fine arts, and other programs for the Cupertino community. More information can be found on the Community Funding Grant Program page. Non-Profit Total Funding West Valley Community Services $10,000 Cupertino Library Foundation $15,000 Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation $7,400 Santa Clara County Audubon Society $8,500 Friends of Deer Hollow Farm $7,000 Chinese American Coalition for Compassionate Cares $12,000 Valkyrie Robotics $3,000 Tian Hong Foundation $3,000 Rotary Club of Cupertino $12,000 Euphrat Museum of Art $15,000 Monta Vista High School Music Boosters $3,000 TOTAL $95,900 Sister City Funding A Sister City relationship is a long-term, formal agreement that may include cultural, educational, business, and technical exchanges. Cupertino has four established Sister City relationships: Copertino, Italy, formalized in 1963 Toyokawa, Japan, formalized in 1978 Hsinchu, Taiwan, formalized in 2007 Bhubaneswar, India, formalized in 2012 The support the City of Cupertino gives Sister Cities is as follows: Sister Cities that host student delegations of five to nine students receive $2,500 a year in reimbursable funding Sister Cities that host student delegations of more than 10 students receive $5,000 a year in reimbursable funding Once every five years the City gives an extra $5,000 for an adult delegation The City does support flag raising ceremonies or other small events with snacks and setup The City provides access to large facilities for up to three community events per Sister City per year Sister City groups are provided up to 18 meeting room spaces per year Out of Cycle City Council Fee Waivers City Council Meeting Organization Total Funding Monday, July 8, 2019 Friends of the Cupertino Library - Three weekend book sales per year $5,880* Tuesday, July 16, 2019 Cupertino Senior Advisory Council - Bingo room use $17,750** TOTAL $23,630 *Ongoing permanent fee waiver **Use of Senior Center Reception Hall on selected Fridays through June 28, 2024 In Budget City Council Fee Waivers The Cupertino Historical Society was added to the annual budget in 2019. The total funding awarded is part of the Community Funding Grant Program budget line item. It is not, however, included in the funding range allotted for the Community Funding Grant process. City Council Meeting Organization Total Funding 2020 Cupertino Historical Society $20,000* TOTAL $20,000 *City Council subcommittee formed to discuss future relationship between Historical Society and the City. Sent from my iPhone 0033 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 3:03 AM EDT To: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Safe Intersection alternatives to avoid no-turn-on-read requirement 24-7 Matt, Thanks for the explanation below (in blue). But the reality is that there are other methods to design safe intersections without using a bike box, which is barely visible. For example, below is one design that I have seen in San Jose. The bikes are better protected with bollards and a wider corner. Such intersections do not need no-turn-on-red at all. I think Stelling and McClellan intersection should be wide enough for this configuration, right? Below is a design in Fremont. This is a low-cost design that could make an intersection immediately safer. Fremont has is an early adoptor of the Vision Zero plan, around 2015. School cross walk The current intersection design at McClellan & Stelling and McClellan & Bubb have these flaws: 1. the bike box is barely visible, Many bicyclists do not know what it is for or do not feel comfortable waiting in that box, being exposed. 2. The No-turn-on-red signal is not very visible at night since it is right next to the red light. The flare from the red light makes the no-turn-on-red sign barely visible, I notice that other no-turn-on-red signs are on top of the red lights, rather than right next to it. 3. The vehicles are not allowed to turn right on red. When the light turns green, right-turn cars have to wait for pedestrians to pass first and then turn right. As a result, the cars going straight are blocked too by the waiting right- turn cars. This creates unnecessary congestion. 4. When the intersection is not busy, vehicles are waiting in idle when no one is insight. More greenhouse emissions are generated by these idling cars when no one is insight. Please consider improvements to the safe intersection designs. Of course, this is just a suggestion from one Councilmember for your consideration. But I have heard quite a few residents expressing concerns on the ineffective bike safety designs of our intersections. ============ Response from Matt in blue below.0034 1. Alternatives to avoid no-turn-on-read requirement 24-7 due to bicycle boxes - use bollards as protection. Bike boxes prioritize and provide a safe means for bicyclists to change direction. The roadways where bike boxes are installed are not wide enough to provide for the bike box and a controlled right turn. Where there is sufficient room, bike boxes have been located to allow right turns on red. MUTCD requires no right turn on red where the right turn movement would conflict with the bike box. BPC has indicated that, for the time being, they accept the trade-off of restricting right turns on red where we have bike boxes (specifically Bubb/McClellan). For reference, here is the intersection at McClellan (horizontal) and Stelling (vertical) Here is the intersection at McClellan (horizontal) and Bubb (vertical) 0035 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0036 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 3:06 AM EDT To: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Safe Intersection alternatives to avoid no-turn-on-read requirement 24-7 (Please delete the earlier email. The image I included for the intersection at McClellan & Bubb is wrong. It is corrected here.) Matt, Thanks for the explanation below (in blue). But the reality is that there are other methods to design safe intersections without using a bike box, which is barely visible. For example, below is one design that I have seen in San Jose. The bikes are better protected with bollards and a wider corner. Such intersections do not need no-turn-on-red at all. I think Stelling and McClellan intersection should be wide enough for this configuration, right? Below is a design in Fremont. This is a low-cost design that could make an intersection immediately safer. Fremont has is an early adoptor of the Vision Zero plan, around 2015. School cross walk The current intersection design at McClellan & Stelling and McClellan & Bubb have these flaws: 1. the bike box is barely visible, Many bicyclists do not know what it is for or do not feel comfortable waiting in that box, being exposed. 2. The No-turn-on-red signal is not very visible at night since it is right next to the red light. The flare from the red light makes the no-turn-on-red sign barely visible, I notice that other no-turn-on-red signs are on top of the red lights, rather than right next to it. 3. The vehicles are not allowed to turn right on red. When the light turns green, right-turn cars have to wait for pedestrians to pass first and then turn right. As a result, the cars going straight are blocked too by the waiting right- turn cars. This creates unnecessary congestion. 4. When the intersection is not busy, vehicles are waiting in idle when no one is insight. More greenhouse emissions are generated by these idling cars when no one is insight. Please consider improvements to the safe intersection designs. Of course, this is just a suggestion from one Councilmember for your consideration. But I have heard quite a few residents expressing concerns on the ineffective bike safety designs of our intersections. 0037 ============ Response from Matt in blue below. 1. Alternatives to avoid no-turn-on-read requirement 24-7 due to bicycle boxes - use bollards as protection. Bike boxes prioritize and provide a safe means for bicyclists to change direction. The roadways where bike boxes are installed are not wide enough to provide for the bike box and a controlled right turn. Where there is sufficient room, bike boxes have been located to allow right turns on red. MUTCD requires no right turn on red where the right turn movement would conflict with the bike box. BPC has indicated that, for the time being, they accept the trade-off of restricting right turns on red where we have bike boxes (specifically Bubb/McClellan). For reference, here is the intersection at McClellan (horizontal) and Stelling (vertical) Here is the intersection at McClellan (horizontal) and Bubb (vertical) 0038 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0039 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2022 9:36 PM EDT To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Fix the Housing Element Process! FYI. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Marieann Shovlin <info@sg.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2022 2:20 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fix the Housing Element Process! 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. 0040 Councilmember Kitty Moore, I am extremely concerned with the City of Cupertino's Housing Element process. Cupertino is extremely behind in the process and is the slowest jurisdiction in our county. Based on the required timeline, our city is projected to finish the housing element process after the January 31st, 2023 deadline. I recently learned that Cupertino is projected to lose local land use control due to the builder’s remedy. I am concerned that this City Council is not taking the Housing Element process seriously to proactively address the housing crisis. The new housing element should be focused on actually creating housing, rather than avoiding it. 1. Community outreach: This City Council correctly assembled a diverse stakeholder group and then disbanded it for seemingly political reasons. In its place, the City has done a poor job of meaningfully engaging and empowering diverse stakeholders (students, renters, immigrants, unhoused people, service workers, etc.) in the housing element process. While there has been outreach programming, it has not been well coordinated with the housing element process, and it is unclear how Cupertino will ground its programs and policies in the outreach feedback, as required by the State. This Council has also been extremely selective in terms of which feedback they act upon–having a strong preference for their own political base. 2. Site Inventory: The current site inventory relies too heavily on pipeline projects which are not guaranteed to be built. The pipeline projects account for 77% of our RHNA, most of which are from The Rise and The Hamptons, projects that have been approved for years, but have no indication they will be built out within the next 8 years. The Hamptons would displace hundreds of renters and was even recently renovated! The Council also decided to concentrate planned housing on Bubb Road, despite a strong lack of owner interest to build housing. Meanwhile, several Heart of the City locations had expressed owner interest but were not included. We should plan for housing that will actually get built within the next 8 years. I urge the City Council to make dramatic changes to bring our Housing Element back on track. 1. Revive the stakeholder group. Incorporate diverse perspectives beyond homeowners: renters, youth, seniors, etc. This stakeholder group should have actual meaningful involvement and input over programs and policies as required by law. 2. Reduce reliance on pipeline projects. Add a larger buffer and include more housing sites, especially within the Heart of the City, an already designated special area that has major corridors, bike-ped infrastructure, community amenities, and transit lines. 3. Make a good faith effort to comply with state regulations. Ensure that our housing element will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and include projects that will realistically be built. We cannot afford to stall this process longer. We must act with urgency. Marieann Shovlin m.shovlin@comcast.net 10277 Vista Knoll Blvd. Cupertino, California 95014-1033 0041 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2022 2:42 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: 4 years of discussion without any public meeting or update A community member commented on NextDoor regarding the Lawson Bike Project: 0042 https://nextdoor.com/p/wtN_Fs7xWB7g/c/838681763?utm_source=share Below was my response to request the date and time of the meetings over the 4 years as claimed, but I did not get a response. This issue is a potential governance issue, which must be addressed if a community member is able to utilize staff time to conduct meetings over 4 years on an item, which is beyond the scope of adopted city work program items. Because of this governance issue, the Council was surprised when the matter came to the Council. The Council referred the issue back to Bike and Ped Commission so that this item follows the established process for transparency and accountability. But this resulted in a very upset community member, who thinks the Council somehow blocked a project she thinks has been well underway for 4 years. Please consider this issue during the internal audit of the governance issue so that the staff respects the adopted council work program and communicates the appropriate process to community members to avoid misunderstanding or misplaced expectation. 0043 Thank you. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0044 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 10:27 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Capacity under HAA When we have the update on the Housing Element, I hope to get some information on the current capacity of Cupertino under HAA (Housing Accountability Act) and other state laws, which allow the zoning ordinance to be overwritten by the General Plan, as we’ve seen in some recent projects. For example, the United Furniture site, without being identified as Housing Element would not prevent them from building. They just need to comply with the existing zoning per the existing law. Many other sites along Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza and Foodhill and elsewhere are likely in a similar situation. Then, what’s the existing capacity for housing today under existing law? I think that’d be very informative to the HE process and the public. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0045 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2022 12:23 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: ADUs for Seven Springs Ranch Hi Pamela, Here’s a situation where I am going to guess that councilmembers have been individually contacted and that they may have indicated their support or not, of the proposed project. I haven’t seen this project or know anything about it yet it appears that staff has already been working on a trajectory without any Council direction. So what is likely to happen is a Council meeting collision. “Planning and Building are talking to legal counsel about my proposal.” So we are burning legal staff time to support the developer’s proposal with no direction other than what this developer wants, is that about right? Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: xihua sun <xihuasun@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 10:43 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: ADUs for Seven Springs Ranch 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 Councilmember Kitty Moore, I am the owner of the Seven Springs Ranch, which is on the State Historic Registry but not on the National Registry. On the State Registry, some of the buildings are considered to have historic significance but none of them are qualified as historic buildings. In the 1980s, an architect applied for State Segistry without success. Then she applied for National Registry using a loophole, against the owner’s wish. In California, a property will automatically qualify for State Registry if submitted for National Registry, approved or not. The application for National Registry was rejected due to lack of historic significance. Specifically there weas no industrial, cultural, or economic significance. This was a simple ranch, not a major residence for the owner, one of four similar properties of the owner had in the South Bay alone, and one of many across the state and the country. The most significant building on the ranch, the main building, was built in 1937. The others are newer. Many houses in Cupertino are older. This ranch has no association with the owner’s industrial and economic achievements. This is a forty acre property composed of 19 parcels acquired over time. There are nine buildings - five-and-a-half of them are residences and three-and-a-half are office, factory, workshops and storage. All of them have permits and are up to code. Both National and State Registry encourage occupancy and change of use. Neither prevent redevelopment. Occupancy is the best preservation. All of the buildings are wooden. If left unoccupied as they are, birds - especially woodpeckers - punch thousands of holes and hide acorns inside. When the acorns germinate and expand, the wood splits into pieces. Many other animals also destroy buildings quickly. 0046 All the non-residential buildings are empty and being destroyed by animals and the elements. I propose to convert the non- residential part of one building, as well as the other non-residential buildings, into ADUs or residential units. Two of the buildings involved have no historic significance. There are almost no constructions needed and no disturbance. There will be no exterior changes. This will create residential units and best preserve the buildings. Planning and Building are talking to legal counsel about my proposal. I wish to have your strong support. Thanks so much, Frank Sun 0047 From: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2022 5:25 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Job opening for legislative aid Attachment(s): "image0.jpeg","D - Budget Adjustments Summary and Detail.pdf" Attached is the “Attachment D” referenced. Can we please find out who made the decision to make this a part-time position? Here is the set of specific budget appropriations made for this position: Sent from my iPhone Darcy Paul Mayor City Council DPaul@cupertino.org (408) 777-3195 On Nov 3, 2022, at 2:14 AM, Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Nov 3, 2022, at 2:14 AM, Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> wrote: Vice Mayor, Thanks for looking up the Agenda and the budget. $183,365 certainly seems like a sufficient budget to fund a full-time position. At the high end of the hourly range provided here of $66.40, that’s more than 2,700 hours, which is well over a full-time amount of time. -Darcy Sent from my iPhone On Nov 2, 2022, at 2:35 PM, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> wrote: The job posting says the position is "Intern IV/Management Analyst " with "$26.40 - $66.40 Hourly". I don't remember the Legislative Aide being an intern who needs guidance, rather than help offload the Council members for doing legislative research. I looked up the Minutes of June 9, 2022 Council meeting when the final motion approved by the Council includes the following item: "Approve a Legislative Aide (Management Analyst) position in Administration and appropriations of $183,365 as included in Attachment D". I don't remember the work "intern" ever came up in the deliberation. I am confused or maybe I misunderstood it or missed some other Council action to modify 0048 the motion from June 9, 2022? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 12:09 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Job opening for legislative aid Job Opportunities | Sorted by Relevance ascending | City of Cupertino Careers (governmentjobs.com) Debra Nascimento Executive Assistant City Manager's Office DebraN@cupertino.org (408) 777-1302 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 12:05 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Job opening for legislative aid Kristina, can you provide Vice Mayor the link? thanks Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 12:03 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Job opening for legislative aid I did check the city’s online job site, but I didn’t find it there. Thanks. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0049 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 11:59 AM To: Pamela Wu Subject: Job opening for legislative aid Where do I find the job posting of legislative aid? Application deadline? I’ll forward to a contact I met in the Cal Cities Conference, who said they have a network where she can post. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0050 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2022 7:16 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA For example, a 5-acre site is currently zoned for 20 units/acre. Thus, the capacity of this site under the existing General Plan/Zoning is 5x200 units/acre. Today, the property owner can propose a project on this site with 100 units/acre, which could go up to 35% density bonus without any upzoning. So, what's the total capacity we have in Cupertino without upzoning? What's the total capacity of all Tier 1 sites without any upzoning? What's the total capacity of all Tier 2 sites without any upzoning? Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:21 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, can you clarify what you meant by “capacity?” Luke – can you confirm if these information will be included in the Housing Element update on 11/15? Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 7:28 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Capacity under HAA When we have the update on the Housing Element, I hope to get some information on the current capacity of Cupertino under HAA (Housing Accountability Act) and other state laws, which allow the zoning ordinance to be overwritten by the General Plan, as we’ve seen in some recent projects. For example, the United Furniture site, without being identified as Housing Element would not prevent them from building. They just need to comply with the existing zoning per the existing law. Many other sites along Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza and Foodhill and elsewhere are likely in a similar situation. Then, what’s the existing capacity for housing today under existing law? I think that’d be very informative to the HE process and the public. Thanks. Liang 0051 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0052 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2022 2:34 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA Sure. Thank you for prioritizing to complete a compliant housing element. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 7:19 AM To: Liang Chao Cc: Luke Connolly; Debra Nascimento Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, thank you for your follow up and clarifying that you would like to understand the ultimate density for the tier 1 & 2 sites. This can certainly be done. However, this math exercise is not what PlaceWorks is currently focusing on to get a compliant draft document for HCD to review. We will focus on getting the other necessary sections at this point. Once the draft is completed and submitted, we can certainly follow up with your specific request at the time. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 4:16 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA For example, a 5-acre site is currently zoned for 20 units/acre. Thus, the capacity of this site under the existing General Plan/Zoning is 5x200 units/acre. Today, the property owner can propose a project on this site with 100 units/acre, which could go up to 35% density bonus without any upzoning. So, what's the total capacity we have in Cupertino without upzoning? What's the total capacity of all Tier 1 sites without any upzoning? What's the total capacity of all Tier 2 sites without any upzoning? Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>0053 Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:21 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, can you clarify what you meant by “capacity?” Luke – can you confirm if these information will be included in the Housing Element update on 11/15? Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 7:28 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Capacity under HAA When we have the update on the Housing Element, I hope to get some information on the current capacity of Cupertino under HAA (Housing Accountability Act) and other state laws, which allow the zoning ordinance to be overwritten by the General Plan, as we’ve seen in some recent projects. For example, the United Furniture site, without being identified as Housing Element would not prevent them from building. They just need to comply with the existing zoning per the existing law. Many other sites along Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza and Foodhill and elsewhere are likely in a similar situation. Then, what’s the existing capacity for housing today under existing law? I think that’d be very informative to the HE process and the public. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0054 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2022 10:34 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Cherie Walkowiak <CherieW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 Just some suggestion for better engagement for future communications on this project. 1. please provide a link to the City website with relevant information. This way members of the public would like to learn more study more so that they can provide more informed suggestions at the meeting. And this allows the member of the public who couldn’t make a 3:30-4:30pm meeting in a weekday to study on it and may send in written comments. 2. Reading the enotification below, I was under the impression that only the option shown in the image would be studied. But then I found the description in a SR2S newsletter (https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CACUPERTINO/bulletins/3202b7b): 3. “Bikeway Feasibility Study along Lawson Middle School Frontage 4. Students cycling to Lawson Middle School need a safe way to get to the bike cage adjacent to Forest Avenue that does not require turning left across oncoming cars in the middle of the block or cycling on sidewalks crowded with students walking to school. Building upon an initial analysis of options conducted in a partnership between Cupertino Safe Routes to School, Cupertino Union School District, Lawson Middle School, dedicated parents, and the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, this goal of this feasibility study will be to draft official concept options, provide in-depth cost estimates for each option, and conduct an impact analysis for any options that may involve removing parking. This should be well underway by the end of the calendar year.” Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:01 PM Subject: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 0055 Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . City of Cupertino Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study Thursday, November 10 from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Lawson Middle School Room 29, 10401 Vista Drive The City of Cupertino is conducting a feasibility study for a bikeway (bike lane or bike path) at Lawson Middle School to provide students safe access to the bike cages on campus. You are invited to attend the first of three public meetings for the Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study: Thursday, November 10 from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Lawson Middle School Room 29, 10401 Vista Drive Attendees will have the opportunity to hear a brief presentation about the feasibility study purpose and need, and provide feedback to City staff and the project team to assist in charting the path forward in study development. The study area includes the school campus, Merritt Drive, Vista Drive, and Forest Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the school (see image). If you have any questions or comments about this project, please contact the project manager Cherie Walkowiak at cheriew@cupertino.org at (408) 777-7609. Lawson Feasibility Extent Cupertino cupertino.org city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help 0056 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2022 11:37 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Cherie Walkowiak <CherieW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Attachment(s): "Lawson Data by Neighbors.pdf" It states: “The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review.” Have meeting notes from these 9 meetings been provided for review yet? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 6:02 AM To: Liang Chao Subject: Fw: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Hi Liang, Here is my summary report from the Feb. 10 meeting @ Lawson Middle school . This was also included in the Written Communications for the March 16 Bike Ped Commission Meeting. https://cupertino.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=895459&GUID=300D0339-0125-44F3-A1B8- F1C3FC66DEAE&Options=&Search= Thanks, Gerhard. Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org From: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 9:12 PM To: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Cc: Kim Lunt <KimL@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Commissioners (bcc’d): Please see meeting summary from Gerhard below. Attached also is a parking study completed by residents in the area. David Stillman Transportation Manager Public Works DavidS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3249 0057 ------------------- Meeting summary from the Lawson Middle School meeting Feb. 10, 2022 @ 2:30-4:30PM. The purpose of this meeting was to address the following requests from the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission meeting from December 15, 2021 1. Have Commissioner Lindskog and Chair Eschelbeck attend a meeting with stakeholders at the Lawson Middle School site; 2. Recommend that the stakeholders consider alternative solutions more thoroughly; 3. Receive a better understanding of decision material that was considered when coming up with the current proposed solution (the background of the current solution;) and 4. Report back to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission with the outcome of the meeting with stakeholders. The meeting started at 2:30PM with an introduction of the attendees, and had a good representation of City staff, bike ped commission, CUSD staff, PTA representation, as well as nearby residents. After introduction, the meeting started with a survey of the school and traffic setting and traffic pattern at class end at 3PM. I was part of the group observing traffic patterns at the intersection Forest Ave/Vista Dr . The observation showed the following clear pattern : Main traffic flow for vehicles and about 30 bicycles, as well as 2 scooters at this location was south bound Vista Dr turning right into Forest Ave/Lazaneo Dr westbound. There was almost no car traffic (and only 2 bicycle/scooters) into Forest Ave eastbound. After the initial traffic observation, all attendees gathered in a school class room for a presentation by the City of Cupertino (Thank You Cherie). This presentation outlined the history of the project, some alternatives, and the proposed solution, all at a very high level. There were no additional materials or details shared or distributed. Questions and Discussion during the meeting: A statement was made that Apple pays for this project. A clarifying question was asked if Apple requested this specific project, or if the City decided to use the Apple Safe Routes to School allocation to specifically fund this project, and if any of these funds could also be used for other Safe Routes to School projects. The answer was provided that it was the City of Cupertino making the fund allocation for this project, and the Apple funds could also be used for any other Safe Routes to School qualifying project. It was stated this project was a multi year collaborative effort of all stakeholders. A clarifying question was asked if this multi year effort included any of the neighboring residents in the planning and evaluation of options. The answer was given that no neighboring residents were involved in the design and evaluation over these past years, except they have received two City notification letters in 2021 informing them of the plan to eliminate on street parking along Lawson Middle School. It was further confirmed, this Feb.10 meeting was the first meeting where affected neighbors were invited and involved in reviewing the different options. The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review. A further question was made what kind of bike/pedestrian/car traffic and flow analysis was conducted and what data has been reviewed for the evaluation of options . The answer provided was to date there has not been any such studies conducted. The only study available was the Walk Audit from 2017, even this is mainly qualitative, and does not include any quantitative data. On Feb. 10, a resident provided via email data points to all attendees about cars parked on the west side of Vista Drive (Lawson school side) at different times of the day, and shows an average of about 15 cars parked , with peaks up to 25 during the past few weeks. On Feb. 10 the number of cars parked on the west side was 16. Commentary was provided about the parking spots on the west side of Vista Dr area are also heavily used during soccer games, for park maintenance, as well as by residents during school off hours, where the site serves a neighborhood park, and solutions will need to be developed for these use cases. Commentary was provided about similarities with the Greene Middle School bike path in Palo Alto, even there was subsequent discussion about the setting being quite different due to Middle Field in Palo Alto being a major road, as well as a traffic light being involved. Lawson Middle school currently has two bicycle parking locations. One right next to the main school entrance where major car congestion happens during drop off and pickup. The existence of a second bike rack on the North Entrance of the school at Merritt Dr. was not mentioned, but was confirmed after inquiring. Most importantly for any such school project is student safety. A clarifying question was asked why it would be safer to route the many incoming students from Lazaneo all the way to Vista Dr and expose them to the car congestion area at the main drop off area, while there seems to be a much safer option of routing students directly onto school property at or near the south entrance (similar to what is already in place at the North entrance). The Walk Audit also had a similar 0058 recommendation to route bicycles into the south entrance and have a bicycle parking right there. The South parking lot was less than 50% occupied today, and earlier visits showed even less occupancy. Direct quote from the Walk Audit: "Moving bicycle parking to the southern end of campus will reduce the vehicle congestion and bicycle/vehicle conflicts on Vista Drive". A statement was provided about multiple options having been evaluated, including routing bicycle traffic into the south entrance and continued routing on school property between the sidewalk and the school track (which is sufficiently wide, but would possibly require moving the school fence) and the reasons for abandoning these options range from cost for an impacted irrigation system, some trees being potentially impacted, some parking lot lights may possibly need to be moved. Unfortunately not much detail has been given about the potential cost of any of that, and it is not clear if such data exists or has been evaluated. I truly appreciate all the good work by City staff and all participants, and as expressed, the primary objective of this meeting was to develop a better understanding of the options evaluated and what material / data was considered. At this point it is unclear what decision metrics and data were driving towards the single proposed solution of trying to route bicyclists towards the congested main entrance, and what data points were used to abandon the alternatives. With the already existing bicycle entrance and bicycle parking on the North side, and a potential new and safe bicycle access on the South side, we may have a safer and less disruptive solution, but to conclude such a question a data driven approach is needed. It will serve the City of Cupertino and its residents best to get a clear understanding of these missing data points, materials and decision matrix, as well as incorporating input from nearby residents for making a final determination of a path forward. The meeting was adjourned at 4:34PM Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org 0059 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2022 11:53 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Cherie Walkowiak <CherieW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Proposal to designate narrow and crowded pedestrian sidewalks near schools as "walk your bicycle or scooter lane" with signs I rode my scooter around schools to check up their traffic patterns when needed. I always get off my scooter to walk and walk as soon as I see other walkers nearby. I wonder whether there is existing guideline for scooters and bicycles when traveling on sidewalk while other pedestrians are present? I have heard of similar complaints for walkways in a park, like Memorial Park, where seniors were knocked down by kids on bicycles and one of them had to be sent to the emergency room. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2021 10:43 AM To: Sujit P Cc: Greg Larson Subject: Re: Proposal to designate narrow and crowded pedestrian sidewalks near schools as "walk your bicycle or scooter lane" with signs Sujit, Your proposal makes a lot of sense. I have cc’d the interim city manager Greg here to see what he suggests as the next step. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Sujit P <sujitp@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021 12:23 PM To: City Council Subject: Proposal to designate narrow and crowded pedestrian sidewalks near schools as "walk your bicycle or scooter lane" with signs 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, My name is Sujith Polpaya, and I’m a City of Cupertino resident and a registered voter. I walk my middle schooler to and from Lawson Middle School everyday. In the week and half since the new school year started, both my kid and I have had several close calls with other kids riding bicycles or scooters recklessly on crowded0060 sidewalks on Vista Dr and Lozaneo Dr / Forest Ave near Lawson. I am aware that the City increased the cut off age for sidewalk bicycle riders from 10 years to 12 back in 2017 to protect them from reckless drivers on city streets. As a father of two young kids, I totally understand that. But in doing so, the rule has allowed some of these kids to become reckless riders themselves putting other kids and parents at risk of injury of even death from a bicycle or scooter collision. Many of these reckless riders appear to be over 12 years of age to me. While we are walking on a narrow sidewalk near Lawson, riders often come from behind, and they ring their bells or say "excuse me” asking us to give them way on a pedestrian sidewalk. What am I supposed to do, jump on to the street with my kid putting both of us at the risk of getting hit by a car? Even if we try to give way to a bicyclist, which is extremely hard to do on a narrow street, they often don't give us enough time to react to the request. So in many cases, we don’t have a choice to take steps to avoid an accident - we just have to rely on our luck. These streets are narrow and often very crowded around drop off and pick up times, so it’s nearly impossible for these bicycle or scooter riders to ride safely during this time. Even if they make their way through safely, they shave at the most a minute or two. But these two minutes put sidewalk pedestrians at a high risk of injury. My middle schooler would probably ride his bike recklessly if I let him bike to school, which is why I walk with him to school rather than letting him ride his bicycle to school. As responsible parents, my wife and I try our best to teach our kids to be safe around cars as well as pedestrians while riding their bikes. I know it’s not an easy concept for young kids to grasp, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to avoid a disaster waiting to happen. I am totally on-board with allowing kids to ride on sidewalks for their own safety, but such a rule should not come at a risk of other kids’ safety while walking to school. It’s hard for us to know if a reckless rider is over 12 years or not, so I think it’s better to make rules that are easy for the young riders to follow. So, I suggest designating narrow streets close to schools like Vista Dr and Lozaneo Dr / Forest Ave as “walk your bicycle or scooter lane” perhaps from 7:45 am to 8:45 am and from 2:45 pm to 3:45 pm on school days, and putting signs stating the same. Once they are no longer on these narrow and crowded streets, they should be free to ride their bicycles and scooters based on City rules. My hope is that with such a designation, it will be easier for kids to understand the rules, and for the City or school officials to enforce them. I believe I am within my rights to record such reckless riders on public streets irrespective of their age especially if they pose a risk to pedestrians and even themselves, so I am willing to submit proof if necessary to support my complaint and proposal. Thank you, Sujith 0061 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2022 1:01 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Cherie Walkowiak <CherieW@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 The image and description in the email from the city led me to think that Bike Ped Commission probably has reviewed alternatives and decided the two-way Bikeway proposed is the best option: I contacted a couple of Bike Ped Commissioners and both said they recommended to evaluate multiple alternatives. The city’s work program adopted by the Council also gave direction to evaluate multiple alternatives. Perhaps, there is a misunderstanding? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 7:34 PM To: Pamela Wu 0062 Cc: Cherie Walkowiak Subject: Fwd: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 Just some suggestion for better engagement for future communications on this project. 1. please provide a link to the City website with relevant information. This way members of the public would like to learn more study more so that they can provide more informed suggestions at the meeting. And this allows the member of the public who couldn’t make a 3:30-4:30pm meeting in a weekday to study on it and may send in written comments. 2. Reading the enotification below, I was under the impression that only the option shown in the image would be studied. But then I found the description in a SR2S newsletter (https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/CACUPERTINO/bulletins/3202b7b): 3. “Bikeway Feasibility Study along Lawson Middle School Frontage 4. Students cycling to Lawson Middle School need a safe way to get to the bike cage adjacent to Forest Avenue that does not require turning left across oncoming cars in the middle of the block or cycling on sidewalks crowded with students walking to school. Building upon an initial analysis of options conducted in a partnership between Cupertino Safe Routes to School, Cupertino Union School District, Lawson Middle School, dedicated parents, and the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, this goal of this feasibility study will be to draft official concept options, provide in-depth cost estimates for each option, and conduct an impact analysis for any options that may involve removing parking. This should be well underway by the end of the calendar year.” Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:01 PM Subject: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . City of Cupertino Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study Thursday, November 10 from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Lawson Middle School Room 29, 10401 Vista Drive The City of Cupertino is conducting a feasibility study for a bikeway (bike lane or bike path) at Lawson Middle School to provide students safe access to the bike cages on campus. You are invited to attend the first of three public meetings for the Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study: Thursday, November 10 from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Lawson Middle School Room 29, 10401 Vista Drive Attendees will have the opportunity to hear a brief presentation about the feasibility study purpose and need, and provide feedback to City staff and the project team to assist in charting the path forward in study development. The study area includes the school campus, Merritt Drive, Vista Drive, and Forest Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the school (see image). If you have any questions or comments about this project, please contact the project manager Cherie Walkowiak at cheriew@cupertino.org at (408) 777-7609. Lawson Feasibility Extent Cupertino cupertino.org 0063 city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help 0064 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2022 1:42 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Pamela and Matt, Both of you are probably not familiar with the history of this project. I’ll try to recap it here. But there should have been a webpage listing the history for the public. July 6, 2017 - Walk Audit was done and the report suggested “Move bicycle parking to south end of the school” and for Vista Drive the report suggested “Install Class III Bike Route signage and markings (sharrows)”. Then, some multi-year meetings were conducted while neither the Bike Ped Commission nor the City Council had any knowledge of such an effort. Nov 16, 2021 - Agenda Item 17 - “Consider conducting a first reading of an ordinance that prohibits parking along the west side of Vista Drive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive, and along the south side of Merritt Drive between Vista Drive and the western end, to accommodate the construction of a Class IV bicycle lanes.” The Council was very confused. This bike path proposed was not previously discussed in any public meeting and the staff was asking the Council to approve the first reading of an ordinance to remove parking spaces on a street. Bike Ped Commission was not aware of such project either. So, the Council referred the project back to the Council. Dec 15, 2021 Bike Ped Commission discussed the project and recommended alternatives to be considered more thoroughly. Feb 11, 2022 Two Bike Ped Commissioners and neighbors and other stakeholders had an on-site meeting at Lawson. The meeting summary by Commissioner Gerhard identified a safer option than the one with two-way bike path on Visa Drive: “there seems to be a much safer option of routing students directly onto school property at or near the south entrance (similar to what is already in place at the North entrance). The Walk Audit also had a similar recommendation to route bicycles into the south entrance and have a bicycle parking right there. ” The Work Program Item approved by the City Council stated “ Lawson Middle School Bikeway; Project Objective: Retain consultant to prepare feasibility study which will evaluate alternatives that provide a separated bike path for students riding to Lawson Middle School. Feasibility cost will be $40,000.” However, the email announcement from the city about the Lawson Bikeway project indicates only one option will be studied, which is against the recommendation of the Bike Ped Commission and against the adopted Work Program. From July 6, 2017, when the initial Walk Audit report suggested providing bike access from the south end of the school to Nov 16, 2022 when the two-way Bikeway surfaced out of no where, the public, the Council and the Bike Ped Commission have no idea what were considered in order to move towards a very different proposal, which seems to be less safe. The meeting summary of the Feb 11 on-site meeting at Lawson stated: “ The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review.” To date, no information has been provided on these multi-year non-public meetings. But there seems to be a consistent effort by the staff to consider only the option, which evolved after multi-year non-public meetings. We must clarify the scope of the Lawson Bikeway before the first community meeting next Thursday on 11/10. Thank you. Liang 0065 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 7:36 PM To: Liang Chao Subject: Re: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Yes, there are alternatives. The best option will be to add a bike cage in the south parking lot of the school, as this allows all the students coming from the south enter the school directly, safely and park there. It make no sense to route all these students to the main entrance, as this area is congested with cars. The students coming from the north already have a bike cage on the north part of the campus. Bottom line, you want to keep bicyclists away from the main entrance. That s why the proposed trail option is actually less safe than allowing students to enter the school on the south side directly. Meeting notes have not been provided despite follow up requests. Gerhard Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 8:14 AM To: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Thanks for making the summary of that Feb 11, 2022 meeting. Very helpful. But the only alternative mentioned seems to be the original path in the Walk Audit? That’s the one? I thought there are other alternatives. It states: “The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review.” Have meeting notes from these 9 meetings been provided for review yet? Liang 0066 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 6:02 AM To: Liang Chao Subject: Fw: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Hi Liang, Here is my summary report from the Feb. 10 meeting @ Lawson Middle school . This was also included in the Written Communications for the March 16 Bike Ped Commission Meeting. https://cupertino.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=895459&GUID=300D0339-0125-44F3-A1B8- F1C3FC66DEAE&Options=&Search= Thanks, Gerhard. Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org From: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 9:12 PM To: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Cc: Kim Lunt <KimL@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Commissioners (bcc’d): Please see meeting summary from Gerhard below. Attached also is a parking study completed by residents in the area. David Stillman Transportation Manager Public Works DavidS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3249 ------------------- Meeting summary from the Lawson Middle School meeting Feb. 10, 2022 @ 2:30-4:30PM. The purpose of this meeting was to address the following requests from the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission meeting from December 15, 2021 1. Have Commissioner Lindskog and Chair Eschelbeck attend a meeting with stakeholders at the Lawson Middle School site; 2. Recommend that the stakeholders consider alternative solutions more thoroughly; 3. Receive a better understanding of decision material that was considered when coming up with the current proposed solution (the background of the current solution;) and 0067 4. Report back to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission with the outcome of the meeting with stakeholders. The meeting started at 2:30PM with an introduction of the attendees, and had a good representation of City staff, bike ped commission, CUSD staff, PTA representation, as well as nearby residents. After introduction, the meeting started with a survey of the school and traffic setting and traffic pattern at class end at 3PM. I was part of the group observing traffic patterns at the intersection Forest Ave/Vista Dr . The observation showed the following clear pattern : Main traffic flow for vehicles and about 30 bicycles, as well as 2 scooters at this location was south bound Vista Dr turning right into Forest Ave/Lazaneo Dr westbound. There was almost no car traffic (and only 2 bicycle/scooters) into Forest Ave eastbound. After the initial traffic observation, all attendees gathered in a school class room for a presentation by the City of Cupertino (Thank You Cherie). This presentation outlined the history of the project, some alternatives, and the proposed solution, all at a very high level. There were no additional materials or details shared or distributed. Questions and Discussion during the meeting: A statement was made that Apple pays for this project. A clarifying question was asked if Apple requested this specific project, or if the City decided to use the Apple Safe Routes to School allocation to specifically fund this project, and if any of these funds could also be used for other Safe Routes to School projects. The answer was provided that it was the City of Cupertino making the fund allocation for this project, and the Apple funds could also be used for any other Safe Routes to School qualifying project. It was stated this project was a multi year collaborative effort of all stakeholders. A clarifying question was asked if this multi year effort included any of the neighboring residents in the planning and evaluation of options. The answer was given that no neighboring residents were involved in the design and evaluation over these past years, except they have received two City notification letters in 2021 informing them of the plan to eliminate on street parking along Lawson Middle School. It was further confirmed, this Feb.10 meeting was the first meeting where affected neighbors were invited and involved in reviewing the different options. The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review. A further question was made what kind of bike/pedestrian/car traffic and flow analysis was conducted and what data has been reviewed for the evaluation of options . The answer provided was to date there has not been any such studies conducted. The only study available was the Walk Audit from 2017, even this is mainly qualitative, and does not include any quantitative data. On Feb. 10, a resident provided via email data points to all attendees about cars parked on the west side of Vista Drive (Lawson school side) at different times of the day, and shows an average of about 15 cars parked , with peaks up to 25 during the past few weeks. On Feb. 10 the number of cars parked on the west side was 16. Commentary was provided about the parking spots on the west side of Vista Dr area are also heavily used during soccer games, for park maintenance, as well as by residents during school off hours, where the site serves a neighborhood park, and solutions will need to be developed for these use cases. Commentary was provided about similarities with the Greene Middle School bike path in Palo Alto, even there was subsequent discussion about the setting being quite different due to Middle Field in Palo Alto being a major road, as well as a traffic light being involved. Lawson Middle school currently has two bicycle parking locations. One right next to the main school entrance where major car congestion happens during drop off and pickup. The existence of a second bike rack on the North Entrance of the school at Merritt Dr. was not mentioned, but was confirmed after inquiring. Most importantly for any such school project is student safety. A clarifying question was asked why it would be safer to route the many incoming students from Lazaneo all the way to Vista Dr and expose them to the car congestion area at the main drop off area, while there seems to be a much safer option of routing students directly onto school property at or near the south entrance (similar to what is already in place at the North entrance). The Walk Audit also had a similar recommendation to route bicycles into the south entrance and have a bicycle parking right there. The South parking lot was less than 50% occupied today, and earlier visits showed even less occupancy. Direct quote from the Walk Audit: "Moving bicycle parking to the southern end of campus will reduce the vehicle congestion and bicycle/vehicle conflicts on Vista Drive". A statement was provided about multiple options having been evaluated, including routing bicycle traffic into the south entrance and continued routing on school property between the sidewalk and the school track (which is sufficiently wide, but would possibly require moving the school fence) and the reasons for abandoning these options range from cost for an impacted irrigation system, some trees being potentially impacted, some parking lot lights may possibly need to be moved. Unfortunately not much detail has been given about the potential cost of any of that, and it is not clear if such data exists or has been evaluated. I truly appreciate all the good work by City staff and all participants, and as expressed, the primary objective of this meeting 0068 was to develop a better understanding of the options evaluated and what material / data was considered. At this point it is unclear what decision metrics and data were driving towards the single proposed solution of trying to route bicyclists towards the congested main entrance, and what data points were used to abandon the alternatives. With the already existing bicycle entrance and bicycle parking on the North side, and a potential new and safe bicycle access on the South side, we may have a safer and less disruptive solution, but to conclude such a question a data driven approach is needed. It will serve the City of Cupertino and its residents best to get a clear understanding of these missing data points, materials and decision matrix, as well as incorporating input from nearby residents for making a final determination of a path forward. The meeting was adjourned at 4:34PM Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org 0069 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2022 12:26 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: AFFH Stakeholder group meetings? A member of the public stated in the 11/1 Council meeting that Saratoga had formed a "stakeholder group" and thought Cupertino should form such a group. Back in March when this item was on the Council agenda, I checked out Saratoga's outreach plan and did find such stakeholder group in their plan. I had asked EMC which other city has used the stakeholder group, but I did not get an answer on that. So, I assume that no other city used EMR suggested stakeholder group. I verified again with Debbie Pedro, the Community Development Director of Saratoga, again. Saratoga never formed so- called stakeholder group. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 7:17 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: AFFH Stakeholder group meetings? 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 Vice Mayor Chao, Saratoga did not form a “stakeholder group” for AFFH outreach but we did convened an internal team comprised of City staff from various departments to develop an outreach program. The list of outreach activities you noted below are the results of work from City staff. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great day! Debbie Debbie Pedro, AICP Community Development Director City of Saratoga | Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1231 | dpedro@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us *City Hall is closed every other Friday* Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 1:32 AM To: Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: AFFH Stakeholder group meetings? CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms. Pedro, A member of the public mentioned that Saratoga has formed a “stakeholder group” for AFFH outreach to conduct a series of meetings, but I couldn’t find such a group in the “outreach” section of your Fair Housing Assessment. I would like to double check that Saratoga did or did not form a “stakeholder group” for AFFH outreach? And then conduct a series of meetings with this selected stakeholder group? 0070 Below is a list of “outreach activities” mentioned. Webpages and e-newsletter Housing Element Values Survey Citywide Postcard Community meetings, study session and public hearings: The city also held a series of public meetings to inform the public of the Housing Element Update process and to solicit input from community members. These meetings included six informational and educational Community Meetings in the summer of 2021, Planning Commission Community Meetings in April, June, October, November, and December of 2021, as well as five City Council Meetings from December 2021 to February 2022. Small Group Meetings: The city also met with Housing Choices, an advocacy group that enhances the lives of people with developmental and other disabilities and their families by creating and supporting quality, affordable housing opportunities. In addition, the City did targeted outreach to a variety of groups like the Saratoga Retirement Community, Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council. Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, Saratoga Ministerial Association, St. Andrew’s Men’s Group, the Sister City Group, and several Neighborhood Watch groups. The City also held a series of property owners and developers that expressed an interest in developing certain housing opportunity sites. REFERENCE: page 13-14, Appendix D Fair Housing Assessment, Saratoga Draft Housing Element https://www.saratoga.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2956/Appendix-D-Affirmatively-Furthering-Fair-Housing?bidId= Liang Chao Vice Mayor of Cupertino Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0071 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2022 2:31 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org>; Ilango Ganga <IGanga@cupertino.org>; Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 Thanks, David, for the clarification: “There is no preferred project at this stage. This is a reset to the previous effort – starting fresh.” Pamela, Here is a suggestion for you, but it’s your decision as a city manager. In that case, perhaps the image used in the announcement should not be the one, which came out of a series of non-public meetings from 2017 to 2021. Using such an image left a mis-perception that the result of the series of non-public meetings will determine the outcome and only one option will be considered, especially the image legend says “Feasibility Study Extent”. Perhaps, multiple possible paths could be marked on the map or just mark existing conditions, such as locations of bike cages and recommendations from the Walk Audit. We really should have an understanding of the existing conditions in terms of bicycle, pedestrian and vehicle traffic, before we can discuss potential solutions which will make the conditions safer for multiple modes of transportation. Appreciate it. Thanks! Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Ilango Ganga <IGanga@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 11:09 AM To: David Stillman; Gerhard Eschelbeck; Liang Chao Cc: Matt Morley Subject: Re: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 Thank you, David, for your clarification. I think this addresses the question raised by the Vice Mayor, Chao. Regards, Ilango Ilango Ganga Chair, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission IGanga@cupertino.org From: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 9:56 AM To: Ilango Ganga <IGanga@cupertino.org>; Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 Hi Ilango, 0072 The City is taking on a feasibility study to look more broadly for solutions to get students to the bicycle cage. There is no preferred project at this stage. This is a reset to the previous effort – starting fresh. During the study, input from residents on preferred solutions, along with input from staff from the City and the School District will go into the evaluation. Any proposed project will be reviewed by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission and approved by Council prior to proceeding. Thanks, David David Stillman Transportation Manager Public Works DavidS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3249 From: Ilango Ganga <IGanga@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 8:57 AM To: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 The City work program item #37 that approved $40K funding to retain a consultant says, "Retain consultant to prepare feasibility study which will evaluate alternatives that provide a separated bike path for students riding to Lawson Middle School". (May 2022 CC meeting) Also, previously, one of the BPC action-item (Dec 2021 BPC meeting) says, "Recommend that the stakeholders consider alternative solutions more thoroughly". This issue was discussed extensively during the BPC deliberations as noted in the minutes. I am adding BPC staff Liason, David Stillman to get a clarification on the scope of the feasibility study/alternatives being presented for public input on Nov 10th. Thanks, Ilango Ilango Ganga Chair, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission IGanga@cupertino.org From: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 7:38 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Ilango Ganga <IGanga@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 Yes, that would be a problem. The option with a bike cage on the south entrance instead of the trail should be studied as well. It would be less disruptive, safer and cheaper. Not sure why only one option is favored. Gerhard Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 8:21 AM To: Ilango Ganga <IGanga@cupertino.org>; Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org>0073 Subject: Fwd: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 Below is the email from the City regarding the Lawson Bikeway project. From the description and the image, I get the impression that only one option will be studied. So, I wondered whether that’s the recommendation of the Bike Ped Commission. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 12:01 PM Subject: Lawson Bikeway Feasiblity Study on November 10 Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . 0074 Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study Thursday, November 10 from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Lawson Middle School Room 29, 10401 Vista Drive The City of Cupertino is conducting a feasibility study for a bikeway (bike lane or bike path) at Lawson Middle School to provide students safe access to the bike cages on campus. You are invited to attend the first of three public meetings for the Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study: Thursday, November 10 from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Lawson Middle School Room 29, 10401 Vista Drive Attendees will have the opportunity to hear a brief presentation about the feasibility study purpose and need, and provide feedback to City staff and the project team to assist in charting the path forward in study development. The study area includes the school campus, Merritt Drive, Vista Drive, and Forest Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the school (see image). If you have any questions or comments about this project, please contact the project manager Cherie Walkowiak at cheriew@cupertino.org at (408) 777-7609. 0075 cupertino.org City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Manage Preferences | Help 0076 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2022 3:23 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Submit a Comment for the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan Has San Jose reached out to Cupertino regarding a comment for their “West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan”? The area will affect Cupertino residents too. The city could consider to send a comment and help publicize this so that Cupertino residents could send comments too. 0077 Thanks! Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: City of San José <webrequests@sanjoseca.gov> Date: Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:04 PM Subject: Submit a Comment for the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan Submit a Comment for the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan Post Date: 11/07/2022 12:00 PM The Department of Transportation (DOT) has posted a draft of the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan (WSJ MTIP) for comment. The final day to submit a comment is Wednesday, November 23. What is the WSJ MTIP? The WSJ MTIP and the projects it proposes are working toward City-adopted goals. Some of these goals include: Traffic safety improvements: As part of our Vision Zero initiative, we are trying to reduce and eventually eliminate traffic fatalities. Deaths from traffic collisions in San José are on track to reach a sad new record in 2022. Reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gases, as part of the City’s Climate Smart San José plan. Transportation accounts for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions in San José. Support urban village implementation in West San José: The WSJ MTIP aligns with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, which calls for the construction of urban villages in parts of West San José like West San Carlos Street, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santana Row/Valley Fair, Winchester Boulevard, and South Bascom Avenue. Mode shift: Also in alignment with the general plan, the WSJ MTIP plans to create more transportation options in West San José to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips. The proposed projects will be easier to walk, roll, bike, or take public transit. More transportation options will give San Joseans the option to rely less on the use of personal cars. How will this plan impact me and my preferred method of transportation? This plan gives City staff and property developers clear direction to prioritize non-automotive transportation options when paving or upgrading streets, or when considering budget and grant proposals. The result will be more and safer options to get around without having to rely on a personal vehicle. Many of our projects are intended to calm traffic, making the streets safer for people who live or travel along them. These shifts will not happen overnight, and DOT will give ample notice before we begin construction. What can I look forward to with this plan? This plan will help us create more options, so you don’t have to rely on a car for safe, convenient transportation around0078 West San José. During outreach for the plan, we heard from people who wanted more biking and transit options, in particular. Many residents told us they feel that existing bus lines are not enough to meet their transportation needs. In response, we are looking to include more transportation options like community shuttles, and bike and scooter share options. The WSJ MTIP calls for more protected bike lanes, transit boarding islands, and existing bus stop improvements. One priority project is the Winchester Boulevard Transit Priority Project, which features a “flex lane.” This helps Valley Transportation Authority deliver more reliable service during peak traffic hours among other improvements. These options can help us work toward a more walk-, roll-, bike-, and transit-friendly West San José. Comment on the plan and attend our meeting Public feedback is crucial to the development of the WSJ MTIP. We want to hear your thoughts about the plan, so please review it on the WSJ MTIP webpage and let us know what you think. The deadline to submit comments is Wednesday, November 23. To submit a comment, please use the comment form at the very bottom of the WSJ MTIP webpage. We also encourage all West San Joseans to attend our next community meeting on Wednesday, November 16. Register and join us on Zoom at bit.ly/wsj-mtip-meeting . Following public feedback, we will present this plan to City Council on Thursday, December 8. Stay tuned for more updates on the WSJ MTIP. The West San José project area borders Stevens Creek Boulevard, Winchester Boulevard, Newhall Street, and Bascom Avenue to the north; Park Avenue and Meridian Avenue to the east; Hamilton Avenue and San Tomas Expressway to the south; Moorpark Avenue and County Route G2 to the west. Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead. Change your eNotification preference. Unsubscribe from all City of San Jose eNotifications. 0079 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2022 9:36 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Esther Kwon <EstherK@cupertino.org> CC: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Submit a Comment for the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan Our constituents is Cupertino residents. When something is happening in our neighboring city which might be right next to the homes of some residents, I think it’s the responsibility of the City to inform our residents. It’s not San Jose’s responsibility. It’s no one else’s responsibility. It’s ours. The traffic flow on Steven’s Creek definitely will affect our traffic flow on Steven’s Creek and adjoining streets. Just like the Lehigh Cement issue. It’s not within our jurisdiction. But it’s right next to the homes of many residents. Our residents suffer from their pollution and noise. If it’s not the city’s responsibility to inform our residents, whose responsibility is it? No one else. We are just serving our residents by providing information to them since they likely won’t be subscribed to San Jose city news. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 4:18 PM To: Liang Chao; Esther Kwon Cc: Debra Nascimento Subject: RE: Submit a Comment for the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan Vice Mayor Chao, the City does not typically bear the public engagement responsibility for another jurisdiction. Instead, we can contact the SJ staff to collaborate with Cupertino communication teams to partner a shared message. I will ask Esther to follow up. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 2:40 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Submit a Comment for the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan Thanks, Pamela. How about the second part, informing the public so they can submit their own comments in time by November 23? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 2:19 PM To: Liang Chao; Matt Morley Cc: Luke Connolly; Debra Nascimento Subject: RE: Submit a Comment for the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan Vice Mayor Chao, thank you for the information. I’m adding Public Works in the communication as well. Matt or Luke, can you confirm if San Jose has reached out or the City has provided a comment to their multimodal transportation improvement plan? Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 12:24 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Submit a Comment for the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan Has San Jose reached out to Cupertino regarding a comment for their “West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan”? The area will affect Cupertino residents too. The city could consider to send a comment and help publicize this so that Cupertino residents could send comments too. 0080 Thanks! Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: City of San José <webrequests@sanjoseca.gov> Date: Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:04 PM Subject: Submit a Comment for the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan Submit a Comment for the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan 0081 Post Date: 11/07/2022 12:00 PM The Department of Transportation (DOT) has posted a draft of the West San José Multimodal Transportation Improvement Plan (WSJ MTIP) for comment. The final day to submit a comment is Wednesday, November 23. What is the WSJ MTIP? The WSJ MTIP and the projects it proposes are working toward City-adopted goals. Some of these goals include: Traffic safety improvements: As part of our Vision Zero initiative, we are trying to reduce and eventually eliminate traffic fatalities. Deaths from traffic collisions in San José are on track to reach a sad new record in 2022. Reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gases, as part of the City’s Climate Smart San José plan. Transportation accounts for 51% of greenhouse gas emissions in San José. Support urban village implementation in West San José: The WSJ MTIP aligns with the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, which calls for the construction of urban villages in parts of West San José like West San Carlos Street, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Santana Row/Valley Fair, Winchester Boulevard, and South Bascom Avenue. Mode shift: Also in alignment with the general plan, the WSJ MTIP plans to create more transportation options in West San José to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips. The proposed projects will be easier to walk, roll, bike, or take public transit. More transportation options will give San Joseans the option to rely less on the use of personal cars. How will this plan impact me and my preferred method of transportation? This plan gives City staff and property developers clear direction to prioritize non-automotive transportation options when paving or upgrading streets, or when considering budget and grant proposals. The result will be more and safer options to get around without having to rely on a personal vehicle. Many of our projects are intended to calm traffic, making the streets safer for people who live or travel along them. These shifts will not happen overnight, and DOT will give ample notice before we begin construction. What can I look forward to with this plan? This plan will help us create more options, so you don’t have to rely on a car for safe, convenient transportation around West San José. During outreach for the plan, we heard from people who wanted more biking and transit options, in particular. Many residents told us they feel that existing bus lines are not enough to meet their transportation needs. In response, we are looking to include more transportation options like community shuttles, and bike and scooter share options. The WSJ MTIP calls for more protected bike lanes, transit boarding islands, and existing bus stop improvements. One priority project is the Winchester Boulevard Transit Priority Project, which features a “flex lane.” This helps Valley Transportation Authority deliver more reliable service during peak traffic hours among other improvements. These options can help us work toward a more walk-, roll-, bike-, and transit-friendly West San José. Comment on the plan and attend our meeting Public feedback is crucial to the development of the WSJ MTIP. We want to hear your thoughts about the plan, so please review it on the WSJ MTIP webpage and let us know what you think. The deadline to submit comments is Wednesday, November 23. To submit a comment, please use the comment form at the very bottom of the WSJ MTIP webpage. We also encourage all West San Joseans to attend our next community meeting on Wednesday, November 16. Register and join us on Zoom at bit.ly/wsj-mtip-meeting. Following public feedback, we will present this plan to City Council on Thursday, December 8. Stay tuned for more updates on the WSJ MTIP. The West San José project area borders Stevens Creek Boulevard, Winchester Boulevard, Newhall Street, and Bascom Avenue to the north; Park Avenue and Meridian Avenue to the east; Hamilton Avenue and San Tomas Expressway to the south; Moorpark Avenue and County Route G2 to the west. Having trouble viewing this email? View on the website instead. Change your eNotification preference.0082 Unsubscribe from all City of San Jose eNotifications. 0083 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2022 1:10 PM EST To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> CC: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Apple HQ Adding a building Hi Luke, Thank you! I have been reading more about having an addendum per CEQA guidelines. https://www.thomaslaw.com/blog/eir- addendum-to-previously-certified-eir-proper-where-no-new-significant-environmental-impacts-identified/ Considering my issues with the project are the soil excavation and tree removals, and that the hazardous waste and trees were already addressed in the EIR, there is no argument. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Date: Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 5:32 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Apple HQ Adding a building Councilmember Moore, The Apple building your inquiring about is a 10,000 square-foot building that includes flex space, mechanical, electrical and data rooms, and restrooms, much of which are below grade. As you note the project also involves the cut of approximately 14,000 cubic yards of soil; 7,000 of which will be used onsite as fill, the other 7,000 removed offsite. Disturbance of contaminated soil without an offsite impact is generally not an environmental impact for CEQA purposes, although the addendum would need to address any offsite impacts of soil removal. The agreement with LSA to prepare the addendum was executed last month, so the addendum to the EIR is not completed yet. Since it’s an addendum no public comment is required per CEQA. I will let you know when the addendum is available and make sure you receive a copy. Luke Luke Connolly Senior Planner Community Development LukeC@cupertino.org (408)777-1275 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 10:17 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org > Subject: Apple HQ Adding a building Hi Pamela, I do not recall this Apple HQ building project. https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=977369&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1 The project removes 14,000 cy of soil on a contaminated site (Apple). I would like a copy of the Addendum, Notice to the public, and comments from the public. Thanks. 0084 Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0085 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:31 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Subject: Vehicle purchase history and plan Last Thursday, at the preview of budget adjustment, I asked for a history of vehicle purchase and a plan for future purchase, such as dates of vehicles purchased and stated they are retired or expected to be retired. I assume that it would also include the dollar amount annually so we get some idea. Thanks for the note on “Fleet and Equipment Replacement Process” in the agenda packet, which has a list of vehicles and purchase dates. The note mentioned: “In the Fiscal Year 2022‐23 proposed budget, four vehicles and three pieces of equipment are recommended for replacement and one vehicle is a recommended addition as a lease, for a total budget of $669,046.” That provides the snapshot for this year. But I hope to have a fuller picture of what’s in the past 10 or 20 years and what’s coming up. It was good to learn that the city uses Cityworks to manage the life cycles of public assets. I hope that the information I requested is readily available from Cityworks? “Cityworks is where local governments and utility agencies go to get work done. We designed the leading GIS- centric public asset lifecycle management and permitting platform to support the complete lifecycle of your infrastructure, from permits and construction to maintenance and replacement. Built exclusively on Esri® ArcGIS®, Cityworks helps you fully leverage your authoritative GIS data and provides a total solution to improve your agency’s operational effectiveness. We are in the trenches with you— helping you build safe, resilient, and smarter communities.” (https://www.cityworks.) Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0086 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 6:00 PM EST To: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> CC: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Fleet and Equipment Questions Attachment(s): "Fixed Asset Acquisition Compiled.pdf" Hi Matt, This is going to take me more time to study. I compiled the last few years of the fixed asset acquisitions shown attached. I had been given a spreadsheet of vehicles a few months ago, and want to review that also to get a sense of the purchasing and sales. Personally, I’d like this part continued from the adjustment. I have not read all of the information you provided, but I am glad that wherever I pulled the low number for SF that it is different. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:32 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: Fleet and Equipment Questions Councilmember Moore In response to your inquiries through the Finance Department on the fleet and equipment vehicles included in Item 23 of tonight’s Council Meeting: Attachment I of the Council Report provides a list of all of the City vehicle and equipment assets. This includes the year they were purchased so you can see how many are purchased in any given year. The City and County of San Francisco has over 6000 fleet assets according to its website. Mountain View has approximately 270 vehicles (no count on other equipment), Los Gatos 135 units. The annual budget provides a list of assets to be replaced. See the attached PDF file “fixed assets budget pages” as an example. Vehicle use guidance is provided by the City’s Vehicle Use Policy. This policy identifies the process for employees to take home vehicles. I have attached the policy for your use. We typically have 2-3 vehicles that are taken home each day to provide for emergency response, dependent on who is on call. Vehicles are assigned based on need. Employees who have a daily need are assigned specific vehicles. This includes building inspectors, PW field crews, etc. Other vehicles are assigned to a pool for central check out. Vehicles are kept at the appropriate location for their use (e.g. City Hall, Service Center, Sr. Center). Obviously some things are special use like a backhoe or lawnmower. Pool Vehicles are checked out on a centralized vehicle reservation system. See the attached image from the website titled “Vehicle Reservation Page Snip”. Note that this shows the location of each vehicle on the map. City vehicles use telematics for location identification so we always have the ability to identify the location of a vehicle. Fixed assets are viewed at least annually by the City’s equipment mechanics to ensure the vehicles are accounted for and in good operating order. Replacement is made according to administrative guidelines (see attached). These are similar to the guidelines I have worked with at other agencies and factor in age of assets, utilization (miles), and a mechanical evaluation. As an example, a passenger vehicle reaches replacement threshold at seven years and 70,000 nukes, Vehicles are sent to auction when they are replaced, per the purchasing policy. I have attached a list of all auctioned assets for the last ten years. 0087 Matt Morley Director of Public Works Public Works MattM@cupertino.org (408)777-3282 0088 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 2:18 AM EST To: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> CC: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Fleet and Equipment Questions Attachment(s): "Attachment C - Vehicles List[66].pdf" Hi Matt, Attached is the list I got in May, and I have no way to compare it and have it match with the lists in the packet or that you gave me. Need to circle back on this item somehow. Have a good evening. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 4:54 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Fleet and Equipment Questions Councilmember Moore I understand you desire to look through the details. It would seem that, especially where there are policies and procedures in place to define a process as there are here, that periodic exploration of the details could occur on a parallel path that would allow normal business to continue. I might recommend this as a workplan item – Review Fixed Asset Acquisition and Disposition or even an audit committee work item so that it can be prioritized and given the attention it needs. -Matt Matt Morley Director of Public Works Public Works MattM@cupertino.org (408)777-3282 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 3:01 PM To: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Cc: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Fleet and Equipment Questions Hi Matt, This is going to take me more time to study. I compiled the last few years of the fixed asset acquisitions shown attached. I had been given a spreadsheet of vehicles a few months ago, and want to review that also to get a sense of the purchasing and sales. Personally, I’d like this part continued from the adjustment. I have not read all of the information you provided, but I am glad that wherever I pulled the low number for SF that it is different. Sincerely, 0089 Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 11:32 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: Fleet and Equipment Questions Councilmember Moore In response to your inquiries through the Finance Department on the fleet and equipment vehicles included in Item 23 of tonight’s Council Meeting: Attachment I of the Council Report provides a list of all of the City vehicle and equipment assets. This includes the year they were purchased so you can see how many are purchased in any given year. The City and County of San Francisco has over 6000 fleet assets according to its website. Mountain View has approximately 270 vehicles (no count on other equipment), Los Gatos 135 units. The annual budget provides a list of assets to be replaced. See the attached PDF file “fixed assets budget pages” as an example. Vehicle use guidance is provided by the City’s Vehicle Use Policy. This policy identifies the process for employees to take home vehicles. I have attached the policy for your use. We typically have 2-3 vehicles that are taken home each day to provide for emergency response, dependent on who is on call. Vehicles are assigned based on need. Employees who have a daily need are assigned specific vehicles. This includes building inspectors, PW field crews, etc. Other vehicles are assigned to a pool for central check out. Vehicles are kept at the appropriate location for their use (e.g. City Hall, Service Center, Sr. Center). Obviously some things are special use like a backhoe or lawnmower. Pool Vehicles are checked out on a centralized vehicle reservation system. See the attached image from the website titled “Vehicle Reservation Page Snip”. Note that this shows the location of each vehicle on the map. City vehicles use telematics for location identification so we always have the ability to identify the location of a vehicle. Fixed assets are viewed at least annually by the City’s equipment mechanics to ensure the vehicles are accounted for and in good operating order. Replacement is made according to administrative guidelines (see attached). These are similar to the guidelines I have worked with at other agencies and factor in age of assets, utilization (miles), and a mechanical evaluation. As an example, a passenger vehicle reaches replacement threshold at seven years and 70,000 nukes, Vehicles are sent to auction when they are replaced, per the purchasing policy. I have attached a list of all auctioned assets for the last ten years. Matt Morley Director of Public Works Public Works MattM@cupertino.org (408)777-3282 0090 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 10:52 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: History of Blackberry Golf Course Feasibility Study I looked at the EngageCupertino.org website for Blackberry Golf Course Feasibility Study and the timeline starts in May 2021, as if the idea to do the study only starts at that time. But I remember that this item was on the Council work program before I even got on the Council. When was the last time the Blackberry Golf Course Feasibility Study was on the Council agenda? Did the Council decide to study only two options? When was that? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0091 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 2:31 PM EST To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> CC: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Census Data Thank you! This is exactly what I have been looking for! Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 7:54 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Census Data Councilmember Moore, I believe you were looking for Cupertino census data for 2010 and 2020 last week. Attached is a spreadsheet with demographic data for those two census periods. If you were looking for something in addition to this let me know. Luke Luke Connolly Senior Planner Community Development LukeC@cupertino.org (408)777-1275 From: Teri Gerhardt <TeriG@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 2:57 PM To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Rabeya Akter <rabeyaa@cupertino.org>; Adam Araza <AdamA@cupertino.org> Subject: Census Data Hi Luke, Attached is the census data available on the US Census Bureau site for the City of Cupertino. Basically the breakdown of population size for both 2010 & 2020. The other census info is defined by the census block which extends outside of our City boundary. If Council Member Moore is looking for something other than the info in the table provided please let us know. Regards,0092 Teri Gerhardt GIS ‑ Manager Innovation Technology TeriG@cupertino.org (408) 777-3311 0093 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 4:36 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA When could I get an answer to this question? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 7:19 AM To: Liang Chao Cc: Luke Connolly; Debra Nascimento Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, thank you for your follow up and clarifying that you would like to understand the ultimate density for the tier 1 & 2 sites. This can certainly be done. However, this math exercise is not what PlaceWorks is currently focusing on to get a compliant draft document for HCD to review. We will focus on getting the other necessary sections at this point. Once the draft is completed and submitted, we can certainly follow up with your specific request at the time. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 4:16 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA For example, a 5-acre site is currently zoned for 20 units/acre. Thus, the capacity of this site under the existing General Plan/Zoning is 5x200 units/acre. Today, the property owner can propose a project on this site with 100 units/acre, which could go up to 35% density bonus without any upzoning. So, what's the total capacity we have in Cupertino without upzoning? What's the total capacity of all Tier 1 sites without any upzoning? What's the total capacity of all Tier 2 sites without any upzoning? 0094 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:21 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, can you clarify what you meant by “capacity?” Luke – can you confirm if these information will be included in the Housing Element update on 11/15? Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 7:28 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Capacity under HAA When we have the update on the Housing Element, I hope to get some information on the current capacity of Cupertino under HAA (Housing Accountability Act) and other state laws, which allow the zoning ordinance to be overwritten by the General Plan, as we’ve seen in some recent projects. For example, the United Furniture site, without being identified as Housing Element would not prevent them from building. They just need to comply with the existing zoning per the existing law. Many other sites along Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza and Foodhill and elsewhere are likely in a similar situation. Then, what’s the existing capacity for housing today under existing law? I think that’d be very informative to the HE process and the public. Thanks. Liang 0095 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0096 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 3:32 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA I see. I guess I misunderstood… I thought the staff did not work on the draft that’s posted last Friday since it came from EMC directly, whose contract ended in early October. From now till December 23, we just receive public comments. There is no other community meeting planned between now until December 23. So, from August 29 to December 23, we don’t have time to determine the capacity of tier 1 & tier 2 sites since the staff is busy preparing the draft HE? I guess I might have totally misunderstood what the staff does during this time on the draft HE. I believe the data I am seeking is important to support the draft HE to be submitted in January. Thank you for helping me to understand the situation a bit more. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 8:36 AM To: Liang Chao Cc: Luke Connolly; Debra Nascimento Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, as we discussed, staff is concentrating on getting the admin draft published, compiling comments and sending it to HCD for review before the January date. We can certainly regroup and provide a follow up to you afterwards. We will have a follow up to you by the end of February, 2023. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 1:36 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA When could I get an answer to this question? Thanks. Liang 0097 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 7:19 AM To: Liang Chao Cc: Luke Connolly; Debra Nascimento Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, thank you for your follow up and clarifying that you would like to understand the ultimate density for the tier 1 & 2 sites. This can certainly be done. However, this math exercise is not what PlaceWorks is currently focusing on to get a compliant draft document for HCD to review. We will focus on getting the other necessary sections at this point. Once the draft is completed and submitted, we can certainly follow up with your specific request at the time. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 4:16 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA For example, a 5-acre site is currently zoned for 20 units/acre. Thus, the capacity of this site under the existing General Plan/Zoning is 5x200 units/acre. Today, the property owner can propose a project on this site with 100 units/acre, which could go up to 35% density bonus without any upzoning. So, what's the total capacity we have in Cupertino without upzoning? What's the total capacity of all Tier 1 sites without any upzoning? What's the total capacity of all Tier 2 sites without any upzoning? Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:21 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, can you clarify what you meant by “capacity?” Luke – can you confirm if these information will be included in the Housing Element update on 11/15? 0098 Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 7:28 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Capacity under HAA When we have the update on the Housing Element, I hope to get some information on the current capacity of Cupertino under HAA (Housing Accountability Act) and other state laws, which allow the zoning ordinance to be overwritten by the General Plan, as we’ve seen in some recent projects. For example, the United Furniture site, without being identified as Housing Element would not prevent them from building. They just need to comply with the existing zoning per the existing law. Many other sites along Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza and Foodhill and elsewhere are likely in a similar situation. Then, what’s the existing capacity for housing today under existing law? I think that’d be very informative to the HE process and the public. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0099 From: Liang Chao on behalf of Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 3:33 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA Sorry. From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 12:32 PM To: Pamela Wu Cc: Luke Connolly; Debra Nascimento Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA I see. I guess I misunderstood… I thought the staff did not work on the draft that’s posted last Friday since it came from EMC directly, whose contract ended in early October. From now till December 23, we just receive public comments. There is no other community meeting planned between now until December 23. So, from August 29 to December 23, we don’t have time to determine the capacity of tier 1 & tier 2 sites since the staff is busy preparing the draft HE? I guess I might have totally misunderstood what the staff does during this time on the draft HE. I believe the data I am seeking is important to support the draft HE to be submitted in January. Thank you for helping me to understand the situation a bit more. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 8:36 AM To: Liang Chao Cc: Luke Connolly; Debra Nascimento Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, as we discussed, staff is concentrating on getting the admin draft published, compiling comments and sending it to HCD for review before the January date. We can certainly regroup and provide a follow up to you afterwards. We will have a follow up to you by the end of February, 2023. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 1:36 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>0100 Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA When could I get an answer to this question? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 7:19 AM To: Liang Chao Cc: Luke Connolly; Debra Nascimento Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, thank you for your follow up and clarifying that you would like to understand the ultimate density for the tier 1 & 2 sites. This can certainly be done. However, this math exercise is not what PlaceWorks is currently focusing on to get a compliant draft document for HCD to review. We will focus on getting the other necessary sections at this point. Once the draft is completed and submitted, we can certainly follow up with your specific request at the time. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 4:16 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Capacity under HAA For example, a 5-acre site is currently zoned for 20 units/acre. Thus, the capacity of this site under the existing General Plan/Zoning is 5x200 units/acre. Today, the property owner can propose a project on this site with 100 units/acre, which could go up to 35% density bonus without any upzoning. So, what's the total capacity we have in Cupertino without upzoning? What's the total capacity of all Tier 1 sites without any upzoning? What's the total capacity of all Tier 2 sites without any upzoning? Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 9:21 PM 0101 To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Capacity under HAA Vice Mayor Chao, can you clarify what you meant by “capacity?” Luke – can you confirm if these information will be included in the Housing Element update on 11/15? Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 7:28 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Capacity under HAA When we have the update on the Housing Element, I hope to get some information on the current capacity of Cupertino under HAA (Housing Accountability Act) and other state laws, which allow the zoning ordinance to be overwritten by the General Plan, as we’ve seen in some recent projects. For example, the United Furniture site, without being identified as Housing Element would not prevent them from building. They just need to comply with the existing zoning per the existing law. Many other sites along Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza and Foodhill and elsewhere are likely in a similar situation. Then, what’s the existing capacity for housing today under existing law? I think that’d be very informative to the HE process and the public. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0102 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2022 8:37 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Financial Policy on Verbal Contracts Hi Pamela, Both the Vice Mayor and myself requested that the Chamber item from 6/21 come back to Council for discussion, and it was put off due to the election, which has passed. Please put the Chamber item on the Agenda because we were not allowed to discuss the agenda attachments because the agenda item was only regarding the $8,000 payment to the Chamber under a verbal agreement which no one seemed to know who made, that is where the issue of verbal agreements came from. I am frankly appalled that putting a halt to verbal agreements is being pushed off by staff, can you give me a good reason why? This should be something that is ironed out in a day and put in place as policy. Please explain why it is not? Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 3:55 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Financial Policy on Verbal Contracts Hi Pamela, Having contracts be written down seems very basic, and yet I am asking for it to be memorialized which begs the question of how many verbal agreements is the city working under presently? This should be an urgent matter to put an end to. What do you and Chris think? What are the risks of having verbal contracts? As we saw with the $65k given to the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce for them to make a website for themselves, there is no control on the product or ongoing invoicing. I’m pretty appalled at the stalling. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2022 9:19 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Financial Policy on Verbal Contracts Good Morning Council Member Moore, This is being worked on as part of the policy review approved by City Council as part of the FY2022-23 Internal Audit Work Plan. This review includes the review of the purchasing policy which would be the most appropriate place for this language. Thank you. 0103 Kristina Alfaro Director of Administrative Services Administrative Services KristinaA@cupertino.org (408) 777-3220/7608 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 4:00 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Financial Policy on Verbal Contracts Councilmember Moore, thank you for the heads up. I’ve cc’d Director Alfaro on this email as well. Let us confirm if this is a direction provided by Council prior already. If so, we will have a response provided to your questions soon. Thank you Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2022 7:09 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Financial Policy on Verbal Contracts Hi Pamela, I would like to have a financial policy to the effect that all contracts will be in some form of writing and that the city does not honor/pay invoices on verbal contracts which have no record. I will ask for this again at council. Dianne had said she would send a memo to staff to this effect and I do not seem to have a copy, but I think it needs to be codified. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0104 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2022 8:51 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: QUESTIONS: Housing Element public review Attachment(s): "QUESTIONS Housing Element public review.msg" This is a valid request that I hope the staff could accommodate. Post a version of the draft with hyperlinks for easier navigation. And post maps for the sites mentioned in the draft Housing Element. I understand that the staff did not feel the draft is ready to be posted and would have wished to take more time to polish it. We appreciate all the work you do to help us make the Jan deadline. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Caryl Gorska <gorska@gorska.com> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2022 1:47 PM To: Housing; Caryl Gorska; City Clerk; flower@emcplanning.com; Luke Connolly Cc: City Council; City Attorney's Office Subject: QUESTIONS: Housing Element public review 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. 0105 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 10:12 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org> Subject: EngageCupertino.org The EngageCupertino.org site is not updated yet with the draft Housing Element it seems and the due date. Have an email been sent to the subscribers of the EngageCupertino.org site? Someone told me that they have been receiving emails on CEP meetings, but they did not receive any email about the draft Housing Element. Do we have contact info of those who signed up/attended the three community meetings? Did we send a notice to them? For groups the city have conducted focus groups with during this HE update or the AFFH for the federal consolidated plan, have we sent a notice them? Below is an excerpt from the HCD comment letter for Pleasanton on community engagement. For your reference. “Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.” (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60774c0969df227a3b4ab0a6/t/63780735e40b8e1a1a71a601/1668810549622/alaPleasantonDraftOutCORRECTED111422.pdf) The city’s page (https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/housing/housing-element) now only directs to EngageCupertino.org with little information. For important deadline for public comments, it might be a good idea to include such info on the city website too. See Pleasanton’s city page for example: https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/gov/depts/cd/planning/housing_element_update.asp, which provides the most pertinent info like deadline for public comments and links yo document for public comments and then also links to the HE site: https://www.pleasantonhousingelement.com. Just some suggestions that I hope are helpful to make the information more easily accessible by the community. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0106 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 10:14 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Request to be added to the housing elements sites Perhaps, there should be a common protocol for this kind of request? Then, next time the site selection is ok the agenda of either commission or council, such requests are considered together? Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Daisy Zuniga <daisyjzuniga@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 4:01 PM To: City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Request to be added to the housing elements sites 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, Vice mayor, City Council and Planning Department, My family and I will be the new owner of 11041 Stevens Canyon Rd by the end of Nov 2022. It is a property with 19 acres that we believe could allow for 4 homes, an engineer previously identified that 3 with a General Plan Amendment. The intention currently is to build these homes for family members to all live nearby. If possible, we would like to be added to the Housing Element Site Selection, pending of course all necessary requirements. Thank you for your consideration, Daisy Zuniga (daughter) Victor & Hortencia Zuniga (Dad & Mom) 0107 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 3:23 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: CONFIDENTIAL Housing Element Draft Ch. 2 Goals, Policies, and Strategies Hi Pamela, This is a confidential email and NOT a public comment regarding the draft HE. Ch. 2 contains multiple unvetted policies which I would want reverted to the original except for the few exceptions which are new laws. For instance, new policy HE-1.3 Priority Housing Sites: “…the minimum number of units listed for each of these sites in Table B4-3 shall be allowable by right without need for rezoning or any other discretionary action on the part of the City. (New Policy)” Without need for rezoning? Next they say to eliminate discretionary development standards. Followed by: Forgivable ADU loans. Eliminated Heart of the City Strategy. Low Barrier Navigation Center. Amend zoning code to SB9. Lower development fees. Lower parking requirements. The City WILL partner with… The City WILL work with…”Bang the Table”… The City WILL work with… ——- I did not expect to see a laundry list of policies which were never discussed with anyone, poured into this draft. I am regretting agreeing to having this circulated. I thought the policies were our existing ones and not a wish list from who even knows where. I refuse to see this sent off in this form. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0108 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2022 12:34 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Esther Kwon <EstherK@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: EngageCupertino.org + Esther since I have some comments on the Integrated Community Engagement Plan It might be a good idea for the Planning Department to develop a protocol for community outreach on projects with the help of the Communications Department. This way we don’t have to reinvent the wheels each time and then might risk missing some steps each time. This is not the first time something is missed in the community outreach. If it is harder to update engagecupertino.org, an option might be to just update the city web page on HE with the info about draft HE and point the engagecupertino.org back to the City page. I understand that there is staffing challenges in the Planning Department and they are already coping as best they can. Perhaps, Communications or IT could help out, which is what I have envisioned as a part of the Integrated Community Engagement Plan in this year’s work program. Some departments like Sustainability Department and Parks Rec Department seem to have a better handle on outreach. The pages for Sustainability issues on engagecupertino.org have very good information, for example. Blackberry Golf Course survey got over 2000 responses. There are popup booths for Memorial Park at every festival and event with good engagement. But for planning, even if there is a booth, which was not often, it has one small sign on HE, which most of the public won’t pay attention. With an Integrated Community Engagement Plan, I am hoping that the departments can work together to leverage each other’s strengths so that we provide the same high level of community engagement, regardless of which department is driving that project. And I hope that the contact list and focus groups collected for each project is built up over time so that we don’t start from scratch with every project within a department. For example, we had done a housing survey in 2021 with over 800 responses. I have suggested to include those respondents in HE outreach. To date, I am still not clear whether they are included or how many since I understand that some might respond without leaving their emails. As an agency who wants continued engagement with the community, I think we should encourage people to register with their contact info when they fill out surveys. For example, we can indicate that the result will be separated between registered and not registered users, since we can be sure that registered users take the survey only once. With unregistered users, we never know. For example, we should send an update on the survey to those who registered. Some residents have commented that they filled out surveys but never receive any update on the survey result. Here are some of thoughts I have shared with previous city managers. I hope it helps the city and the Planning Department improve our community engagement. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 8:52 AM To: Liang Chao Cc: Luke Connolly; Benjamin Fu Subject: RE: EngageCupertino.org Thank you kindly for your suggestion. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 7:12 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org> Subject: EngageCupertino.org 0109 The EngageCupertino.org site is not updated yet with the draft Housing Element it seems and the due date. Have an email been sent to the subscribers of the EngageCupertino.org site? Someone told me that they have been receiving emails on CEP meetings, but they did not receive any email about the draft Housing Element. Do we have contact info of those who signed up/attended the three community meetings? Did we send a notice to them? For groups the city have conducted focus groups with during this HE update or the AFFH for the federal consolidated plan, have we sent a notice them? Below is an excerpt from the HCD comment letter for Pleasanton on community engagement. For your reference. “Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.” (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60774c0969df227a3b4ab0a6/t/63780735e40b8e1a1a71a601/1668810549622/alaPleasantonDraftOutCORRECTED111422.pdf) The city’s page (https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/housing/housing-element) now only directs to EngageCupertino.org with little information. For important deadline for public comments, it might be a good idea to include such info on the city website too. See Pleasanton’s city page for example: https://www.cityofpleasantonca.gov/gov/depts/cd/planning/housing_element_update.asp, which provides the most pertinent info like deadline for public comments and links yo document for public comments and then also links to the HE site: https://www.pleasantonhousingelement.com. Just some suggestions that I hope are helpful to make the information more easily accessible by the community. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0110 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 12:02 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Subject: Page for the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program I tried to find the information for the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse hotline information. I finally found them on this Internal Audit page. But I have to scroll down to find it. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/finance/internal-audit Please consider these improvements: 1. Put the Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program on its own page to have more visibility. 2. Improve SEO search. I first tried these terms on Google and could not find the page: "Cupertino Fraud hotline" "Cupertino Fraud Waste Abuse" The only relevant item was the PDF describing the program. Please consider methods to improve the SEO result of the page with info on this important program. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0111 From: Liang Chao on behalf of Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 1:13 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report As I have stated in the other email about this issue: "Please consider this issue during the internal audit of the governance issue so that the staff respects the adopted council work program and communicates the appropriate process to community members to avoid misunderstanding or misplaced expectation." Please forward the information in the enclosed email to Moss Adams accordingly. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 10:42 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Pamela and Matt, Both of you are probably not familiar with the history of this project. I’ll try to recap it here. But there should have been a webpage listing the history for the public. July 6, 2017 - Walk Audit was done and the report suggested “Move bicycle parking to south end of the school” and for Vista Drive the report suggested “Install Class III Bike Route signage and markings (sharrows)”. Then, some multi-year meetings were conducted while neither the Bike Ped Commission nor the City Council had any knowledge of such an effort. Nov 16, 2021 - Agenda Item 17 - “Consider conducting a first reading of an ordinance that prohibits parking along the west side of Vista Drive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive, and along the south side of Merritt Drive between Vista Drive and the western end, to accommodate the construction of a Class IV bicycle lanes.” The Council was very confused. This bike path proposed was not previously discussed in any public meeting and the staff was asking the Council to approve the first reading of an ordinance to remove parking spaces on a street. Bike Ped Commission was not aware of such project either. So, the Council referred the project back to the Council. Dec 15, 2021 Bike Ped Commission discussed the project and recommended alternatives to be considered more thoroughly. Feb 11, 2022 Two Bike Ped Commissioners and neighbors and other stakeholders had an on-site meeting at Lawson. The meeting summary by Commissioner Gerhard identified a safer option than the one with two-way bike path on Visa Drive: “there seems to be a much safer option of routing students directly onto school property at or near the south entrance (similar to what is already in place at the North entrance). The Walk Audit also had a similar recommendation to route bicycles into the south entrance and have a bicycle parking right there. ” The Work Program Item approved by the City Council stated “ Lawson Middle School Bikeway; Project Objective: Retain consultant to prepare feasibility study which will evaluate alternatives that provide a separated bike path for students riding to Lawson Middle School. Feasibility cost will be $40,000.” However, the email announcement from the city about the Lawson Bikeway project indicates only one option will be studied, which is against the recommendation of the Bike Ped Commission and against the adopted Work Program. 0112 From July 6, 2017, when the initial Walk Audit report suggested providing bike access from the south end of the school to Nov 16, 2022 when the two-way Bikeway surfaced out of no where, the public, the Council and the Bike Ped Commission have no idea what were considered in order to move towards a very different proposal, which seems to be less safe. The meeting summary of the Feb 11 on-site meeting at Lawson stated: “ The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review.” To date, no information has been provided on these multi-year non-public meetings. But there seems to be a consistent effort by the staff to consider only the option, which evolved after multi-year non-public meetings. We must clarify the scope of the Lawson Bikeway before the first community meeting next Thursday on 11/10. Thank you. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 7:36 PM To: Liang Chao Subject: Re: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Yes, there are alternatives. The best option will be to add a bike cage in the south parking lot of the school, as this allows all the students coming from the south enter the school directly, safely and park there. It make no sense to route all these students to the main entrance, as this area is congested with cars. The students coming from the north already have a bike cage on the north part of the campus. Bottom line, you want to keep bicyclists away from the main entrance. That s why the proposed trail option is actually less safe than allowing students to enter the school on the south side directly. Meeting notes have not been provided despite follow up requests. Gerhard Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 8:14 AM To: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Thanks for making the summary of that Feb 11, 2022 meeting. Very helpful. But the only alternative mentioned seems to be the original path in the Walk Audit? That’s the one? I thought there are other alternatives. 0113 It states: “The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review.” Have meeting notes from these 9 meetings been provided for review yet? Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 6:02 AM To: Liang Chao Subject: Fw: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Hi Liang, Here is my summary report from the Feb. 10 meeting @ Lawson Middle school . This was also included in the Written Communications for the March 16 Bike Ped Commission Meeting. https://cupertino.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=895459&GUID=300D0339-0125-44F3-A1B8- F1C3FC66DEAE&Options=&Search= Thanks, Gerhard. Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org From: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 9:12 PM To: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Cc: Kim Lunt <KimL@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Commissioners (bcc’d): Please see meeting summary from Gerhard below. Attached also is a parking study completed by residents in the area. David Stillman Transportation Manager Public Works DavidS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3249 ------------------- Meeting summary from the Lawson Middle School meeting Feb. 10, 2022 @ 2:30-4:30PM. The purpose of this meeting was to address the following requests from the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission meeting from December 15, 2021 1. Have Commissioner Lindskog and Chair Eschelbeck attend a meeting with stakeholders at the Lawson Middle School site; 2. Recommend that the stakeholders consider alternative solutions more thoroughly; 0114 3. Receive a better understanding of decision material that was considered when coming up with the current proposed solution (the background of the current solution;) and 4. Report back to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission with the outcome of the meeting with stakeholders. The meeting started at 2:30PM with an introduction of the attendees, and had a good representation of City staff, bike ped commission, CUSD staff, PTA representation, as well as nearby residents. After introduction, the meeting started with a survey of the school and traffic setting and traffic pattern at class end at 3PM. I was part of the group observing traffic patterns at the intersection Forest Ave/Vista Dr . The observation showed the following clear pattern : Main traffic flow for vehicles and about 30 bicycles, as well as 2 scooters at this location was south bound Vista Dr turning right into Forest Ave/Lazaneo Dr westbound. There was almost no car traffic (and only 2 bicycle/scooters) into Forest Ave eastbound. After the initial traffic observation, all attendees gathered in a school class room for a presentation by the City of Cupertino (Thank You Cherie). This presentation outlined the history of the project, some alternatives, and the proposed solution, all at a very high level. There were no additional materials or details shared or distributed. Questions and Discussion during the meeting: A statement was made that Apple pays for this project. A clarifying question was asked if Apple requested this specific project, or if the City decided to use the Apple Safe Routes to School allocation to specifically fund this project, and if any of these funds could also be used for other Safe Routes to School projects. The answer was provided that it was the City of Cupertino making the fund allocation for this project, and the Apple funds could also be used for any other Safe Routes to School qualifying project. It was stated this project was a multi year collaborative effort of all stakeholders. A clarifying question was asked if this multi year effort included any of the neighboring residents in the planning and evaluation of options. The answer was given that no neighboring residents were involved in the design and evaluation over these past years, except they have received two City notification letters in 2021 informing them of the plan to eliminate on street parking along Lawson Middle School. It was further confirmed, this Feb.10 meeting was the first meeting where affected neighbors were invited and involved in reviewing the different options. The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review. A further question was made what kind of bike/pedestrian/car traffic and flow analysis was conducted and what data has been reviewed for the evaluation of options . The answer provided was to date there has not been any such studies conducted. The only study available was the Walk Audit from 2017, even this is mainly qualitative, and does not include any quantitative data. On Feb. 10, a resident provided via email data points to all attendees about cars parked on the west side of Vista Drive (Lawson school side) at different times of the day, and shows an average of about 15 cars parked , with peaks up to 25 during the past few weeks. On Feb. 10 the number of cars parked on the west side was 16. Commentary was provided about the parking spots on the west side of Vista Dr area are also heavily used during soccer games, for park maintenance, as well as by residents during school off hours, where the site serves a neighborhood park, and solutions will need to be developed for these use cases. Commentary was provided about similarities with the Greene Middle School bike path in Palo Alto, even there was subsequent discussion about the setting being quite different due to Middle Field in Palo Alto being a major road, as well as a traffic light being involved. Lawson Middle school currently has two bicycle parking locations. One right next to the main school entrance where major car congestion happens during drop off and pickup. The existence of a second bike rack on the North Entrance of the school at Merritt Dr. was not mentioned, but was confirmed after inquiring. Most importantly for any such school project is student safety. A clarifying question was asked why it would be safer to route the many incoming students from Lazaneo all the way to Vista Dr and expose them to the car congestion area at the main drop off area, while there seems to be a much safer option of routing students directly onto school property at or near the south entrance (similar to what is already in place at the North entrance). The Walk Audit also had a similar recommendation to route bicycles into the south entrance and have a bicycle parking right there. The South parking lot was less than 50% occupied today, and earlier visits showed even less occupancy. Direct quote from the Walk Audit: "Moving bicycle parking to the southern end of campus will reduce the vehicle congestion and bicycle/vehicle conflicts on Vista Drive". A statement was provided about multiple options having been evaluated, including routing bicycle traffic into the south entrance and continued routing on school property between the sidewalk and the school track (which is sufficiently wide, but would possibly require moving the school fence) and the reasons for abandoning these options range from cost for an impacted irrigation system, some trees being potentially impacted, some parking lot lights may possibly need to be moved. Unfortunately not much detail has been given about the potential cost of any of that, and it is not clear if such data exists or has been evaluated. 0115 I truly appreciate all the good work by City staff and all participants, and as expressed, the primary objective of this meeting was to develop a better understanding of the options evaluated and what material / data was considered. At this point it is unclear what decision metrics and data were driving towards the single proposed solution of trying to route bicyclists towards the congested main entrance, and what data points were used to abandon the alternatives. With the already existing bicycle entrance and bicycle parking on the North side, and a potential new and safe bicycle access on the South side, we may have a safer and less disruptive solution, but to conclude such a question a data driven approach is needed. It will serve the City of Cupertino and its residents best to get a clear understanding of these missing data points, materials and decision matrix, as well as incorporating input from nearby residents for making a final determination of a path forward. The meeting was adjourned at 4:34PM Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org 0116 From: Liang Chao on behalf of Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 1:37 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: History of City Hall and its financing options This email includes more info about the City Hall financing options, which my other email on City Hall sent a few minutes ago missed. Please forward this additional info to Moss Adams too for interval audit on governance issues. Thanks. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 2:35 AM To: Jim Throop Cc: Katy Nomura; Dianne Thompson (she/her) Subject: History of City Hall and its financing options I found this page titled: "CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN ARCHIVE" (Fortunately, although it is archived, but it is still online and Google search was able to find it. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/city-construction-projects-capital-improvement-projects/civic- center-master-plan-archive I was not able to find it until I used the term "Civic Center", rather than "City Hall". This very informative page includes all previous meetings on this project, including the financing options they explored. July 7, 2015 - Council adopted the Civic Center Master Plan, which includes a new city hall with added space and underground garage. August 18, 2015 - Council did not approve the $5M item start architectural design. Council asked the staff to come back with financing options. November 17, 2015 - Council directed the staff to come back with a creative solution to keep the cost lower than $40M December 10, 2015 - The staff report concludes "Because we were not successful in our attempts to discover a project delivery process that could develop a $70 million estimated cost project for less than the maximum $40 million authorized by Council, we will not be bringing the project for further consideration unless so directed by City Council." April 3, 2018 - Agenda Item is titled "City Hall Renovation Project": "the proposed capital improvement plan for 2018-19 would include a budget for design costs of $2.1 million, followed by a budget in 2019-20 of approximately $18.9 million for construction (including staff relocations, temporary facilities, project management, contingencies, etc.)" It would be a good idea to either continue to update this page with new information about the City Hall and the City Hall Annex or create a new page with a summary of background till 20`8 and a link to this archived page to provide historic background. This way future Councilmembers and the public could easily find all the historic background related to this project. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0117 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 11:30 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> CC: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: County Unhoused Task Force and follow ups Hi Pamela, Thank you for the information. I had heard from PC Chair Scharf that he had been to at least one of their meetings. This was my first, and apparently last, meeting with the UTF, sorry it has ended. Since the group will not be meeting again, no follow up is necessary. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Friday, December 2, 2022 at 7:55 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>, Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>, Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: County Unhoused Task Force and follow ups Councilmember Moore and Mayor Paul, I am following up on your request regarding the County Unhoused Task Force program: Program background and overview: The Santa Clara County Unhoused Task Force (UTF) was a limited term group and Wednesday meeting was the final one. At the 1/28/20 Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors meeting (Item No. 11), the Board approved a referral from Supervisor Cortese requesting County Counsel return with a resolution establishing a Homelessness Task Force. During the discussion of the item, it was requested that the Task Force be titled the Unhoused Task Force (UTF). At the 1/23/20 Board of Supervisors meeting (Item No. 145), the Board adopted a resolution establishing the UTF. The UTF is co-chaired by Supervisors Chavez and Ellenberg and includes elected representatives of 10 of the county’s cities, 4 members with lived experience of homelessness, and 4-5 at-large members. All members applied to participate in 2020. At previous meetings, Cupertino has been represented by City Manager Deb Feng, Mayor Paul, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmember Moore. Kerri has provided staff support and coordinated the presentation with prior City Managers and County staff. 11/30 was Kerri’s first meeting. The UTF met five times between 9/8/20 and 10/22/20. In the interest of promoting a consistent approach to improving the quality of life of the unhoused population in Santa Clara County, the UTF recommended that all cities in the County conduct their own analysis of the measures to develop interim housing solutions and formally consider whether to adopt them. The UTF reconvened on June 10, 2021 to receive a progress report from the cities and the Administration. There was a meeting scheduled in September but was later cancelled. The September meeting was then postponed to 11/30 which concluded the program. Other Questions: There was an interest in coordinating a meeting before 12/9 with both of you and staff to further understand this program. If the abovementioned program overview is not sufficient, Debra can facilitate a meeting before 12/9. We will try to find a time, but given that next week is a busy week, we will do the best that we can. Provide a listing of Section 8 housing in Cupertino that is different than the BMR program we have administered. CDD team will provide a follow up response to you by 12/9. Explore possibility and process of using any of the current city properties such as Monta Vista Rec Center or Blesch House next to BBF to provide some supportive housing when it is cold, for overnight use, because of its size. Additionally, can these properties accommodate any temporary shelter homes, or the structure itself, could be used to house individuals. The Byrne House could also be used. Both of these houses are standing empty. CDD team will provide a follow up response to you by 12/9. Provide a status update on Cupertino’s request regarding the $40M County Challenge grant fund for interim housing. City made the initial inquiry to County Supportive Housing in early November. CDD team will provide a status update by 12/9. Please let me know if there is anything further that you would like to receive regarding this program. Thank you, 0118 Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0119 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 3:25 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Alex Greer <AlexG@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Senior Center Operations No hurry. Those are questions I have wanted to ask and have not for a long while. The information I am asking is typical of a nonprofit provides in their annual report to show how the organization has provided services for donors. As the city spends about $1M annually on the Senior Center, which I found out from a comparison table done by Los Gatos Senior Task Force, I hope to find out more about how we are spending that $1M so far. And what services are currently provide so we could look into what gaps are there since we are doing an in-depth survey of senior services this year, which is one of the work program items. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 11:18 AM To: Liang Chao Cc: Alex Greer; Rachelle Sander; Debra Nascimento; Christopher Jensen Subject: RE: Senior Center Operations Vice Mayor Chao, thank you for your questions. As City honors a flexible work schedule, many staff have today off. We will have a more comprehensive response back to you next week. Before then, here’s a brief follow up - Parks and Rec staff will provide you a follow up on where agenda for Senior Advisory Council are posted and your specific membership inquiry. However, we don’t typically provide a detailed operation and budget report other than what’s included in the approved budget. We will check if there is any confidential information related to your questions (how many members, how many are Cupertino residents, age distribution) that cannot be published (cc’d Chris on this topic as well) before a response is formulated back to you. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 7:43 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Alex Greer <AlexG@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: Senior Center Operations An area that I have wished to get to know more is the operation and budget of the Senior Center. I don't remember ever getting a report on the usage or demographics of the Senior Center, such as how many members, how many are Cupertino residents, age distribution etc. I also hope to learn more about the Senior Advisory Council on what they do. Could you point me to their agenda and0120 minutes, current members of the Advisory Council and any bylaws governing their operation? How would a member of the Senior Center provide their input to the Senior Advisory Council or get notified of their meetings? I signed up for the Senior Center in 2019 and this year I activated my membership. However, I have not received any email notice from the Senior Center to its members. I wonder what has been sent out to the members of the Senior Center. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0121 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 5:05 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco Rise Labs Hi Pamela, I was watching SHPCO’s Reed Moulds’ presentation about the Rise, given to the Rotary in June of this year, available here: https://vimeo.com/725157548 He mentions that they are looking at having lab space in the office and how that would have fewer employees than traditional office. I had been told by a resident that the Vallco people have said this change is happening. While that could be true, I am wondering if they are allowed to have laboratory space in the project given that is different zoning as I understand. I am also concerned about having labs next to residents and under a green roof structure. Labs can have all sorts of chemicals, ventilation requirements, and delivery needs which I do not think the Vallco SB 35 approval would cover. Please let me know if they can change regular office commercial to laboratories under the Vallco SB 35 approval. I think it requires a zoning change which is not part of the approved project. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0122 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2022 9:47 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Vallco Rise Labs Hi Pamela, Reed made it sound like there would be less employees which means something other than office. I think he was making up stuff because it has been pointed out by our previous attorney that there would be (conservatively) a shortage of 3,410 residential units by building this project due to 1.9 M sf of office. This is a fact which is unpopular because they are using a housing law to worsen the housing shortage. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 8:31 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Vallco Rise Labs Councilmember Moore, Luke can further clarify. But I believe the “lab” space referred is more along the bio tech office lab space as opposed to the experimental / hazardous chemical type of lab space. Luke – thoughts? Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 2:06 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Vallco Rise Labs Hi Pamela, I was watching SHPCO’s Reed Moulds’ presentation about the Rise, given to the Rotary in June of this year, available here: https://vimeo.com/725157548 He mentions that they are looking at having lab space in the office and how that would have fewer employees than traditional office. I had been told by a resident that the Vallco people have said this change is happening. While that could be true, I am wondering if they are allowed to have laboratory space in the project given that is different zoning as I understand. I am also concerned about having labs next to residents and under a green roof structure. Labs can have all sorts of chemicals, ventilation requirements, and delivery needs which I do not think the Vallco SB 35 approval would cover. Please let me know if they can change regular office commercial to laboratories under the Vallco SB 35 approval. I think it requires a zoning change which is not part of the approved project. Thank you, 0123 Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0124 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2022 6:28 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Please provide the complete BMR Manual Hi Pamela, RE: Marina project Would someone please provide the complete, updated, BMR manual. It used to be Resolution 15-037, then Council altered it and there has not been a clean and complete copy of the current one around anywhere. I am concerned about the BMR fees for mixed use not showing up on PDF 212 of the Agenda tonight. I am also wondering why the Developer Contribution is only 25% of the Bandly and Stevens Creek Blvd. improvements as opposed to all of the cost. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0125 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2022 10:35 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Confidential Re: 12/12 Check-in agenda Hi Pamela, As to item 11. I think our reporting needs to be reviewed, and I am not wanting to cause defensiveness, but our reporting looks different than what other cities provide. I would like you, to do a quick comparison of what our city does, vs. other cities. I think we need to have 15 days from posting the AB 1600 report, and the content of the report needs a second set of eyes. It looks nearly exactly like the past two years’ reports, with minor tweaks. The report has items which are 10 years old, items which are from Development Agreements, for Main Street money was given to help traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods but went to Rodriguez and Pacifica next to City Hall for what reason? These are the types of issues which I see. I can dig deeper and do the work myself and report it to the whole council with a power point, but I think it would be better to have internal work on the issue. I think that no Councilmember has taken the time when they are given 6 days, to think about this item, therefore, it gets put on consent and rubber stamped. Staff has removed the development agreements from the Budget website page recently. Why? I want all of the development agreements which had financial obligations posted on the website 2 months ago returned to the website for the public to know about. This part of the web page was where I first read about the Main Street Development Agreement requiring $40,000 to help with traffic in the surrounding neighborhoods, but that money went to Rodriguez and Pacifica, not near Main Street. Please provide all of the Development Agreements which had been on the Budget page and have now been removed. I would also like an explanation because it looks like staff is wanting to hide money developers agreed to pay and what they agreed to pay it for. I am sure what it looks like and what it is, are different. Some of the other cities report more comprehensively: Brentwood’s report: https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/594/637815863550000000 I like there report, and they mention the 15 day availability issue which I ran across looking at the reporting from a school district mentioning they had to circulate the report for a minimum of 15 days. Roseville’s report: https://cdn5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_7964838/File/Government/Departments/Finance/General%20Accounting/AB160 0/Roseville-Development%20Impact%20Fee%20Fiscal%20Year%20Ending%20June%2030,%202021.pdf San Francisco’s (older): https://www.sfcontroller.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/controller/Final_Full_Report.pdf As a side note, are there sewer development impact fees? Who charges them? I cannot locate the Cupertino Sanitary District AB 1600 report. Will you please help find if it is needed, and where is it, who is responsible for it? Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 8:59 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: 12/12 Check-in agenda Councilmember Moore, please find tomorrow’s check-in meeting agenda attached. Thanks, Pamela 0126 Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0127 From: Kitty Moore Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 4:28 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Audit Committee Membership Change Hi Pamela, How is it that Beth and Kristina have foreknowledge about the Audit Committee assignments? I gather the mayor has already made the choices and will get the votes for whatever she wants. Thanks. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0128 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:20 PM EST To: Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: City Plan to End Homeless I cannot find the status of the Plan to End Homeless in either of the links referenced below. Could I just get a description of the status if possible? Q1: What's been done so far? Besides the kickoff meeting? Q2: There was a consultant retained for the project. What they have produced so far? Q3: Has this item been put on the Housing Commission agenda to get feedback? Q4: What's the schedule and remaining steps to finish the plan? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 12:44 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: City Plan to End Homeless Hi Pamela and Vice Mayor Chao, The City Plan to End Homelessness website is incorrect and we have updated the language. Updates will come through the City Work Program dashboard. Thank you, Kerri Kerri Heusler Housing Manager Community Development KerriH@cupertino.org (408) 777-3251 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 6:30 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: City Plan to End Homeless Kerri, please provide an update. Pamela 0129 Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 12:45 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: City Plan to End Homeless Any update? It's been more than a month. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 10:32 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org> Subject: City Plan to End Homeless I’m trying to find information about services for unhoused on the city website. I came across this page on the City’s Plan to End Homeless: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/housing/city-plan-to-end-homelessness It says a draft has been sent to Housing Commission on May 12, 2022. But I didn’t find that draft on the agenda. The link to the meeting goes to the agenda page for the year 2021. After I navigated to the year 2022 and then to May 12, 2022 meeting. I still didn’t find the draft plan. Could the draft be linked on this page, in addition to the link to he agenda? Was there a presentation? Could the presentation be linked to? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0130 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 6:14 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Audit Committee Assignments Hi Pamela and Chris, | was pondering the new Vice Mayor’s prior employment as the City of Cupertino’s Interim Finance Director in 2014, during the embezzlement. | am concerned about the expected effort to appoint VM Mohan to the Audit Committee for the following reasons: e The Vice Mayor was an employee of the City of Cupertino as the “Interim Finance Manager” in 2014, during the last year of the embezzlement e The Vice Mayor worked with the Treasurer/Director of Administrative Services Kristina Alfaro and Jennifer Chang, Senior Accountant who defrauded the city of nearly $800,000 e Treasurer/Director Alfaro has already expressed her approval of VM Mohan’s announcement of her candidacy for City Council on her LinkedIn account e During yesterday’s meeting it became apparent that Treasurer/Director Alfaro and Acting Finance Manager Beth Viajar were aware of Mayor Wei’s intention to change the Audit Committee assignments (as you know, | am Chair of the Audit Committee) and both seemed please to know it e the Mayor intends to appoint Councilmember Fruen and Vice Mayor Mohan to the Audit Committee e Appearance of conflict The Audit Committee makes recommendations regarding the internal controls audit and reviews the work of the finance division. Objectivity is important to carry out these duties. The Moss Adams report indicated multiple problems with the internal controls in the Finance Division which the Vice Mayor had presided over. Presently we only have a couple of internally grown finance people running the division and that causes risk. | am concerned that their past working relationship between Mohan and Alfaro, that neither was able to notice a 14 year embezzlement, and that the Audit Committee has oversight on the finances of the City, that the Vice Mayor lacks the proper objectivity needed to serve and ask hard questions. | was the only person in the history of the city to read the California Government Code regarding the statutory requirements for reporting to Council by the Treasurer and the Municipal Code requirements as well. The Treasurer should know what their duties are and the Finance Manager would be carrying them out. Neither were able to do that and under the prior Finance Manager, Zach Korach, | got pushback when he reported to the Audit Committee that other cities weren't doing that reporting. | showed him the Solano County Grand Jury Report which resulted in the cities there having to properly report. It was our own Municipal Code which led me to read the state statute. During the meeting yesterday, Alfaro stated that they now show the updates on Special Projects in the Budget, | was the person who pointed out there’s no way to track what was approved. The downstairs carpet, for instance, is a Special Project from a couple of years ago that was not completed, same with the City Hall fascia work. | am sorry to bring all of this up, but when | thought about what | would like in my city’s Audit Committee members, running the finance division during the embezzlement and having essentially an endorsement from the Treasurer she worked with, is a red flag for me. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0131 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 6:55 PM EST To: Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: City Plan to End Homeless I think my questions only require information readily available, especially since this item was on the 2021-12 work program. It's not a new item. Please just answer the questions to the best of your knowledge so far. Thanks! Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2022 11:19 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: City Plan to End Homeless Councilmember Chao, I understand that you have a number of questions on homelessness. Due to recent experiences, we are revamping our planning efforts. Although we don’t have information to provide you at this time, we expect to provide a progress report to the Council in February/March. Thank you, Kerri Kerri Heusler Housing Manager Community Development KerriH@cupertino.org (408) 777-3251 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 8:20 PM To: Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: City Plan to End Homeless I cannot find the status of the Plan to End Homeless in either of the links referenced below. Could I just get a description of the status if possible? Q1: What's been done so far? Besides the kickoff meeting? Q2: There was a consultant retained for the project. What they have produced so far? Q3: Has this item been put on the Housing Commission agenda to get feedback? Q4: What's the schedule and remaining steps to finish the plan? Thanks. 0132 Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 12:44 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: City Plan to End Homeless Hi Pamela and Vice Mayor Chao, The City Plan to End Homelessness website is incorrect and we have updated the language. Updates will come through the City Work Program dashboard. Thank you, Kerri Kerri Heusler Housing Manager Community Development KerriH@cupertino.org (408) 777-3251 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 6:30 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: City Plan to End Homeless Kerri, please provide an update. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2022 12:45 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: City Plan to End Homeless Any update? It's been more than a month. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>0133 Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 10:32 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Kerri Heusler <KerriH@cupertino.org> Subject: City Plan to End Homeless I’m trying to find information about services for unhoused on the city website. I came across this page on the City’s Plan to End Homeless: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/housing/city-plan-to-end-homelessness It says a draft has been sent to Housing Commission on May 12, 2022. But I didn’t find that draft on the agenda. The link to the meeting goes to the agenda page for the year 2021. After I navigated to the year 2022 and then to May 12, 2022 meeting. I still didn’t find the draft plan. Could the draft be linked on this page, in addition to the link to he agenda? Was there a presentation? Could the presentation be linked to? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0134 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 9:18 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Tree removal question Hi Pamela, This project was park deficient and they lawyered up using state law with the same attorney as Westport. Please respond (sorry!). Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Elle Van Buren <ermogui1099@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2022 12:49 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Tree removal question 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 Cupertino city council, My name is Yu. I'm a resident of Cupertino and I live close to the Marina Foods Plaza. I was reading the redevelopment notification sign and noticed that the redevelopment would require the removal of over 90 trees on the property. I would like to know if our city could minimize or ban the removal of mature trees at these commercial properties. The replacement of trees is not a real solution because by the time the trees reach maturity, the property would be up for redevelopment again. So it basically leaves no real chance for any tree to reach maturity and whatever gets planted is only just a short period of decoration. 50-100 years from now, do we want to see mature trees with large canopies or do we only want to see concrete jungles? The choice is made today. Our city is among those that are very sustainability-minded. I'd love to see if we could move away from these tree-recycling approaches and step up tree protection. Please kindly let me know your thoughts. Thank you so much! Yu Zhang Cupertino 0135 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2022 11:57 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: Property next to Blackberry Farm Attachment(s): "Image.jpeg" When visiting BlackBerry Farm a couple of months ago, a resident pointed out that the city owns the building at the entrance of Blackberry Farm. (See a screenshot attached) I found that it appears to be used by the Parks and Rec Department? How is that building being used now? Could you please include it in the list of city owned properties for consideration? Are there other properties owned by the city and currently in use like this one? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0136 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 9:55 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Alan Row, oral communication city council tonight Attachment(s): "Monitoring agreement 22690 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino .pdf" Hi Pamela, Please look into this. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Sayareh Farsio <sayareh.farsio@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 11:21 AM To: Hung Wei <HWei@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: Alan Enterprise LLC - Google <ali@alanellc.com>; Setareh Farsio <setareh.farsio@gmail.com> Subject: Alan Row, oral communication city council 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. > > Dear honorable Mayor Wei and Council members, > > We are planning to speak at tonights public communication session, since we only have few minutes wanted to update you in advance on our communication. > > Tamien Nation: > > Our project is one of the first projects with Tamien Nation requesting to be involved, therefore there are no set rules, policies, or limits of charges implemented by the City. One of the conditions of the City in order for us to receive our permit was to have Tamien Nation involved, with no set requirements. > We absolutely welcome Tamien Nation's involvement and want to assist in any way we can to help Tamien Nation find any valuables if so, (we have instructed our team to alert us as soon as they find any artwork/valuable items, and we will inform Tamien Nation immediately) but they have assigned a monitor there even during the time we are not doing underground, paying the monitor that has been placed here from Fresno to pay for his commute, hotel and meals are outrageous and totally unacceptable. We did reach out to the chairwomen of Tamien Nation with strong rejection that our project can get shut down. > > We are a small developer who is honored to be part of the Cupertino community, but this estimated cost of $250,000 for the next 6 months is a hardship to us, going through the economic crisis right now, we are already very challenged by this project at it took 3 years to get our permit from the City. the construction cost is skyrocketing, with the high-interest rate now, inflation, and supply chain demanI. Yes we were forced by the city to sign the agreement with Tamien Nation, but was blinded of how much this is going to cost us. We don't believe the City had any idea either since it's their first experience with Tamien Nation, therefore we are coming back to the City for resolution. (Attached please see two documents, the agreement we signed with Tamien Nation and The city condition). > > We respectfully ask the honorable Mayor and Citycouncils to visit this ambiguous condition without any cost to us or at the very least have a set limit of $5,000 no more for the monitor. we can not afford anything more as we did not budget this in our project. Our goal is to complete this project for the citizens of Cupertino by February 2024. This land has been empty for over 10 years now and we like to see it through. > > We are grateful for your support and partnership on this project. > > Warmest regards, > > Sayareh Farsio > Vice President > Alan Enterprise, LLC > 415-517-3755 0137 0138 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2022 2:40 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: CULT-1 is already codified in Muni Code, per Westport MND from Dec. 6, 2022 I have read and compared the Initial Study of Westport and the Canyon Crossing and the Betah Brother sites. Marina Planza's from Dec 6, 2022 agenda: K - Marina Plaza Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum No. 1, Canyon Crossing from Jan 13, 2021 agenda: 2. A – Draft Resolution for EA-2018-06 - Bateh Brother's from project website (It's a draft. The version on the Jan 13, 2021 agenda has a wrong link): Part 3 of 3 (Chapters 4,5 and 6) Q1: From the descriptions, the existing conditions and potential issues are similar between these three projects. I don't understand why Westport does not need to implement CULT-1 by saying that it is already codified in "CMC Chapter 17.04, Standard Environmental Protection Requirements. Section 17.04.050(E)(1), Protect Archaeological Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources". But Canyon Crossing and Bateh Brother (or Alan Enterprise) projects need to implement a new version of the CULT-1, which requires onsite monitoring at all times.. Could you help clarify that? Q2: Both the approvals for the Canyon Crossing and the Bateh Brother projects include Conditions of Approval, in addition to Development Permit etc. But the Westport project only has a Development Permit without any Conditions of Approval. What caused the difference in requirements? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0139 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 1:13 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report As I have stated in the other email about this issue: "Please consider this issue during the internal audit of the governance issue so that the staff respects the adopted council work program and communicates the appropriate process to community members to avoid misunderstanding or misplaced expectation." Please forward the information in the enclosed email to Moss Adams accordingly. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 10:42 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Pamela and Matt, Both of you are probably not familiar with the history of this project. I’ll try to recap it here. But there should have been a webpage listing the history for the public. July 6, 2017 - Walk Audit was done and the report suggested “Move bicycle parking to south end of the school” and for Vista Drive the report suggested “Install Class III Bike Route signage and markings (sharrows)”. Then, some multi-year meetings were conducted while neither the Bike Ped Commission nor the City Council had any knowledge of such an effort. Nov 16, 2021 - Agenda Item 17 - “Consider conducting a first reading of an ordinance that prohibits parking along the west side of Vista Drive between Forest Avenue and Merritt Drive, and along the south side of Merritt Drive between Vista Drive and the western end, to accommodate the construction of a Class IV bicycle lanes.” The Council was very confused. This bike path proposed was not previously discussed in any public meeting and the staff was asking the Council to approve the first reading of an ordinance to remove parking spaces on a street. Bike Ped Commission was not aware of such project either. So, the Council referred the project back to the Council. Dec 15, 2021 Bike Ped Commission discussed the project and recommended alternatives to be considered more thoroughly. Feb 11, 2022 Two Bike Ped Commissioners and neighbors and other stakeholders had an on-site meeting at Lawson. The meeting summary by Commissioner Gerhard identified a safer option than the one with two-way bike path on Visa Drive: “there seems to be a much safer option of routing students directly onto school property at or near the south entrance (similar to what is already in place at the North entrance). The Walk Audit also had a similar recommendation to route bicycles into the south entrance and have a bicycle parking right there. ” The Work Program Item approved by the City Council stated “ Lawson Middle School Bikeway; Project Objective: Retain consultant to prepare feasibility study which will evaluate alternatives that provide a separated bike path for students riding to Lawson Middle School. Feasibility cost will be $40,000.” However, the email announcement from the city about the Lawson Bikeway project indicates only one option will be studied, which is against the recommendation of the Bike Ped Commission and against the adopted Work Program. 0140 From July 6, 2017, when the initial Walk Audit report suggested providing bike access from the south end of the school to Nov 16, 2022 when the two-way Bikeway surfaced out of no where, the public, the Council and the Bike Ped Commission have no idea what were considered in order to move towards a very different proposal, which seems to be less safe. The meeting summary of the Feb 11 on-site meeting at Lawson stated: “ The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review.” To date, no information has been provided on these multi-year non-public meetings. But there seems to be a consistent effort by the staff to consider only the option, which evolved after multi-year non-public meetings. We must clarify the scope of the Lawson Bikeway before the first community meeting next Thursday on 11/10. Thank you. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 7:36 PM To: Liang Chao Subject: Re: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Yes, there are alternatives. The best option will be to add a bike cage in the south parking lot of the school, as this allows all the students coming from the south enter the school directly, safely and park there. It make no sense to route all these students to the main entrance, as this area is congested with cars. The students coming from the north already have a bike cage on the north part of the campus. Bottom line, you want to keep bicyclists away from the main entrance. That s why the proposed trail option is actually less safe than allowing students to enter the school on the south side directly. Meeting notes have not been provided despite follow up requests. Gerhard Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 8:14 AM To: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Thanks for making the summary of that Feb 11, 2022 meeting. Very helpful. But the only alternative mentioned seems to be the original path in the Walk Audit? That’s the one? I thought there are other alternatives. 0141 It states: “The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review.” Have meeting notes from these 9 meetings been provided for review yet? Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Gerhard Eschelbeck <geschelbeck@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 6:02 AM To: Liang Chao Subject: Fw: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Hi Liang, Here is my summary report from the Feb. 10 meeting @ Lawson Middle school . This was also included in the Written Communications for the March 16 Bike Ped Commission Meeting. https://cupertino.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=895459&GUID=300D0339-0125-44F3-A1B8- F1C3FC66DEAE&Options=&Search= Thanks, Gerhard. Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org From: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 9:12 PM To: David Stillman <DavidS@cupertino.org> Cc: Kim Lunt <KimL@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Lawson Middle School meeting Feb.10 report Commissioners (bcc’d): Please see meeting summary from Gerhard below. Attached also is a parking study completed by residents in the area. David Stillman Transportation Manager Public Works DavidS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3249 ------------------- Meeting summary from the Lawson Middle School meeting Feb. 10, 2022 @ 2:30-4:30PM. The purpose of this meeting was to address the following requests from the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission meeting from December 15, 2021 1. Have Commissioner Lindskog and Chair Eschelbeck attend a meeting with stakeholders at the Lawson Middle School site; 2. Recommend that the stakeholders consider alternative solutions more thoroughly; 0142 3. Receive a better understanding of decision material that was considered when coming up with the current proposed solution (the background of the current solution;) and 4. Report back to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission with the outcome of the meeting with stakeholders. The meeting started at 2:30PM with an introduction of the attendees, and had a good representation of City staff, bike ped commission, CUSD staff, PTA representation, as well as nearby residents. After introduction, the meeting started with a survey of the school and traffic setting and traffic pattern at class end at 3PM. I was part of the group observing traffic patterns at the intersection Forest Ave/Vista Dr . The observation showed the following clear pattern : Main traffic flow for vehicles and about 30 bicycles, as well as 2 scooters at this location was south bound Vista Dr turning right into Forest Ave/Lazaneo Dr westbound. There was almost no car traffic (and only 2 bicycle/scooters) into Forest Ave eastbound. After the initial traffic observation, all attendees gathered in a school class room for a presentation by the City of Cupertino (Thank You Cherie). This presentation outlined the history of the project, some alternatives, and the proposed solution, all at a very high level. There were no additional materials or details shared or distributed. Questions and Discussion during the meeting: A statement was made that Apple pays for this project. A clarifying question was asked if Apple requested this specific project, or if the City decided to use the Apple Safe Routes to School allocation to specifically fund this project, and if any of these funds could also be used for other Safe Routes to School projects. The answer was provided that it was the City of Cupertino making the fund allocation for this project, and the Apple funds could also be used for any other Safe Routes to School qualifying project. It was stated this project was a multi year collaborative effort of all stakeholders. A clarifying question was asked if this multi year effort included any of the neighboring residents in the planning and evaluation of options. The answer was given that no neighboring residents were involved in the design and evaluation over these past years, except they have received two City notification letters in 2021 informing them of the plan to eliminate on street parking along Lawson Middle School. It was further confirmed, this Feb.10 meeting was the first meeting where affected neighbors were invited and involved in reviewing the different options. The multi year process supposedly involved 9 meetings, even there were no details provided about the discussion or data reviewed at any of these meetings. A request was made to provide artifacts and meeting notes from these meetings for review to get a better understanding of the alternatives considered and why they were abandoned. It was indicated these meeting minutes/artifacts will be provided for review. A further question was made what kind of bike/pedestrian/car traffic and flow analysis was conducted and what data has been reviewed for the evaluation of options . The answer provided was to date there has not been any such studies conducted. The only study available was the Walk Audit from 2017, even this is mainly qualitative, and does not include any quantitative data. On Feb. 10, a resident provided via email data points to all attendees about cars parked on the west side of Vista Drive (Lawson school side) at different times of the day, and shows an average of about 15 cars parked , with peaks up to 25 during the past few weeks. On Feb. 10 the number of cars parked on the west side was 16. Commentary was provided about the parking spots on the west side of Vista Dr area are also heavily used during soccer games, for park maintenance, as well as by residents during school off hours, where the site serves a neighborhood park, and solutions will need to be developed for these use cases. Commentary was provided about similarities with the Greene Middle School bike path in Palo Alto, even there was subsequent discussion about the setting being quite different due to Middle Field in Palo Alto being a major road, as well as a traffic light being involved. Lawson Middle school currently has two bicycle parking locations. One right next to the main school entrance where major car congestion happens during drop off and pickup. The existence of a second bike rack on the North Entrance of the school at Merritt Dr. was not mentioned, but was confirmed after inquiring. Most importantly for any such school project is student safety. A clarifying question was asked why it would be safer to route the many incoming students from Lazaneo all the way to Vista Dr and expose them to the car congestion area at the main drop off area, while there seems to be a much safer option of routing students directly onto school property at or near the south entrance (similar to what is already in place at the North entrance). The Walk Audit also had a similar recommendation to route bicycles into the south entrance and have a bicycle parking right there. The South parking lot was less than 50% occupied today, and earlier visits showed even less occupancy. Direct quote from the Walk Audit: "Moving bicycle parking to the southern end of campus will reduce the vehicle congestion and bicycle/vehicle conflicts on Vista Drive". A statement was provided about multiple options having been evaluated, including routing bicycle traffic into the south entrance and continued routing on school property between the sidewalk and the school track (which is sufficiently wide, but would possibly require moving the school fence) and the reasons for abandoning these options range from cost for an impacted irrigation system, some trees being potentially impacted, some parking lot lights may possibly need to be moved. Unfortunately not much detail has been given about the potential cost of any of that, and it is not clear if such data exists or has been evaluated. 0143 I truly appreciate all the good work by City staff and all participants, and as expressed, the primary objective of this meeting was to develop a better understanding of the options evaluated and what material / data was considered. At this point it is unclear what decision metrics and data were driving towards the single proposed solution of trying to route bicyclists towards the congested main entrance, and what data points were used to abandon the alternatives. With the already existing bicycle entrance and bicycle parking on the North side, and a potential new and safe bicycle access on the South side, we may have a safer and less disruptive solution, but to conclude such a question a data driven approach is needed. It will serve the City of Cupertino and its residents best to get a clear understanding of these missing data points, materials and decision matrix, as well as incorporating input from nearby residents for making a final determination of a path forward. The meeting was adjourned at 4:34PM Gerhard Eschelbeck Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissioner geschelbeck@cupertino.org 0144 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 1:30 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: $75M City Hall project should not be lumped into the annual CIP list until the Council approves it Pamela, Please consider this issue during the internal audit of the governance issue so that the staff respects the adopted council work program and communicates the appropriate process to community members to avoid misunderstanding or misplaced expectation. Please forward the information in the enclosed email to Moss Adams accordingly. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 6:20 PM To: Jim Throop Cc: Katy Nomura; Dianne Thompson (she/her) Subject: RE: $75M City Hall project should not be lumped into the annual CIP list until the Council approves it The last City Hall design process started with a rough direction from the Council: (Below info came from the July 7, 2014 Staff Report and A - Chronology of Council Direction & Comm. Input Gathering from Oct 21, 2014 CC meeting) December 18, 2012, Council received a presentation of the Civic Center Master Plan Framework which laid out three conceptual scenarios for a master plan for the Council gave direction for the “Civic Life plan” option, which includes a new city hall, and a garage with 150 parking space, “with a process that would include community outreach, a solution to accommodate the demand for parking at the Civic Center, and consider financing options for realization of the master plan.” (Agenda) April-July, 2013 – the consultant interviewed 140 people at the Earth Day for a survey in addition to an online survey. There were small focus group meetings and also larger community workshops. o July 7, 2014 – Study session on conceptual design of City Hall, where three conceptual design options were presented and the staff made a list of 8 questions to ask the Council to get Council direction. All three proposals by the consultants include a new City Hall plus additional components, like a teen center, sheriff's station, a theater or a restaurant => Council’s direction was to reduce the scope to focus only on the City Hall, Library expansion and EOC plus parking. Council want to see a clear matrix of parking possibilities in each option and their associated cost; July 30, 2014 Civic Center Master Plan Community Workshop => Residents say most workshop participants don’t want a new city hall. August 19, 2014 City Council Meeting – update on the comprehensive outreach process for the project Community Feedback Summary October 21, 2014 City Council Meeting - Selection of Preferred Project from 5 options of different combinations and parking options with cost estimates. => The Council voted to adopt the most expensive option . 0145 January 20, 2015 City Council Meeting – to approve Additional budget $267,000 for EIR, on top of $517,000 already spent. Agenda. => After some deliberation, Council continued the item since there was debate whether to revoke the previous Council’s vote on Oct. 21, 2014 February 3, 2015 City Council Meeting – to approve Additional budget $267,000 for EIR, on top of $517,000 already spent Agenda (Item 15). => Approved to proceed. July 7, 2015 City Council Meeting (Agenda)- to approve Civic Center Master Plan for a cost of $70M. => Approved Aug 18, 2015 City Council Meeting (Agenda) – to approve $5M contract for design and finance $65M with a 30-year loan => postponed, since the Council directed the staff to bring back a financing plan. <some time later>: Some financial options were proposed and put on the Council agenda, but the Council did not agree with the financing options and the project was put on hold. As you can see in the history above, the process goes like this: 1. First consult the Council to get an initial direction and a plan of actions 2. Reach out to the community to get feedback 3. Return to the Council with multiple options and estimated costs and a list questions for the Council to provide direction. 4. Council gives direction to ask more information or more options on some portion 5. Return to Council with multiple options and estimated costs 6. Finally the Council approved a version. 7. The Council did not proceed with the approved version since the financial plan was not approved. As you can see, the previous two terms of Cupertino City Council have spent considerable time contemplating what to do with City Hall, including seismic assessment, extensive outreach and various options. Yet, eventually the Council did not proceed with the plan for a new city hall because they could not figure out an acceptable financing plan. Why are we spending tax payer dollars reinventing the wheels? The FY21-22 “City Hall and Community Hall Improvements - Programming and Feasibility” should not include yet another seismic assessment (how much is the cost?) and yet another plan to build a new City Hall. Here is the description of the project in the FY21-22 CIP narrative from 2021-06-15 CC agenda: Project Description Programming, Feasibility and Community Outreach to form the basis of a renovation strategy for the buildings. Project Justification City Hall: The existing building does not meet current or projected needs for office space; structural, mechanical and other code-related modifications are needed to meet code standards. Community Hall: Use of the building could be maximized with the addition of conference space and remodeled kitchen space. Status and/or Projected Schedule In this fiscal year, the project goal is to complete programming, feasibility and cost studies, conceptual design. FY23 will focus on Design and Construction. The staff appears to be taking the project into a direction totally against the Council’s original intent. After the purchase of the Torre Ave. building, the intent of the Council was not to rebuild City Hall since there is enough space. The staff should have consulted with the Council early on to seek direction on “a renovation strategy” for the “use of the building” or the “current or projected needs for office space” or “with the addition of conference space and remodeled kitchen space”. But the staff somehow made a decision without consulting with the Council to go with a new City Hall plus a 3-story parking garage. This is a total waste of taxpayer dollars and valuable time. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 1:58 AM To: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Cc: Katy Nomura <KatyN@cupertino.org>; Dianne Thompson (she/her) <DianneT@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: $75M City Hall project should not be lumped into the annual CIP list until the Council approves it Back in 2015, there was a seismic assessment already for the City Hall. How come we have contracted with a different consultant to do yet another seismic assessment in 2021? Is that necessary? I see that among the 2021-22 CIP list, we have this item: “City Hall and Community Hall Improvements - Programming & Feasibility” for $500,000.0146 Below is the project narrative (https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9468238&GUID=E76B2CB6-CC33-4F41-B90D- 8AE460B7F5D4): Project Description Programming, Feasibility and Community Outreach to form the basis of a renovation strategy for the buildings. Project Justification City Hall: The existing building does not meet current or projected needs for office space; structural, mechanical and other code-related modifications are needed to meet code standards. Community Hall: Use of the building could be maximized with the addition of conference space and remodeled kitchen space. Status and/or Projected Schedule In this fiscal year, the project goal is to complete programming, feasibility and cost studies, conceptual design. FY23 will focus on Design and Construction. “In the current fiscal year, the goal for Project #2 is to complete programming, feasibility and cost studies, and conceptual design.” (https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=10852526&GUID=61D41C3A-F701-4FEC-A2D8-51614AA80511) So, where is the “programming, feasibility and cost studies, and conceptual design” for Project #2? Before we jump ahead to “design and construction” in FY23, it seems we need to first discuss “programming, feasibility and cost studies, conceptual design” from the $500,000 contract? Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 1:27 AM To: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Cc: Katy Nomura <KatyN@cupertino.org>; Dianne Thompson (she/her) <DianneT@cupertino.org> Subject: $75M City Hall project should not be lumped into the annual CIP list until the Council approves it Jim, Perhaps, you and the new director of Public Works did not know about the history of the City Hall project. But your staff, who has been in Cupertino since 2015, should have the obligation to inform you of the history of the project before they insert a project with a $75M price tag into the annual CIP list. This is concerning since it is a project that the previous Council voted to suspend until a financial strategic is figured out. Here is the history as I remember, but you should get more accurate information from the staff. And you should inform all the entire Council of the history first so that they are fully informed. I am pretty sure of #1 and #2 since I went through the meeting documents and spoke at the Council meeting then. I am not sure of #3. 1. July 2015 : Council approved the Civic Center Plaza, including a version of the Library Expansion for a community room. The estimated cost is about $75M then. Buried in the 600-page document was a plan to get a general obligation bond of $60M (?). But this detail was not discussed at the Council meeting. 2. September 2016: It was on the Council agenda to approve a $5M design contract (similar to what’s proposed in the 2022-23 CIP list now). But the community raised the question on how we are going to come up with $70M for the project? The Council agreed that we should not spend $5M on the design of the project until we have a financing plan. 3. <some time later>: Some financial options were proposed and put on the Council agenda, but the Council did not agree with the financing options and the project was put on hold. Given the above history, it is inappropriate to try and erase the direction from the previous Council, assuming that the current Council is not aware of the history? Perhaps, there is some miscommunication somewhere? That’s why I have always asked…. What has the city done in the past about that project? What plans were drawn in the past. Thanks. Liang 0147 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0148 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 1:37 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: History of City Hall and its financing options This email includes more info about the City Hall financing options, which my other email on City Hall sent a few minutes ago missed. Please forward this additional info to Moss Adams too for interval audit on governance issues. Thanks. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 2:35 AM To: Jim Throop Cc: Katy Nomura; Dianne Thompson (she/her) Subject: History of City Hall and its financing options I found this page titled: "CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN ARCHIVE" (Fortunately, although it is archived, but it is still online and Google search was able to find it. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/city-construction-projects-capital-improvement-projects/civic- center-master-plan-archive I was not able to find it until I used the term "Civic Center", rather than "City Hall". This very informative page includes all previous meetings on this project, including the financing options they explored. July 7, 2015 - Council adopted the Civic Center Master Plan, which includes a new city hall with added space and underground garage. August 18, 2015 - Council did not approve the $5M item start architectural design. Council asked the staff to come back with financing options. November 17, 2015 - Council directed the staff to come back with a creative solution to keep the cost lower than $40M December 10, 2015 - The staff report concludes "Because we were not successful in our attempts to discover a project delivery process that could develop a $70 million estimated cost project for less than the maximum $40 million authorized by Council, we will not be bringing the project for further consideration unless so directed by City Council." April 3, 2018 - Agenda Item is titled "City Hall Renovation Project": "the proposed capital improvement plan for 2018-19 would include a budget for design costs of $2.1 million, followed by a budget in 2019-20 of approximately $18.9 million for construction (including staff relocations, temporary facilities, project management, contingencies, etc.)" It would be a good idea to either continue to update this page with new information about the City Hall and the City Hall Annex or create a new page with a summary of background till 20`8 and a link to this archived page to provide historic background. This way future Councilmembers and the public could easily find all the historic background related to this project. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0149 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2022 1:09 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 4 years of discussion without any public meeting or update Pamela, I did not get an acknowledgement on this issue. Could you let me know how I could communicate with Moss Adams on this or similar issue that they should consider in their internal audit report for governance this year? Thanks, Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 11:42 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: 4 years of discussion without any public meeting or update A community member commented on NextDoor regarding the Lawson Bike Project: https://nextdoor.com/p/wtN_Fs7xWB7g/c/838681763?utm_source=share Below was my response to request the date and time of the meetings over the 4 years as claimed, but I did not get a response. This issue is a potential governance issue, which must be addressed if a community member is able to utilize staff time to conduct meetings over 4 years on an item, which is beyond the scope of adopted city work program items. Because of this governance issue, the Council was surprised when the matter came to the Council. The Council referred the issue back to Bike and Ped Commission so that this item follows the established process for transparency and accountability. But this resulted in a very upset community member, who thinks the Council somehow blocked a project she thinks has been well underway for 4 years. Please consider this issue during the internal audit of the governance issue so that the staff respects the adopted council work program and communicates the appropriate process to community members to avoid misunderstanding or misplaced expectation. Thank you. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0150 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2022 2:42 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Staff mis-interpreted the approved scope of the “City Hall and Community Hall Improvements - Programming and Feasibility” This is related to the governance issue of internal audit regarding the city hall project. Please forward it to Moss Adams for their information. Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 7:49 PM To: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Cc: Katy Nomura <KatyN@cupertino.org>; Dianne Thompson (she/her) <DianneT@cupertino.org> Subject: Staff mis-interpreted the approved scope of the “City Hall and Community Hall Improvements - Programming and Feasibility” “with a new structural report that was approved by CC,” which report was approved by the Council? See my latest email where you’ll see that the Council never directed the staff to consider a new City Hall or to re-do seismic assessment. Please re-read the project description again. I’ll copy it from the last portion of my last email: ======================= Here is the description of the project “City Hall and Community Hall Improvements - Programming and Feasibility” in the FY21-22 CIP narrative from 2021-06-15 CC agenda: Project Description Programming, Feasibility and Community Outreach to form the basis of a renovation strategy for the buildings. Project Justification City Hall: The existing building does not meet current or projected needs for office space; structural, mechanical and other code-related modifications are needed to meet code standards. Community Hall: Use of the building could be maximized with the addition of conference space and remodeled kitchen space. Status and/or Projected Schedule In this fiscal year, the project goal is to complete programming, feasibility and cost studies, conceptual design. FY23 will focus on Design and Construction. The staff appears to be taking the project into a direction totally against the Council’s original intent. After the purchase of the Torre Ave. building, the intent of the Council was not to rebuild City Hall since there is enough space. The staff should have consulted with the Council early on to seek direction on “a renovation strategy” for the “use of the building” or the “current or projected needs for office space” or “with the addition of conference space and remodeled kitchen space”. But the staff somehow made a decision without consulting with the Council to go with a new City Hall plus a 3-story parking garage. This is a total waste of taxpayer dollars and valuable time. ==================== This misunderstanding could have been avoided if the staff had been willing to have a study session to get the Council input early or were willing to provide Council more frequent update than waiting until almost the end of the year. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 5:28 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Katy Nomura <KatyN@cupertino.org>; Dianne Thompson (she/her) <diannet@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: $75M City Hall project should not be lumped into the annual CIP list until the Council approves it 0151 Thank you, VM Chao. I was able to get to a history on it from staff and it is similar to your recount. However, as the new CM, and with a new structural report that was approved by CC, I need to bring it forward. I would derelict in my duty to not bring it forward for consideration. If CC decides to not move forward, that would be their decision, but I need to be sure I fulfill my duty of giving out the information. Thank you for passing this on to me. Jim Jim Throop City Manager City Manager's Office JimT@cupertino.org (408) 777-1402 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 1:27 AM To: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Cc: Katy Nomura <KatyN@cupertino.org>; Dianne Thompson (she/her) <diannet@cupertino.org> Subject: $75M City Hall project should not be lumped into the annual CIP list until the Council approves it Jim, Perhaps, you and the new director of Public Works did not know about the history of the City Hall project. But your staff, who has been in Cupertino since 2015, should have the obligation to inform you of the history of the project before they insert a project with a $75M price tag into the annual CIP list. This is concerning since it is a project that the previous Council voted to suspend until a financial strategic is figured out. Here is the history as I remember, but you should get more accurate information from the staff. And you should inform all the entire Council of the history first so that they are fully informed. I am pretty sure of #1 and #2 since I went through the meeting documents and spoke at the Council meeting then. I am not sure of #3. 1. July 2015 : Council approved the Civic Center Plaza, including a version of the Library Expansion for a community room. The estimated cost is about $75M then. Buried in the 600-page document was a plan to get a general obligation bond of $60M (?). But this detail was not discussed at the Council meeting. 2. September 2016: It was on the Council agenda to approve a $5M design contract (similar to what’s proposed in the 2022-23 CIP list now). But the community raised the question on how we are going to come up with $70M for the project? The Council agreed that we should not spend $5M on the design of the project until we have a financing plan. 3. <some time later>: Some financial options were proposed and put on the Council agenda, but the Council did not agree with the financing options and the project was put on hold. Given the above history, it is inappropriate to try and erase the direction from the previous Council, assuming that the current Council is not aware of the history? Perhaps, there is some miscommunication somewhere? That’s why I have always asked…. What has the city done in the past about that project? What plans were drawn in the past. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0152 From: Liang Chao on behalf of Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2022 6:39 PM EST To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Specifics on enforcement procedures Since neither of you were present in Nov. 2018 or Jan. 2019 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2022 3:37 PM To: Shirley Modric <SModric.cgj@scscourt.org> Cc: David Mariani <DMariani.cgj@scscourt.org>; CGJ@scscourt.org <CGJ@scscourt.org> Subject: Specifics on enforcement procedures Again in case you could not answer my questions, please direct me to someone who can answer these questions so I could understand your report. If you could not answer all of my questions, I would really appreciate it if some of the questions are answered. After I read the report "The House Divides", I realized that I still don't know what enforcement provision you were referring to in the interview. I guess I should have asked you then. I realized that the specifics matter since you might have just being using a different term to refer to something. I would especislly appreciate an answer on Q6 and Q7 to get some clarity on your main concerns. ----- Q6: The report states "the subject of councilmanic interference found in the rescinded version". (Page 13) Could you please point out the text in the 2018 Code of Ethics and Confuct you are referring to? Q7: The report states "Noticeably missing were enforcement provisions that enabled the public, councilmembers, and staff to report policy violations or other misconduct." Could you please point out the text in the 2018 Code of Ethica and Conduct you are referring to? Q8: Do you know that the City of Cupertino didn’t have the Code of Ethics before Nov. 20, 2018? Your statement "the year-long gap during which the City had no ethics policy is a concern" sounds like you somehow think the City of Cupertino has had the Code of Ethics all along. I assume you are aware of. But perhaps you do not. But I though I specifically mentioned it in my interview. The City of Cupertino never had a Code of Ethics until Nov. 20, 2018, as one of the last actions of the 2018 Council. Your report refers to "the old policy" as if it has been in existence for a long time, when it has not. Q9: Did you know that whether to put an item on the City web site and how is one of the implementation details that the Council normally does NOT get involved? The City Manager handles that. Of course, if there is any specific request from the public about what to put on the website, the Council might include it as a part of a motion for an item. Otherwise, we don’t specifically give direction on website design. I do occasionally provide feedback and suggestions to the staff when I see something is missing, hard to find or outdated. But my feedback is likely 80% ignored, since it’s the discretion of the City Manager on such matters. Liang 0153 Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2022 9:53 AM To: Shirley Modric <SModric.cgj@scscourt.org> Cc: David Mariani <DMariani.cgj@scscourt.org> Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew Dear Mr. Mariani and Ms. Modric, Thank you for your service on the Civil Grand Jury, which requires considerable time commitment, which most people are unable or unwilling to take on. I am reading your report "The House Divided" on Cupertino City Council and city staff. I wonder if you could answer some questions or you could direct me to someone who can answer these questions? Q1: Some of the claims made in the report are news to me, so I would like to know what documents were used in the investigation. I suppose all these documents are public records anyway. The report stated: "engaged in research that produced numerous documents supporting the findings and recommendations in this report". Q2: According to the report, it seems no city staff was interviewed, and no member of the public was interviewed. Is that correct? Perhaps, you could specify what "city officials" mean? The report states "The investigation process undertaken by the Civil Grand Jury included interviews with councilmembers, past and present City officials, and the Audit Committee of the City Council." Q3: Where do you get the data for this statement: "half of the Planning Division and 60 percent of senior management staff have left the City since January 2022"? As a Councilmember, I only get information through the City Manager. Thus, I am not privy to any information of interval city operations, such as the total number of staff members who have left Cupertino or the reasons in the Planning Department unless the city manager reveals such info to the Council. I only know antidoctally the departure of some admin-level staff, but I don’t have the full picture. As I have shared with you, the staff members who left, that I know of, have gotten a position with a bigger title or a position in a bigger city. The city has no vacancy to offer any promotion as a counteroffer, according to the city manager, when I inquired. I'm happy for the career growth of those who left for bigger opportunities. I'm also happy that their departure created vacancies so we can offer promotions to other city staff so they don't have to leave for career growth. I suppose I should get this data from the city manager. But the city manager has refused to provide data quoting staffing challenges per CMC. Q4: What documents show the number of staff members who retired or take higher-paying job versus those who do not? The report stated: "Some councilmembers indicated that the high turnover was more a function of individual retirements and people seeking better, higher-paying positions. Documents researched and reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury provided information that did not fully support these conclusions." Q5: Could you be more specific on which behavior is considered "inserted themselves"? Specifics, especially on accusations, help a lot on what's considered inference and what's just trying to help with outreach, which I think is what the city council could do. 0154 The report states "Interviews with current and former City managers confirmed that some City councilmembers inserted themselves in the process of recruiting and hiring for open positions within the City." For example, I did make contact with Tina Kapoor, our current Economic Development manager before she applied to the city. As the city has an opening for a full-time Economic Development Manager for the first time, I am curious what such a role would do for the city. I reached out to Economic Development Managers in other cities through LinkedIn. I spoke to 3 ED managers from 3 different cities through zoom. And I mentioned in passing at the end that we have an opening and if they know anyone who might be interested, please pass the word. Then, Tina Kapoor said she is interested and connected her to the city manager. Then, I have not involved with anything following that. I have not even talked to Tina Kapoor after she joined the city, except socially at some public events. When the city has top admin positions open, I do mention that at conferences I attend. What one person considers "interference", another person might consider "just trying to help", but there is a miscommunication on the intent of the comment. So, specifics about such exchange helps and akways important to get both sides of the story before making an accusation, especially from an anonymous source. Thank you for helping to provide documents used in the investigation. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Shirley Modric <SModric.cgj@scscourt.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 5:01 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: David Mariani <DMariani.cgj@scscourt.org> Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew 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 Ms. Liang, Please find attached and review the admonishment you signed. I cannot give you advice or individually authorize you to speak as the Civil Grand Jury acts as a body. Sincerely, Shirley From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 at 8:53 AM To: Shirley Modric <SModric.cgj@scscourt.org> Cc: David Mariani <DMariani.cgj@scscourt.org> Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender. Now that the grand jury report is out, could I tell people I was interviewed and tell them what I sent to you? 0155 Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Shirley Modric <SModric.cgj@scscourt.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 7:35 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: David Mariani <DMariani.cgj@scscourt.org> Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew 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. Vice-mayor Chao, There are no court documents. This is a Civil Grand Jury interview. This is not a public proceeding, it is confidential. For more information about the Civil Grand Jury please go to the link below. My colleague will touch base with you regarding a lunch time interview, so you don’t have to take time off of work. https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/grand_jury.shtml Shirley Modric From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 1:10 AM To: Shirley Modric <SModric.cgj@scscourt.org> Cc: David Mariani <DMariani.cgj@scscourt.org> Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender. Please send me all the court documents regarding the matter before the grand jury anc documents made available to the jurors and the list of people have been called to testify. And the names of the members of the jurors and judges and other personnel’s conducting this grand jury. I suppose such information is public information. If any information is not publicly accessible, please indicate which ones and the reasons. Thank you. Liang 0156 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 12:46 AM To: Shirley Modric Cc: David Mariani Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury Interiew I will be at work Thursday during the day between 2-5pm. I will have to make arrangement to take time off. What’s the subject of this civil grand jury? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Shirley Modric <SModric.cgj@scscourt.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 5:14 PM To: Liang Chao Cc: David Mariani Subject: FW: Civil Grand Jury Interiew 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 Vice-Mayor Chao, I am following up on the email below. The Civil Grand Jury would appreciate a response. We would like to interview you on Thursday, December 1st in the afternoon. Are you available between 2pm and 5pm for a one hour Teams meeting? Regards, Shirley Modric From: Shirley Modric <SModric.cgj@scscourt.org> Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 2:52 PM To: liangchao@cupertino.org <liangchao@cupertino.org> Cc: David Mariani <DMariani.cgj@scscourt.org> Subject: Civil Grand Jury Interiew 0157 Dear Vice-Mayor Chao, I am writing to you as a member of the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. My colleagues and I would like to interview you via Teams on Tuesday, November 29. The interview should last no more than an hour. Please let me know what times you are available. Please be advised that this communication is confidential. Attached you will find an NDA which will need to be signed and returned before the interview. Regards, Shirley Modric (pronouns she/her) 2022 Civil Grand Jury | Foreperson pro tempore Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara 191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Office – 408-882-2721 | Cell – 408-736-4364 smodric.cgj@scscourt.org | www.scscourt.org 0158 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2023 10:06 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Tree removal permits Pam, What's the common duration it takes to approve a tree approval permit? Is there any special circumstances regarding this case? Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: William Fisher <andmoreagain48@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 2:21 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Tree removal permits 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. Friends, I serve on the Board of Westridge HOA, a 135 townhome complex near Steven’s Creek and Foothill. On Nov.1 we submitted a request to remove an Oak Tree that while in good health, was poorly planted and is now raising the foundation of one of our units. We’d love to save the tree, but there is no way. Now over two months later, we still have no permission to move forward. In conversation with Catherine Tarone, a Permit Tech w/ the Dept. of Community Development, we’re told that it will be at least another month. I want to note that Ms Tarone was professional and courteous on the phone, but this seems ridiculous. If the City can’t approve these kinds of requests w/in two months, the request should just be automatically approved. I know that might result in some actions you wouldn’t like, but that in turn might prompt the City to find a way to get permits approved in a more timely fashion. I have a larger concern that people lose faith in government and think a lot of it begins with local government and this kind of frustration with bureaucracy on contributes to it. Thank you for your attention. Bill Fisher VP Westridge HOA 22631 Queens Oak Ct. Cupertino, CA 0159 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 2:45 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Tree removal permits Hi Pamela, Is there any way this permit slowness can be helped? Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2023 11:44 AM To: William Fisher <andmoreagain48@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Tree removal permits Hi Bill, I am forwarding your email to the Manager and Acting Head of CDD to see if they can determine the reason for the lengthy process and if it can be mitigated. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: William Fisher <andmoreagain48@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2023 2:21 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Tree removal permits 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. Friends, I serve on the Board of Westridge HOA, a 135 townhome complex near Steven’s Creek and Foothill. On Nov.1 we submitted a request to remove an Oak Tree that while in good health, was poorly planted and is now raising the foundation of one of our units. We’d love to save the tree, but there is no way. Now over two months later, we still have no permission to move forward. In conversation with Catherine Tarone, a Permit Tech w/ the Dept. of Community Development, we’re told that it will be at least another month. I want to note that Ms Tarone was professional and courteous on the phone, but this seems ridiculous. If the City can’t approve these kinds of requests w/in two months, the request should just be automatically approved. I know that might result in some actions you wouldn’t like, but that in turn might prompt the City to find a way to get permits approved in a more timely fashion. I have a larger concern that people lose faith in government and think a lot of it begins with local government and this kind of 0160 frustration with bureaucracy on contributes to it. Thank you for your attention. Bill Fisher VP Westridge HOA 22631 Queens Oak Ct. Cupertino, CA 0161 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 12:01 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Hours spent on the “City Council Procedures Manual” Chris and Pamela, I am surprised at the agenda item "City Council Procedures Manual", since it was not on this year's work program and has not been brought up at any point in any public meeting. I would like to know the timeline that such item was proposed and by whom. And how many hours of staff time has been put into this item, without any direction from the full Council. If I am mistaken and such item was previously proposed and approved by the Council, please let me know the meeting when this was brought up. The City Manager and the City Attorney report to the Council, not the other way around. Perhaps, it's a good idea to clarify the "council procedures," but such a direction should not come unilaterally from the staff without consulting with the full Council first. We have a Council-Manager workshop coming up, which is the appropriate place to talk about such procedures FIRST, before it's put on the Council agenda for adoption. Thank you for your consideration. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0162 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2023 10:54 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Lawrence Mitty Homeless Camp Hi Pamela, Will you please assign someone to work on this growing problem, I had a neighbor complain to me twice now. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0163 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 11:39 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org> Subject: Staff supporting outside organizations Since the staff is concerned with the staffing challenges supporting commissions and committees supporting the Council's work, I would like to know the staff resources used to support other organizations too. One example which comes to mind is the Chamber Legislative Action committee, which the city staff attends and presents regularly. What other organizations the city staff provide support in other departments? The Economic Development committee is supported by the Economic Development manager, which is now a full-time position, changed from the 30-hour part time position. If this position does not have the capacity to support the ED committee now, I would like to get some visibility in the work of the ED manager to understand the workload. Please also clarify how the Council could get insights from different industry sectors in order to strengthen and diversify Cupertino's economy with our Economic Development Strategic Plan? Given that we want to finish the Council meetings by 11pm. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0164 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2023 3:24 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: Time for a Vacancy Tax FW: Housing withheld Hi, I’d like us to put a vacancy tax on the ballot November 2024. I am copying on Councilmember Chao to see if she supports a vacancy tax to get it on the agenda ASAP, due to the time constraint. I think it would need to come to Council in two weeks to get it scheduled to make it. The subject would be to consider a vacancy tax modeled after the City of Oakland’s, for the November 2024 ballot which would also be considered part of the Housing Element strategies and policies for increasing housing availability. The strategy would be to incentivize property owners to rent or lease their available space and the policy would be to impose a tax on property owners who leave their properties empty. Oakland also imposes the tax on commercial properties which I think is needed from a property type discrimination standpoint (Berkeley’s BSEP on both residential and commercial comes to mind)? Regardless, I like that they do, and if this comes to Council we could deliberate on it. Hoping for support… Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 12:04 PM To: Gill Doyle <outerdog@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Housing withheld Hi Gill, Thank you for bringing the vacancy issue up. I am aware of it and what I have seen other cities do is impose a vacancy tax. Measure M just passed in San Francisco: https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/san-francisco-voters-vacancy-tax- 17584082.php#:~:text=Starting%20on%20Jan.,as%20%2420%2C000%20per%20empty%20unit. Oakland has had one in place for a couple of years which is more comprehensive: https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/vacantpropertytax Are either of these ideas compelling to you? Please ask your family as well, what they think. I was already planning to suggest this for our Housing Element policy meeting coming up, but it would be great to know if it has some public support prior to that. We would need to get a move on to get it onto the ballot in the fall of 2024. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Gill Doyle <outerdog@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 12:19 PM To: Hung Wei <HWei@cupertino.org>, Sheila Mohan <SMohan@cupertino.org>, J.R Fruen <JRFruen@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Housing withheld 0165 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 live across the street from Regnart Elementary. That school was closed recently because we now have too few kids in our community. At the same time, houses sit empty. Today I am helping our daughter and her family (2 adults in their 30s, a 2-year-old, and a baby due in February) move into a rental home in Sunnyvale. My daughter and her husband would love to have moved into Cupertino, but there are very few homes on the market these days. Meanwhile, two homes sit empty next door to us. Right next door to me is a home that has sat empty for 12 years now. Our neighbor lives in Saratoga and lets his house sit empty. He has never rented it out since he moved out 12 years ago. Across the street another house sits empty. It has been empty for 2 years now. Its owner, who is in a nursing home in Saratoga, is not thinking about renting it out. Another neighbor has noticed that rats have been living in an old boat that sits next to the house. When housing is so desperately needed, it is unconscionable to let houses sit off-market like this. If the owners won't make their houses available to folks who need housing, then government should force the owners to either sell or rent. - Gill Doyle (7952 Folkestone Drive in Cupertino) 0166 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 4:20 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: 1:1 Questions and Comments Hi Pamela, I am going to be out this afternoon and will not be at the 1:1, I have written my questions so far, below. Please note that Palo Alto strives to provide their Council the packet 11 days in advance. 1. I would like copies of all correspondence Staff and Council have received regarding the Economic Development Committee assignments in particular regarding the Chamber and Apple emails mentioned Friday. I would also like to see any emails from Jean Bedord regarding the EDC, and Council Policy. 2. Items 10-12: Staff Reports should indicate whether Audit looked at it and what they had to say. The Accounts Payable go into the monthly reports which go to Audit. They do not get broken out. That way at least two Council Members who serve on Audit will be l ooking at the registers before going to Council. This was agreed upon already. Items 13 and 15: Again, the Accounts Payable reports go with these items so they get to Audit together and first. 3. As to providing information to individual Councilmembers and using ‘manager’s discretion’ to decide if other Councilmembers are allowed to see it, take the following example, where I met with Matt and Chad regarding Development Impact Fees and was the only Councilmember provided this information along with being the only Councilmember who was on Audit when the Westport $9.8 Million Park Fee was provided in the Staff Report, and the Audit Committee was shown that $21M sits in that Fund, not the approximately $9M shown to Council in December, thus, I had information including large discrepancies, which the other Councilmembers did not have, and I voted No on the item, that item should probably have been continued or brought back for reconsideration: Staff response to me, alone: The fund balances in the Development Impact Fee report differ from the fund balances in the budget and Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) due to how investment income and Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) expenses are accounted for. It has been the City’s practice to exclude mark-to-market adjustments and CAP expenses from the Development Impact Fee reports. Mark-to-market adjustments account for the fair value of investments based on the market price at the end of each fiscal year. 1. The budget shows Traffic Impact and Transportation Fund accounts. The Traffic Impact account appears to align with the Traffic Impact Fees, but CC Moore was unsure what the Transportation Fund was associated with (somewhere around $12M). It does not appear to align with anything in the impact fee report, so we will need to have an answer for this. The Transportation Fund is not reported on the Development Impact Fee report as revenues are not from development impact fees. The Transportation Fund accounts for the City's gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and grant revenues and expenditures related to the maintenance and construction of City streets. 2. What is the AB 1600 Storm Drain fee associated with? Where do these monies come from, and what are they used for? Accounts for AB1600 revenue from storm drain fees. Revenues were collected from developers as a result of connections to the storm drainage system or impacts to the storm drain system from development. Monies are used for storm drain improvement and maintenance. 3. She sees a number for the BMR Fees at $5,933,166, but the mitigation fee act report shows an unrestricted balance as of 6/30/22 of $5,462,532. What is the discrepancy? Matt and I believe this is probably just because some funds have been encumbered, but not spent, but we will want to verify that. The June 2022 Treasurer’s Report was printed on July 20, 2022. At that time, the year-end close process was not complete, and the fund balance was not finalized. The final year-end fund balance will be reported in the FY 2021-22 ACFR. Also, the Development Impact Fee report differs from the budget and ACFR as described above. 4. Again, the Park Fee total in the budget is somewhere around $22M, but the amounts in the impact fee report do not add up to that total. Why? The June 2022 Treasurer’s Report was printed on July 20, 2022. At that time, the year-end close process was not complete, and the fund balance was not finalized. The final year-end fund balance will be reported in the FY 2021-22 ACFR. Also, the Development Impact Fee report differs from the budget and ACFR as described above. 5. Where are the impact fees being held (it appears to be 100 200-223) and where are these shown in the budget? The majority of developer deposits are being held in 100 220-223. 100 220-223 is a liability account and is therefore not budgeted. The N. Stelling/I-280 Bridge Pedestrian Lighting & Upgrades project is budgeted in 420-90-971 900-905. The De Anza/McClellan/Pacifica Signal Modification project is budgeted in 420-99-036 900-905 (encumbered in Kimley-Horn PO 2021-390). Other transportation projects in the Development Impact Fee report are not budgeted and are recorded in 100 220-223. 6. In the Mitigation Fee Act report, we identify a series of transportation related projects. Where are the funds from these projects held? Assuming they are aggregated in one account, can that account be broken down to show what is in it? See 5. 7. A definition of each storm drain fund. 210 Storm Drain Improvement 0167 Accounts for the construction and maintenance of storm drain facilities, including drainage and sanitary sewer facilities. Projects are funded by the Capital Reserve. 215 Storm Drain AB1600 Accounts for AB1600 revenue from storm drain development impact fees. Revenues were collected from developers as a result of connections to the storm drainage sewer system. 230 Environmental Management/Clean Creek/Storm Drain Accounts for activities related to operating the Non-Point Source Pollution Program. Revenues are from parcel taxes. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0168 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 9:38 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Bill Mitchell <BillM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 1:1 Questions and Comments Hi Pamela, Because you mentioned the Chamber and Apple complaints, I hope that subject line flags them. I am also looking for the Jean Bedord one/s. Thanks! Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, January 16, 2023 at 6:35 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>, Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>, Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>, Bill Mitchell <BillM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: 1:1 Questions and Comments Councilmember Moore, please see my responses below in red. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 1:21 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: 1:1 Questions and Comments Hi Pamela, I am going to be out this afternoon and will not be at the 1:1, I have written my questions so far, below. Please note that Palo Alto strives to provide their Council the packet 11 days in advance. 1. I would like copies of all correspondence Staff and Council have received regarding the Economic Development Committee assignments in particular regarding the Chamber and Apple emails mentioned Friday. I would also like to see any emails from Jean Bedord regarding the EDC, and Council Policy. Bill – can IT get email correspondences with the following subject line? Economic Development committee assignment 2. Items 10-12: Staff Reports should indicate whether Audit looked at it and what they had to say. The Accounts Payable go into the monthly reports which go to Audit. They do not get broken out. That way at least two Council Members who serve on Audit will be l ooking at the registers before going to Council. This was agreed upon already. Items 13 and 15: Again, the Accounts Payable reports go with these items so they get to Audit together and first. Item 2 and 3 are well noted. Kristina and Chad’s groups are cc’d on this email.0169 3. As to providing information to individual Councilmembers and using ‘manager’s discretion’ to decide if other Councilmembers are allowed to see it, take the following example, where I met with Matt and Chad regarding Development Impact Fees and was the only Councilmember provided this information along with being the only Councilmember who was on Audit when the Westport $9.8 Million Park Fee was provided in the Staff Report, and the Audit Committee was shown that $21M sits in that Fund, not the approximately $9M shown to Council in December, thus, I had information including large discrepancies, which the other Councilmembers did not have, and I voted No on the item, that item should probably have been continued or brought back for reconsideration: Staff response to me, alone: The fund balances in the Development Impact Fee report differ from the fund balances in the budget and Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) due to how investment income and Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) expenses are accounted for. It has been the City’s practice to exclude mark-to-market adjustments and CAP expenses from the Development Impact Fee reports. Mark-to-market adjustments account for the fair value of investments based on the market price at the end of each fiscal year. 1. The budget shows Traffic Impact and Transportation Fund accounts. The Traffic Impact account appears to align with the Traffic Impact Fees, but CC Moore was unsure what the Transportation Fund was associated with (somewhere around $12M). It does not appear to align with anything in the impact fee report, so we will need to have an answer for this. The Transportation Fund is not reported on the Development Impact Fee report as revenues are not from development impact fees. The Transportation Fund accounts for the City's gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and grant revenues and expenditures related to the maintenance and construction of City streets. 2. What is the AB 1600 Storm Drain fee associated with? Where do these monies come from, and what are they used for? Accounts for AB1600 revenue from storm drain fees. Revenues were collected from developers as a result of connections to the storm drainage system or impacts to the storm drain system from development. Monies are used for storm drain improvement and maintenance. 3. She sees a number for the BMR Fees at $5,933,166, but the mitigation fee act report shows an unrestricted balance as of 6/30/22 of $5,462,532. What is the discrepancy? Matt and I believe this is probably just because some funds have been encumbered, but not spent, but we will want to verify that. The June 2022 Treasurer’s Report was printed on July 20, 2022. At that time, the year-end close process was not complete, and the fund balance was not finalized. The final year-end fund balance will be reported in the FY 2021-22 ACFR. Also, the Development Impact Fee report differs from the budget and ACFR as described above. 4. Again, the Park Fee total in the budget is somewhere around $22M, but the amounts in the impact fee report do not add up to that total. Why? The June 2022 Treasurer’s Report was printed on July 20, 2022. At that time, the year-end close process was not complete, and the fund balance was not finalized. The final year-end fund balance will be reported in the FY 2021-22 ACFR. Also, the Development Impact Fee report differs from the budget and ACFR as described above. 5. Where are the impact fees being held (it appears to be 100 200-223) and where are these shown in the budget? The majority of developer deposits are being held in 100 220-223. 100 220-223 is a liability account and is therefore not budgeted. The N. Stelling/I-280 Bridge Pedestrian Lighting & Upgrades project is budgeted in 420-90-971 900-905. The De Anza/McClellan/Pacifica Signal Modification project is budgeted in 420-99-036 900-905 (encumbered in Kimley-Horn PO 2021-390). Other transportation projects in the Development Impact Fee report are not budgeted and are recorded in 100 220-223. 6. In the Mitigation Fee Act report, we identify a series of transportation related projects. Where are the funds from these projects held? Assuming they are aggregated in one account, can that account be broken down to show what is in it? See 5. 7. A definition of each storm drain fund. 210 Storm Drain Improvement Accounts for the construction and maintenance of storm drain facilities, including drainage and sanitary sewer facilities. Projects are funded by the Capital Reserve. 215 Storm Drain AB1600 Accounts for AB1600 revenue from storm drain development impact fees. Revenues were collected from developers as a result of connections to the storm drainage sewer system. 230 Environmental Management/Clean Creek/Storm Drain Accounts for activities related to operating the Non-Point Source Pollution Program. Revenues are from parcel taxes. 0170 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0171 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 3:14 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Bill Mitchell <BillM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 1:1 Questions and Comments The ones where there is a complaint about the process/who selected. I am hoping there aren’t many. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 11:09 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>, Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>, Bill Mitchell <BillM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: 1:1 Questions and Comments Councilmember Moore, point of clarification, are you looking for any correspondence from Apple (employees only) between City staff regarding the EDC appointment? Any correspondence from Chamber of Commerce (anyone that is associated with Chamber) between City staff regarding the EDC appointment? I assume it would be the same search between Jean Bedord and City staff regarding the EDC appointment? Please clarify. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 6:39 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Bill Mitchell <BillM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 1:1 Questions and Comments Hi Pamela, Because you mentioned the Chamber and Apple complaints, I hope that subject line flags them. I am also looking for the Jean Bedord one/s. Thanks! Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> 0172 Date: Monday, January 16, 2023 at 6:35 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>, Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>, Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>, Bill Mitchell <BillM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: 1:1 Questions and Comments Councilmember Moore, please see my responses below in red. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 1:21 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: 1:1 Questions and Comments Hi Pamela, I am going to be out this afternoon and will not be at the 1:1, I have written my questions so far, below. Please note that Palo Alto strives to provide their Council the packet 11 days in advance. 1. I would like copies of all correspondence Staff and Council have received regarding the Economic Development Committee assignments in particular regarding the Chamber and Apple emails mentioned Friday. I would also like to see any emails from Jean Bedord regarding the EDC, and Council Policy. Bill – can IT get email correspondences with the following subject line? Economic Development committee assignment 2. Items 10-12: Staff Reports should indicate whether Audit looked at it and what they had to say. The Accounts Payable go into the monthly reports which go to Audit. They do not get broken out. That way at least two Council Members who serve on Audit will be l ooking at the registers before going to Council. This was agreed upon already. Items 13 and 15: Again, the Accounts Payable reports go with these items so they get to Audit together and first. Item 2 and 3 are well noted. Kristina and Chad’s groups are cc’d on this email. 3. As to providing information to individual Councilmembers and using ‘manager’s discretion’ to decide if other Councilmembers are allowed to see it, take the following example, where I met with Matt and Chad regarding Development Impact Fees and was the only Councilmember provided this information along with being the only Councilmember who was on Audit when the Westport $9.8 Million Park Fee was provided in the Staff Report, and the Audit Committee was shown that $21M sits in that Fund, not the approximately $9M shown to Council in December, thus, I had information including large discrepancies, which the other Councilmembers did not have, and I voted No on the item, that item should probably have been continued or brought back for reconsideration: Staff response to me, alone: The fund balances in the Development Impact Fee report differ from the fund balances in the budget and Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) due to how investment income and Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) expenses are accounted for. It has been the City’s practice to exclude mark-to-market adjustments and CAP expenses from the Development Impact Fee reports. Mark-to-market adjustments account for the fair value of investments based on the market price at the end of each fiscal year. 1. The budget shows Traffic Impact and Transportation Fund accounts. The Traffic Impact account appears to align with the Traffic Impact Fees, but CC Moore was unsure what the Transportation Fund was associated with (somewhere around $12M). It does not appear to align with anything in the impact fee report, so we will need to have an answer for this. The Transportation Fund is not reported on the Development Impact Fee report as revenues are not from development impact fees. The Transportation Fund accounts for the City's gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and grant revenues and expenditures related to the maintenance and construction of City streets. 2. What is the AB 1600 Storm Drain fee associated with? Where do these monies come from, and what are they used for? Accounts for AB1600 revenue from storm drain fees. Revenues were collected from developers as a result of connections to 0173 the storm drainage system or impacts to the storm drain system from development. Monies are used for storm drain improvement and maintenance. 3. She sees a number for the BMR Fees at $5,933,166, but the mitigation fee act report shows an unrestricted balance as of 6/30/22 of $5,462,532. What is the discrepancy? Matt and I believe this is probably just because some funds have been encumbered, but not spent, but we will want to verify that. The June 2022 Treasurer’s Report was printed on July 20, 2022. At that time, the year-end close process was not complete, and the fund balance was not finalized. The final year-end fund balance will be reported in the FY 2021-22 ACFR. Also, the Development Impact Fee report differs from the budget and ACFR as described above. 4. Again, the Park Fee total in the budget is somewhere around $22M, but the amounts in the impact fee report do not add up to that total. Why? The June 2022 Treasurer’s Report was printed on July 20, 2022. At that time, the year-end close process was not complete, and the fund balance was not finalized. The final year-end fund balance will be reported in the FY 2021-22 ACFR. Also, the Development Impact Fee report differs from the budget and ACFR as described above. 5. Where are the impact fees being held (it appears to be 100 200-223) and where are these shown in the budget? The majority of developer deposits are being held in 100 220-223. 100 220-223 is a liability account and is therefore not budgeted. The N. Stelling/I-280 Bridge Pedestrian Lighting & Upgrades project is budgeted in 420-90-971 900-905. The De Anza/McClellan/Pacifica Signal Modification project is budgeted in 420-99-036 900-905 (encumbered in Kimley-Horn PO 2021-390). Other transportation projects in the Development Impact Fee report are not budgeted and are recorded in 100 220-223. 6. In the Mitigation Fee Act report, we identify a series of transportation related projects. Where are the funds from these projects held? Assuming they are aggregated in one account, can that account be broken down to show what is in it? See 5. 7. A definition of each storm drain fund. 210 Storm Drain Improvement Accounts for the construction and maintenance of storm drain facilities, including drainage and sanitary sewer facilities. Projects are funded by the Capital Reserve. 215 Storm Drain AB1600 Accounts for AB1600 revenue from storm drain development impact fees. Revenues were collected from developers as a result of connections to the storm drainage sewer system. 230 Environmental Management/Clean Creek/Storm Drain Accounts for activities related to operating the Non-Point Source Pollution Program. Revenues are from parcel taxes. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0174 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:04 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: History of City Hall and its financing options Pamela, This is the archive page I mentioned in your meeting, which contains excellent information about the decisions by the pre- 2018 City Council on their consideration of a new city hall and the financing options. This very informative page includes all previous meetings on this project, including the financing options they explored. July 7, 2015 - Council adopted the Civic Center Master Plan, which includes a new city hall with added space and underground garage. August 18, 2015 - Council did not approve the $5M item start architectural design. Council asked the staff to come back with financing options. November 17, 2015 - Council directed the staff to come back with a creative solution to keep the cost lower than $40M December 10, 2015 - The staff report concludes "Because we were not successful in our attempts to discover a project delivery process that could develop a $70 million estimated cost project for less than the maximum $40 million authorized by Council, we will not be bringing the project for further consideration unless so directed by City Council." April 3, 2018 - Agenda Item is titled "City Hall Renovation Project": "the proposed capital improvement plan for 2018-19 would include a budget for design costs of $2.1 million, followed by a budget in 2019-20 of approximately $18.9 million for construction (including staff relocations, temporary facilities, project management, contingencies, etc.)" It's good to include such history the next time the Council considers the construction of a new city hall. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 10:16 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: History of City Hall and its financing options Good morning Councilmember Chao, Staff has confirmed the info with Susan, and you should be able to access the CCMP archive info from the URL: http://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/capital-improvement-program-projects/civic-center-master-plan-archive This is the old URL of the CCMP archive page: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/city-construction-projects-capital-improvement-projects/civic-center- master-plan-archive Now we have the archive page on the following URL: http://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/capital-improvement-program-projects/civic-center-master-plan-archive Regards, Lauren Sapudar Deputy City Clerk City Manager's Office LaurenS@cupertino.org (408) 777-1312 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2022 9:30 AM To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>0175 Subject: Re: History of City Hall and its financing options If the information contained in this page mentioned below is moved to another web page, I would be happy to know where to find the information. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2022 9:28 AM To: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: History of City Hall and its financing options I would like a copy of this webpage titled "CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN ARCHIVE" (Fortunately, although it is archived, but it is still online and Google search was able to find it. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/city-construction-projects-capital-improvement-projects/civic- center-master-plan-archive It was still active on May 18, 2022. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 10:39 PM To: David Mariani <DMariani.cgj@scscourt.org> Subject: Fwd: History of City Hall and its financing options Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 10:37 PM To: Pamela Wu Subject: Fwd: History of City Hall and its financing options This email includes more info about the City Hall financing options, which my other email on City Hall sent a few minutes ago missed. 0176 Please forward this additional info to Moss Adams too for interval audit on governance issues. Thanks. Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 2:35 AM To: Jim Throop Cc: Katy Nomura; Dianne Thompson (she/her) Subject: History of City Hall and its financing options I found this page titled: "CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN ARCHIVE" (Fortunately, although it is archived, but it is still online and Google search was able to find it. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/city-construction-projects-capital-improvement-projects/civic- center-master-plan-archive I was not able to find it until I used the term "Civic Center", rather than "City Hall". This very informative page includes all previous meetings on this project, including the financing options they explored. July 7, 2015 - Council adopted the Civic Center Master Plan, which includes a new city hall with added space and underground garage. August 18, 2015 - Council did not approve the $5M item start architectural design. Council asked the staff to come back with financing options. November 17, 2015 - Council directed the staff to come back with a creative solution to keep the cost lower than $40M December 10, 2015 - The staff report concludes "Because we were not successful in our attempts to discover a project delivery process that could develop a $70 million estimated cost project for less than the maximum $40 million authorized by Council, we will not be bringing the project for further consideration unless so directed by City Council." April 3, 2018 - Agenda Item is titled "City Hall Renovation Project": "the proposed capital improvement plan for 2018-19 would include a budget for design costs of $2.1 million, followed by a budget in 2019-20 of approximately $18.9 million for construction (including staff relocations, temporary facilities, project management, contingencies, etc.)" It would be a good idea to either continue to update this page with new information about the City Hall and the City Hall Annex or create a new page with a summary of background till 20`8 and a link to this archived page to provide historic background. This way future Councilmembers and the public could easily find all the historic background related to this project. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0177 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:35 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Westport park dedication fee Attachment(s): "Development Impact Fee Report Questions[45].docx" All, The dollar amount does not match the 1/24/2022 Audit committee reported amount for Westport OR the Development Impact Fee Report for December 17, 2022. I was aware of the discrepancies at that meeting but did not bring it up because of the Grand Jury Report. Additionally, information was provided only to me which is attached. Council did not have equal information to make a decision and I was the lone no vote. I do not think there is good ownership of this agenda item and I would like it cleaned up before it comes to Council again. I am willing to discuss this, but not in a multi-party email thread. Please coordinate a time with whomever is responsible for the report and we can talk about it. Thank you. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 10:34 AM To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>, Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org>, Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Westport park dedication fee Hi Luke AS can take the second part of the question. Should have a response back shortly. Kristina Alfaro Director of Administrative Services Administrative Services KristinaA@cupertino.org (408) 777-3220/7608 From: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 5:51 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Westport park dedication fee Councilmember Moore, Regarding the park fees for Westport, the City received the fees in the mount of $8.97 million. We’ll look into your final question regarding how the fee was registered in the budget. Luke Luke Connolly Acting Director of Community Development Community Development LukeC@cupertino.org (408)777-1275 From: Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> 0178 Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 5:37 PM To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Westport park dedication fee We received the fees. $8,970,000 Chad Mosley Assistant Director/City Engineer Public Works ChadM@cupertino.org (408) 777-7604 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 5:21 PM To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org > Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Westport park dedication fee Luke / Kristina, can you confirm the park dedication fee amount for Westport project? Was it $9.0M or $9.8M. Has this been paid? Who was the fee paid to, I presume the City of Cupertino? How is this fee registered into the City’s adopted budget? Please provide the requested information to Councilmember Moore by next Monday. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0179 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 6:01 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Sales tax audit update and other city expenses Pamela, Since the city hall item will be on the 2/21 agenda and likely a new city hall costing $70-100 million might be considered, I hope that we get the report on the sales tax audit and expected impact on the city revenue before that. And for any proposed bill on changing the sales relax allocation, we need information on the impact to Cupertino finances. And a list of anticipated or delayed maintenance projects, such as $25M(?) or more for the I-280/Wolfe interchange, $_? Million dollars for the McClellan Road Bridge and Stevens Creek Blvd Bridge (both of which are over 120 years old. The $5M state funding covers a portion of the cost. But the city needs to cover the rest, I believe.) The city did a facility assessment and identified a list of buildings that require seismic and other upgrades. What's the expected cost for those maintenance? Plus, the historic Stocklmeier house, which will likely require a lot of money even a simple restoration. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0180 From: Liang Chao on behalf of Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 12:00 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Sales tax audit update and other city expenses From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 3:49 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Sales tax audit update and other city expenses Councilmember Chao, I should clarify that the future agenda item proposed by Councilmember Fruen did not specifically ask staff to change course from prior council’s direction to proceed with a new City Hall project. When Council directs staff to stop working on the City Hall renovation project and to move forward with a new city hall project, relevant background information as you mentioned in your prior email can be included in the staff report for council and the members of public. Regarding information pertaining to any pending sales tax legislation, staff has not come across any new bills that would negatively impact the city at this time. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Pamela Wu Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 11:50 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Sales tax audit update and other city expenses Councilmember Chao, when the City Hall item is presented to you for consideration, relevant background information as you mentioned in your prior email will be included in the staff report for council and the members of public. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 3:01 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Sales tax audit update and other city expenses Pamela, Since the city hall item will be on the 2/21 agenda and likely a new city hall costing $70-100 million might be considered, I hope that we get the report on the sales tax audit and expected impact on the city revenue before that. And for any proposed bill on changing the sales relax allocation, we need information on the impact to Cupertino finances.0181 And a list of anticipated or delayed maintenance projects, such as $25M(?) or more for the I-280/Wolfe interchange, $_? Million dollars for the McClellan Road Bridge and Stevens Creek Blvd Bridge (both of which are over 120 years old. The $5M state funding covers a portion of the cost. But the city needs to cover the rest, I believe.) The city did a facility assessment and identified a list of buildings that require seismic and other upgrades. What's the expected cost for those maintenance? Plus, the historic Stocklmeier house, which will likely require a lot of money even a simple restoration. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0182 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 2:37 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Focus Group for Revitalize Memorial Park This is the first time I heard about this focus groups for the Memorial Park. It makes sense to have focus groups if they cover all stakeholders and do not leave some stakeholders out. When and how was the outreach done to select the focus group? Did you ask the Parks and Rec commissioners or city council members to suggest people or groups to interview? Nori livers in the Commons, which is the complex right next to Memorial Park. I'm curious whether any of the other complexes were included in the focus groups? There were popup tents for Memorial Park in several events which I attended. I don't remember seeing any announcement about the focus group. I must have missed something. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Nori N <noriko.y@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 12:17 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Sashi Begur <SBegur@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Focus Group for Revitalize Memorial Park 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 Councilmember Chao, Commissioner Bergur, and City Manager Wu Who is in charge of planning the revitalize Memorial Park task and organizing the Focus Group meeting? There were 29 participants from resident neighborhoods. I live next to the Memorial Park and Quinlan center. I walk in the park everyday. I wished I could have the opportunity to join the Focus Group to discuss in September if I have known. Was it listed in the City website or you chose the specific residents? Regards, Nori Begin forwarded message: From: Nori N <noriko.y@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Focus Group for Revitalize Memorial Park Date: January 26, 2023 at 4:01:25 PM PST To: Ayano Hattori <AyanoH@cupertino.org>, Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org>, Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Hi Ms. Hattori, Mr. Mosley, and Director Sander, While I was reading “Revitalize Memorial Park Site Assessment and Outreach Summary”, I found out that there was Focus Group who could have opportunity to speak in a small group setting with the project team. The Focus Group interviews occurred in September 2022. I have been interested in revitalizing the Memorial Park and emailing you as well as City officials for sometime. I0183 definitely wanted to participate in the group if I have known. How and who did you choose those Focus Group people from residents neighborhood? Was the application on the website? Regards, Nori 0184 Signature Image a:20455 Silverado Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 t: 4082527054x11 From: Kitty Moore on behalf of Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 1:09 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Staff Actions Fw: Other agreements Pardon, contributed to Council Candidate campaigns, not staff. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 10:07 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Staff Actions Fw: Other agreements Hi Pamela, Council never requested this on the work plan. Please provide the contract which Chamber is referring to, which Kitson and Kapoor have been collaborating on. What is particularly disturbing is that the Chamber not only took thousands of dollars without any contract and a back door deal with staff, endorsed and contributed thousands of dollars from the Vallco developer to staff, lobbies for various legislation, and is now cutting an official back door deal apparently at a dollar amount that will allow it to be signed by staff and not even go to council? Is that about right? Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Rick Kitson <rick@cupertino-chamber.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 3:07 PM To: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org> Subject: Other agreements 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. Comparing the draft doc with others. Thought I’d share. Rick Kitson Executive Director, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce website mail 0185 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:57 AM EST To: Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> CC: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Focus Group for Revitalize Memorial Park In the past, whenever focus groups or "stakeholder groups" where created for any project and the process is not completely inclusive and transparency. We have often faced similar questions from community members: why are "they" included as "stakeholders" and "we" are left out? As a result, the residents had a negative feeling towards the terms "stakeholder groups", when the stakeholder groups were determined without a transparent and inclusive process. Without the proper process, the stakeholder groups tend to always include the same elite group of people who already have better access to city staff. But when the process is transparent and inclusive, multiple people can make suggestions on who to include and more people could be included, rather being left out. You still have an opportunity to improve the process to be more transparent and inclusive. Publish the list of stakeholder groups and their attendees and meeting minutes. And invite any interested group of residents to sign up for a focus group meeting, as Saratoga has done for their Housing Element. Or like Cupertino has done for the Vallco Specific Plan in 2018. Ask the Councilmembers, Commissioners and the public to suggest people and groups to interview. This is a more collaborative process. One of the Work Program Itens this year is an Integrated Community Engagement plan. I hope that we use this chance to improve the outreach process for Memorial Park and carry it out to other projects too. Thank you. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 3:53 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Focus Group for Revitalize Memorial Park Council Member Chao, The day-to-day work involved with delivery of projects is a very operational level part of the CIP program and supports the policy level interest of Council to focus on outreach. Staff has really enhanced these efforts at outreach and has taken multiple approaches to achieve this. The creation of focus groups takes that to another level and allowed us to get input from a targeted group of stakeholders, while continuing the expansive community wide outreach. To advance this effort, we established five focused groups and held one meeting with each group. The project team provided invitations to the focus groups to established community organizations (De Anza College, School Districts, Support groups for Children with Special Needs, Fire Department, Sherriff’s Office, Sister Cities, and many more) and the meetings were used to collect input specifically from these organizations that serve a broader section of the community. Each group was focused around a specific topic, which included: 1. Adult activities 2. Youth activities 3. Emergency services 4. Current Programming in and around the park (Internal Group) 5. Ongoing Maintenance (Internal Group) Individuals from the public, including individuals who live in the immediate vicinity, are encouraged sign up for project updates at the0186 Engage Cupertino webpage (https://engagecupertino.org/memorial-park-specific-plan), and to attend the various community events. The engage Cupertino webpage provides information on these community events, including the community surveys, where individuals can provide their input. The City currently has a survey open to collect input which can be found here: https://engagecupertino.org/memorial-park-specific-plan?tool=survey_tool#tool_tab With that stated, Nori has been very active in these outreach opportunities, and staff has shared her input with the consultants preparing the specific plan. We will reach out to her directly to provide her this information. Sincerely, Chad Chad Mosley Assistant Director/City Engineer Public Works ChadM@cupertino.org (408) 777-7604 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 7:26 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Focus Group for Revitalize Memorial Park Councilmember Chao, thank you for the email. Chad will follow up and provide background information on how the focus group was formed. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 11:38 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Focus Group for Revitalize Memorial Park This is the first time I heard about this focus groups for the Memorial Park. It makes sense to have focus groups if they cover all stakeholders and do not leave some stakeholders out. When and how was the outreach done to select the focus group? The focus groups were formed in September 2022, and were formed by requesting that various community organizations provide a representative for their group. Did you ask the Parks and Rec commissioners or city council members to suggest people or groups to interview? Most of the community organizations outreached to were listed in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Nori livers in the Commons, which is the complex right next to Memorial Park. I'm curious whether any of the other complexes were included in the focus groups? Block leaders in the vicinity of the park were invited. There were popup tents for Memorial Park in several events which I attended. I don't remember seeing any announcement about the focus group. I must have missed something. Thanks. Liang 0187 Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Nori N <noriko.y@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2023 12:17 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Sashi Begur <SBegur@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Focus Group for Revitalize Memorial Park 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 Councilmember Chao, Commissioner Bergur, and City Manager Wu Who is in charge of planning the revitalize Memorial Park task and organizing the Focus Group meeting? There were 29 participants from resident neighborhoods. I live next to the Memorial Park and Quinlan center. I walk in the park everyday. I wished I could have the opportunity to join the Focus Group to discuss in September if I have known. Was it listed in the City website or you chose the specific residents? Regards, Nori Begin forwarded message: From: Nori N <noriko.y@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Focus Group for Revitalize Memorial Park Date: January 26, 2023 at 4:01:25 PM PST To: Ayano Hattori <AyanoH@cupertino.org>, Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org>, Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Hi Ms. Hattori, Mr. Mosley, and Director Sander, While I was reading “Revitalize Memorial Park Site Assessment and Outreach Summary”, I found out that there was Focus Group who could have opportunity to speak in a small group setting with the project team. The Focus Group interviews occurred in September 2022. I have been interested in revitalizing the Memorial Park and emailing you as well as City officials for sometime. I definitely wanted to participate in the group if I have known. How and who did you choose those Focus Group people from residents neighborhood? Was the application on the website? Regards, Nori 0188 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:59 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: memorial park plan survey Get Outlook for iOS Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Qinglin Jiang <qinglin.jiang@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 3:25 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: memorial park plan survey 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, I have some questions. In the memorial park plan survey, why is there no choice for "no plan". Why do we have to choose one of three plans? I think the current memorial park is perfect. We don't need any plan at all. The pictures in the survey are too small and there's no way to zoom in. We can't see what is in the picture at all. I think you will at least provide an option of "no plan" in the multiple choice question. Qinglin 0189 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2023 7:28 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Confidential Credit Card Memo RE Grand Jury Report Attachment(s): "Confidential_20221219 CUPERTINO _GLarson_CreditCardMemo.pdf" Hi Pamela, The Workshop tomorrow references the Grand Jury Report, however it is not agendized. Attached is the file which Greg Larson provided to me regarding my questions about the high credit card charges made by Staff which regularly show up on Accounts Payable. With regards to Accounts Payable, be aware that Finance was clumping the statements together and presenting them up to 6 months after the statement date, paying bills late, not tying payments to actual contracts, and improperly attributing bills to budget items, all points which have been brought up over the course of the past two years, and much of it prior to your coming on board. The memo indicates that Staff requested the credit card statements. It is within my rights as a Councilmember and member of the public to request them, and | could have done it as a PRR, regardless, it was Greg who worked on acquiring them. Please note that Greg edited Alfaro’s report, | have no idea what he altered, but | would like to know. | requested the March 2021 supporting statements on two larger spenders. Please also be considerate of the fact that | have been verbally abused and accused of a misdemeanor by the public over this Grand Jury Report, behavior which Staff would run to the Grand Jury to complain about, but behavior Councilmembers have experienced for their terms. Recall that it was Council who was berated over Staff failing to get the Housing Element completed anywhere nearly on time, and it is Council who will be further abused regarding Builder’s Remedy. Regards, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0190 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2023 10:04 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Cupertino Safe Routes to School Newsletter: Memorial Park Bike Options, Student Art Contest, Travel Data, Safety Tips, Lawson Bikeway, and more 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 Pamela, This is misleading because it advocates for bike uses. That makes this biased. It should not be biased. This survey needs to be scrapped. This is unacceptable. Best regards, Kitty Moore Begin forwarded message: From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 3, 2023 at 3:00:00 PM PST To: Ckittymoore@gmail.com Subject: Cupertino Safe Routes to School Newsletter: Memorial Park Bike Options, Student Art Contest, Travel Data, Safety Tips, Lawson Bikeway, and more Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. Cupertino SR2S Banner February 2023 Memorial Park Project Logo Memorial Park Specific Plan Survey Let the City Know What You'd Like at Memorial Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Elements Are on the Table The City of Cupertino is in the process of redesigning Memorial Park - a large park in the heart of the City. Three concepts have been developed, each with a different focal point: 1) Community Focus, 2) Nature Focus, and 3) Civic Focus. Within these concepts there are many elements being considered, such as an upgraded amphitheater, more cherry trees, and more parking. Three of the elements relate to cycling and/or walking: Expanded Multi-Use Path Network Bike Connections to Citywide Network Bike Traffic Garden multi-use path example Multi-Use Path Bikeway Network Bike Traffic Garden 0191 An expanded multi-use path network would provide more space for people to walk and bike through the park. Bike connections to the citywide network would connect the park to the bike routes surrounding the park. Finally, a bicycle garden would provide a space for people of all ages and abilities to practice their bike handling skills and rules of the road in the comfort of a park - on mini roads complete with stop signs and signals. This could potentially be a location where elementary school students could take school field trips to learn the important life skills of safe cycling. If you would like to learn more about the conceptual designs and elements being considered in the Memorial Park Specific Plan and weigh in on how this important community park should be transformed, we invite you to take the survey, attend one of the upcoming meetings, and/or visit the project website below. The survey closes February 22. TAKE SURVEY Upcoming Meetings: Open House February 4, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino, CA 95014 Community Webinar February 9, 7 p.m. Being held online REGISTER More info: Memorial Park Specific Plan 0192 Via flyer Reminder: Student Art Contest! Design the Vehicle Wrap and Suggest a New Name for Cupertino's Upcoming Expanded Shuttle Service Submissions due February 26 The City of Cupertino's Transportation Division is looking for creative middle and high school students to help rename our community shuttle and redesign the artwork displayed on the vehicles! Via-Cupertino is an on-demand community shuttle that serves all of Cupertino and connects to Sunnyvale’s Caltrain station. Via-Cupertino will be expanding into Santa Clara and transitioning to an all-electric fleet in the spring. We're looking for a new name and fresh new vehicle artwork which reflects both communities, while being relevant if the program expands into other nearby communities in the future. The name and design should convey the following themes: Community, Ease of use, Transit/Mobility, and Public. The new name and graphics should shout “This shuttle is for everyone, please ride!” Students will be able to see their winning artwork on the community shuttle for years to come! Submission Deadline: February 26 Winner Announcement: March 8, 4pm SUBMIT YOUR ENTRY Learn more in the "Via Student Contest" section here: cupertino.org/shuttle Note: it sometimes takes a minute for the Via Student Contest section to open once you click on it. Send any questions to Chris Corrao: chrisc@cupertino.org The contest winner will be announced during the Safe Routes to School Working Group meeting on Wednesday, March 8, 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. If you enter the contest, please reserve that time on your calendar. Good luck!! bar graph: student travel data Student Travel Data School Year 2022/23 Cupertino Safe Routes to School works with public K-12 schools within the City each year to collect data on how students are getting to school. The survey results are in, and this school year's travel data report is published. The dark blue bar in the graph represents "single family vehicles," or students driving with only their own family in their car. All the other colors represent what we call “alternative transportation.” This includes active and shared modes of travel: walking, biking, carpooling, and transit. One of the main programmatic goals of Cupertino Safe Routes to School is to help increase the number of students using alternative transportation. Now that schools and many offices are back in person, life and commutes are slowly getting back to normal. According to the data, families are starting to carpool again, and more students are biking. Unfortunately, fewer students are walking than last year, possibly because more parents are back in the office, and they are dropping their students off on their way to work. The Cupertino Safe Routes to School team will continue to work to with schools to encourage families to walk to school, which is a great way to jumpstart a healthy new day. Safety Tips to Brighten Short Winter Days 0193 blue bike red light Shimmer! Blinking red rear lights aren’t required but are a good idea so drivers know you’re there. Add them to your bike, backpack, or helmet (or all three). Sparkle! Reflective clothing, reflective strips on your backpack, and reflectors on your bike all help drivers see you better when it's dark out. Also, at least one red rear bike reflector is legally required to ride after dark. Speed in Motion Shine! By law, you need one white light in front of your bike after dark so drivers can see you. Make it a bright, wide angle LED light so you can see where you're going, too. Lawson Bikeway Study Area Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study Community Meeting #2 Thursday, March 16 6:30 p.m. The City will be holding a second Community Meeting for the Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study on Thursday, March 16 at 6:30 p.m. At this meeting, attendees will have the opportunity to hear a presentation on the data that was collected after Community Meeting #1, see initial conceptual designs for the bikeway alternatives, and give input regarding concept preferences. This meeting will be held virtually. Register in advance for this webinar: REGISTER As a reminder, the City of Cupertino is working with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study to develop alternatives for a bikeway (bike lane or bike path) at Lawson Middle School. The goal of the study is to engage students, parents, school and district staff, neighbors, and the community in a dialogue to develop a bikeway design that will provide students safe access to the bike cages on campus while taking a variety of needs into consideration. More info: Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study 0194 Survey Image LRSP Final Report Cover Page Share Input on Cupertino’s New Website Design A brand new Cupertino website is in the works to make it easier to find the information you need. We want your feedback! The City is looking for input on how you are using the municipal website. Please take a few minutes to fill out our survey below to assist us in gathering ways that we can make the experience better for you. Take the survey: SURVEY local road safety plan cover image Local Road Safety Plan Final Report Published The City of Cupertino’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues and recommend countermeasures. In addition to informing future infrastructure projects, the information from the LRSP will feed into the upcoming Vision Zero effort. Both efforts aim to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions for all modes of transportation and for all ages and abilities. Having a completed LRSP also enables the City to apply for certain grant funding, such as the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) or One Bay Area Grant (OBAG). The LRSP final report summarizes an analysis of collisions that occurred in Cupertino along with feedback from stakeholders and public outreach, identifies high-injury locations, and recommends countermeasures at each of these high- risk locations. Read the report and more: FINAL REPORT APPENDICES Review the entire LRSP process here: https://engagecupertino.org/lrsp Funding for the LRSP came from the Federal Highway Administration and the California Department of Transportation. 0195 New Year, New Laws There are several newly-enacted California laws to be aware of: AB 1732: This law authorizes law enforcement agencies to request the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to activate a “Yellow Alert” when a fatal hit-and-run crash has occurred and specific criteria has been met to permit alert activation. The law also encourages local media outlets to disseminate the information contained in a Yellow Alert. The new law serves to use the public’s assistance when working to solve fatal hit-and-run crashes. AB 1909 : Drivers are now required to change into another available lane, when possible, to pass cyclists, building on the current requirement for drivers to give cyclists at least three feet of space when passing. The law also permits electric bicycle (e-bike) riders to use bicycle paths and trails, bikeways, and bicycle lanes, except in state parks, which will be subject to the discretion of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. In addition, starting on January 1, 2024, the law allows cyclists to cross an intersection when a “Walk” sign is on. AB 1946: This law requires CHP to work with other traffic safety stakeholders such as the California Office of Traffic Safety, to develop statewide safety and training programs for e-bikes. This training program, which will consist of e-bike riding safety, emergency maneuver skills, rules of the road and laws pertaining to e-bikes, will launch on the CHP’s website in September 2023. AB 2000: Parking lots across the state are now included with public roads as locations where street racing and sideshows are banned. Another law passed in 2021 (AB 3, Fong) allows courts to suspend an individual’s driver’s license for violating this ban beginning on July 1, 2025. AB 2147: This law prohibits peace officers from stopping pedestrians for certain pedestrian-specific violations, such as crossing the road outside of a crosswalk, unless there is an immediate danger of a crash. This information was provided to us by San Mateo County Safe Routes to School. Join us for SR2S Working Group Meetings Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Working Group meetings are held via Zoom on the second Wednesday of most months. If there's a topic you'd like the Working Group to discuss, email us! saferoutes@cupertino.org Visit the link below to register, access agendas, and view the complete list of dates for this school year’s Working Group meetings. We hope to see you at our next meeting! Working Group Meetings kids in a row 0196 Important Upcoming Dates Check links below for meeting registration and/or agenda, typically posted 72 hours in advance of a meeting, where applicable. Saturday, February 4, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Memorial Park Specific Plan Open House at the Cupertino Senior Center: 20251 Stevens Creek Boulevard Wednesday, February 8, 4:00 p.m. SR2S Working Group Meeting Topic: Viva Escuelas Street Fairs in San Jose, Pedestrian Scramble Thursday, February 9, 7 p.m. Memorial Park Specific Plan Register: Community Webinar February (date TBD - it will be moving from the previously scheduled Feb 15), 7:00 p.m. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Topic: Memorial Park Specific Plan, Capital Improvement Program, 280 Trail Survey Wednesday, March 8, 4:00 p.m. SR2S Working Group Meeting Topic: Student Artwork Winners Announced (tentative) Wednesday, March 15, 7:00 p.m. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Topic: TBD Thursday, March 16, 6:30 p.m. Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study Register: Community Meeting #2 Topics: Data and existing conditions report, initial conceptual designs Cupertino cupertino.org/saferoutes city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to ckittymoore@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California · 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0197 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2023 10:24 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: 'Main Street’ Restaurant Space Development Agreement Law Hi, This is a heads up for this agenda item for next week. Peter Pau worked with staff to have a study done regarding the vacant Main Street Target and staff is supporting them to not have the Target building remain as retail. One of my favorite plans for Main Street had a large gym and outdoor pool, when they got EB-5 Regional Center status they applied with Main Street having medical offices and even assisted living for seniors, now we just get restaurants and buy our high cost items outside of the city. This leads to obesity and further driving to find basic items. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 5:10 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: 'Main Street' Restaurant Space Development Agreement Law Councilmember Moore, Thank you for the thorough, detailed response. And based on your response and the importance of the issue I’d like to suggest that we meet in-person in the next couple of weeks to discuss the existing tenant mix at Main Street, the condition identifying the maximum percentage of restaurant uses at the site, and your ideas for what Main Street should be in the future. | can share with you what information we currently have on the development, but | think a meeting could further the discussion more efficiently than a series of emails. If you can let me know your availability over the next couple of weeks | will be happy to get a meeting scheduled. Thanks. Luke Luke Connolly Senior Planner Community Development LukeC@cupertino.org (408)777-1275 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2022 12:34 PM To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattWM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 'Main Street' Restaurant Space Development Agreement Law Hi Luke, Yes, the issue is that the Target building is supposed to be a retail anchor store. 0198 Cupertino has 90% of new retail as restaurants and these establishments are damaging to the environment in terms of water use, air quality, and sewage, not to mention the traffic impacts sending us out of the city to shop for pretty basic items; living here is reminiscent of rural Vermont in terms of travel times to buy things or just give up and order online. Main Street has taken over outdoor areas for what is now permanent seating which means the restaurant capacities have increased over what was studied in the EIR. While the Development Agreement states that the Director of Community Development “may” approve a refinement to the restaurant percentage, that is not definite. | would like the EIR Addendum brought to Council for review prior to any approval and that in the future, our Development Agreements are not written so that the public feels that staff is not providing them with the expectations of a project. | have asked several people what percentage of restaurants they believe Main Street to be and the answer is about 2/3ds and that this is not the city ‘downtown’ experience they were hoping for, but rather a ‘restaurant row’ while we have significant retail leakage outside of the city which you are aware of. Other cities have development updates provided to their Councils which providing us with them could help us know what is happening within the City and not give the impression that there is an end run-around happening. In this situation, SHPCO and certain staff have a history of working together leaving the public out of the loop for how decisions are made and pointing to their collective discretionary ability to do so (approve Vallco SB 35, peer review Vallco SB 35 soil reports without informing anyone), which is not helpful. We had similar experiences with Canyon Crossing and the former Bateh Bros. project not having the expected retail. Any suggestions and actions to fix this dearth of information on developments until it is too late for input would be greatly appreciated. | am pasting the agreement for Main Street here, and like a lot of troubling things we have in our plans and agreements, the language is indefinite and that really needs to be addressed: 9. MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF RESTAURANTS The maximum square footage of food service uses permitted within the retail space of the mixeduse development shall not be more than 40% of the total retail square footage of 130,500 square feet ( or a maximum of 52, 600 square feet of restaurant uses) based upon the approved development plan dated August 15, 2012 in accordance with the Main Street Cupertino — Revised Proposed Project Analysis report as Appendix A in the Second Addendum to the Final Certified 2009 EIR prepared by Fehr and Peers. Any future refinements to the restaurant percentage may be approved by the Director of Community Development if a subsequent parking and traffic analysis indicates that there is adequate parking for the various mixtures of uses and there are no additional and/ or new significant traffic impacts compared to thresholds studied in the original 2009 Environmental Impact Report and 2012 Addendum. The parking and traffic analysis should take into consideration all of the changes which have happened at the project, including the outdoor dining. The original EIR did not take these items into account. And, as mentioned above, | would like this to come to Council prior to approval, especially since the discussion about changing uses is important to the public, and there may be acceptance in some instances, or not. | think it should at least be publicly discussed. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 5:09 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <VMattM@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: 'Main Street' Restaurant Space Development Agreement Law Councilmember Moore, First of all, thank you for your patience on this issue, | see there has been considerable communication over an extended period of time. While additional analysis could be done, there’s enough information available to provide an accurate response on the Main Street retail/restaurant issue. We've looked at data based on both applicant and City information and, while there are minor differences in square footage for the retail tenant spaces between these sources, it’s clear that the total current restaurant square footage is at 40% or just over, say around 41%. If specialty food uses (Philz Coffee, Meet Fresh and others), which are looked at differently from restaurants since patrons may either buy goods for offsite consumption or sit down to eat at the establishment, were considered the same as restaurants that would raise the percentage to slightly over 50% of the 130,500+/- Main Street retail area. Like | said, additional work could be done to refine the numbers but the percentages aren’t going to change much, if at all. In looking at your previous messages regarding this topic you appear to be focused on both the potential loss of traditional retail to restaurant uses and parking impacts due to restaurants having a higher parking demand. Condition #9 of the Resolution, that identifies the 40% 0199 threshold, allows for Director discretion of the restaurant percentage if there is a supporting parking study finding the parking supply adequate and no new parking-related impacts are created. The question of maintaining a certain minimum level of traditional retail (or a cap on restaurant use) to prevent retail leakage, though, would require a more information than we presently have on hand and a larger discussion of land use at the site. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks again for your patience. Have a Happy Thanksgiving weekend. Luke Luke Connolly Senior Planner Community Development LukeC@cupertino.org (408)777-1275 From: Pamela Wu Sent: Friday, October 28, 2022 2:22 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Albert Salvador, P.E. <AlbertS @cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: 'Main Street' Restaurant Space Development Agreement Law Councilmember Moore, apologizing on the late reply. Given the amount of research involved and the significant amount of time that is necessary from an under-staffed department. we will follow up with a response by the end of November. Your understanding is much appreciated. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 9:45 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: 'Main Street’ Restaurant Space Development Agreement Law FYI Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2022 9:18 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: 'Main Street’ Restaurant Space Development Agreement Law FYI. No one authorized staff to hire someone for this study they are doing. They invented a work plan item on their own. 0200 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 5:28 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: 'Main Street' Restaurant Space Development Agreement Law CC Member Moore | will talk to staff about pulling this info. Jim Jim Throop City Manager City Manager's Office JimT@cupertino.org (408) 777-1402 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2022 1:51 AM To: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Darcy Paul <DPaul@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: 'Main Street’ Restaurant Space Development Agreement Law Hi Jim, | returning to an issue which | hadn’t followed up on. | have not heard back on the problem regarding the percentages of restaurants at Main Street apparently being over the required 40%. The reason why it’s important is because there had been a Target which closed and there is some concern it would become another restaurant. Keeping in mind that restaurants generate 4x the traffic as retail stores, and Main Street was touted as our downtown, and 95% of our new retail has been restaurants causing retail “leakage” to surrounding cities, | can understand the resident concern at the idea of losing what was supposed to be a retail anchor (Target). There was a rumor about a restaurant looking to locate at the Target site, so it is important that our Economic Development Manager is aware of the requirements for restaurants to not be more than 40% for Main Street. | had asked that The interim Manager provide the current calculations from staff and haven’t heard back, so | am raising this issue again. | found that they are already over 40% even without the Target site included. | look forward to hearing what staff came up with for percentages. There is some hope that a Trader Joe’s or similar could use the space. | realize it could be a challenge to get properly leased, but we do have an agreement. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0201 0202 0203 0204 0205 0206 From: Lisa Warren < > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 12:29 AM To: Greg Larson < >; Christopher Jensen < >; City Council < > Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Commission < >; Benjamin Fu < >; Piu Ghosh (she/her) < >; Economic Development < > Subject: 'Main Street' Restaurant Space CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Manager, City Attorney, Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Member, During the November 2nd 2021 City Council meeting, interim city manager, Greg Larson, stated that the maximum approved restaurant space at 'Main Street’ has not been exceeded. I, and others, were more than surprised to hear this assessment. There is a need to illustrate if Staff really thinks this to be true. Several times, I have spoken publicly about the restaurant 'total allowed space (in sf)' that the 2012 'Main Street’ project approval defined with specific numbers. I have stated that I believe that the current amount of square footage dedicated to restaurant use already exceeds what was approved. I have referenced Resolution 12-098 and read portions of it. That resolution is attached here. Also attached are pages 9 and 10 of 'Second Addendum to EIR for 'Main Street’ (2012)' and, separately, that entire 39 pg document. A fourth attachment to this communication is a recent 'property map' image that is included in a leasing company listing for retail space, vacant and ‘leased’, available in the 'Main Street' development. The 'map' includes square footage of 'shops' within the development project. With this collection of documents, it seems clear that the maximum amount of restaurant square footage has most definitely been exceeded. The overage appears to be significant. Hovering at 25% Over the Max square footage approved. And this without including a couple of smaller 'food service’ spaces. How did this happen ? Why did it happen ? If the 'rumors' are true - that there is an application anticipated that would put yet another restaurant at Main Street, and in a vacated 'non restaurant space’ of 21,000+sf in size even be contemplated or entertained ? There should be no staff time spent on such an application. 0207 Answers are truly needed, and now there are a growing number of questions. Frustrated, Lisa Warren 0208 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2023 1:02 PM EST To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Cupertino Safe Routes to School Newsletter: Memorial Park Bike Options, Student Art Contest, Travel Data, Safety Tips, Lawson Bikeway, and more The SR2S newsletter advocates specifically for a "bicycle garden" in memorial park, which may or may not be a good idea for memorial park. An expanded multi-use path network would provide more space for people to walk and bike through the park. Bike connections to the citywide network would connect the park to the bike routes surrounding the park. Finally, a bicycle garden would provide a space for people of all ages and abilities to practice their bike handling skills and rules of the road in the comfort of a park - on mini roads complete with stop signs and signals. This could potentially be a location where elementary school students could take school field trips to learn the important life skills of safe cycling. I would like to know the appropriateness of the city staff utilizing the city newsletter to advocate specifically for one element in a park. I thought the city staff should follow directions from the Council through the city manager, rather than "advocating" for one specific outcome. This puts the staff in a position that some members of the public might perceive as "biased". This is especially sensitive when the position the staff adovcates coincides with some special interest group, who works closely with staff. In the past, members of public have objected to such undue influence by special interest groups through city staff and staff recommendation. To work as a team, the staff cannot "take directions" from multiple sources (the council and other special interest groups) or "give direction" (advocates) to the public. That's confusing. Please address this issue in staff training. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 7:04 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Cupertino Safe Routes to School Newsletter: Memorial Park Bike Options, Student Art Contest, Travel Data, Safety Tips, Lawson Bikeway, and more 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 Pamela, This is misleading because it advocates for bike uses. That makes this biased. It should not be biased. This survey needs to be scrapped. This is unacceptable. 0209 Best regards, Kitty Moore Begin forwarded message: From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 3, 2023 at 3:00:00 PM PST To: Ckittymoore@gmail.com Subject: Cupertino Safe Routes to School Newsletter: Memorial Park Bike Options, Student Art Contest, Travel Data, Safety Tips, Lawson Bikeway, and more Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . Cupertino SR2S Banner February 2023 Memorial Park Project Logo Memorial Park Specific Plan Survey Let the City Know What You'd Like at Memorial Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Elements Are on the Table The City of Cupertino is in the process of redesigning Memorial Park - a large park in the heart of the City. Three concepts have been developed, each with a different focal point: 1) Community Focus, 2) Nature Focus, and 3) Civic Focus. Within these concepts there are many elements being considered, such as an upgraded amphitheater, more cherry trees, and more parking. Three of the elements relate to cycling and/or walking: Expanded Multi-Use Path Network Bike Connections to Citywide Network Bike Traffic Garden multi-use path example Multi-Use Path Bikeway Network Bike Traffic Garden An expanded multi-use path network would provide more space for people to walk and bike through the park. Bike connections to the citywide network would connect the park to the bike routes surrounding the park. Finally, a bicycle garden would provide a space for people of all ages and abilities to practice their bike handling skills and rules of the road in the comfort of a park - on mini roads complete with stop signs and signals. This could potentially be a location where elementary school students could take school field trips to learn the important life skills of safe cycling. If you would like to learn more about the conceptual designs and elements being considered in the Memorial Park Specific Plan and weigh in on how this important community park should be transformed, we invite you to take the survey, attend one of the upcoming meetings, and/or visit the project website below. The survey closes February 22. TAKE SURVEY Upcoming Meetings: 0210 Open House February 4, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino, CA 95014 Community Webinar February 9, 7 p.m. Being held online REGISTER More info: Memorial Park Specific Plan Via flyer Reminder: Student Art Contest! Design the Vehicle Wrap and Suggest a New Name for Cupertino's Upcoming Expanded Shuttle Service Submissions due February 26 The City of Cupertino's Transportation Division is looking for creative middle and high school students to help rename our community shuttle and redesign the artwork displayed on the vehicles! Via-Cupertino is an on-demand community shuttle that serves all of Cupertino and connects to Sunnyvale’s Caltrain station. Via-Cupertino will be expanding into Santa Clara and transitioning to an all-electric fleet in the spring. We're looking for a new name and fresh new vehicle artwork which reflects both communities, while being relevant if the program expands into other nearby communities in the future. The name and design should convey the following themes: Community, Ease of use, Transit/Mobility, and Public. The new name and graphics should shout “This shuttle is for everyone, please ride!” Students will be able to see their winning artwork on the community shuttle for years to come! Submission Deadline: February 26 Winner Announcement: March 8, 4pm SUBMIT YOUR ENTRY Learn more in the "Via Student Contest" section here: cupertino.org/shuttle Note: it sometimes takes a minute for the Via Student Contest section to open once you click on it. Send any questions to Chris Corrao: chrisc@cupertino.org The contest winner will be announced during the Safe Routes to School Working Group meeting on Wednesday, March 8, 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. If you enter the contest, please reserve that time on your calendar. Good luck!! 0211 bar graph: student travel data Student Travel Data School Year 2022/23 Cupertino Safe Routes to School works with public K-12 schools within the City each year to collect data on how students are getting to school. The survey results are in, and this school year's travel data report is published. The dark blue bar in the graph represents "single family vehicles," or students driving with only their own family in their car. All the other colors represent what we call “alternative transportation.” This includes active and shared modes of travel: walking, biking, carpooling, and transit. One of the main programmatic goals of Cupertino Safe Routes to School is to help increase the number of students using alternative transportation. Now that schools and many offices are back in person, life and commutes are slowly getting back to normal. According to the data, families are starting to carpool again, and more students are biking. Unfortunately, fewer students are walking than last year, possibly because more parents are back in the office, and they are dropping their students off on their way to work. The Cupertino Safe Routes to School team will continue to work to with schools to encourage families to walk to school, which is a great way to jumpstart a healthy new day. Safety Tips to Brighten Short Winter Days blue bike red light Shimmer! Blinking red rear lights aren’t required but are a good idea so drivers know you’re there. Add them to your bike, backpack, or helmet (or all three). Sparkle! Reflective clothing, reflective strips on your backpack, and reflectors on your bike all help drivers see you better when it's dark out. Also, at least one red rear bike reflector is legally required to ride after dark. Speed in Motion Shine! By law, you need one white light in front of your bike after dark so drivers can see you. Make it a bright, wide angle LED light so you can see where you're going, too. 0212 Lawson Bikeway Study Area Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study Community Meeting #2 Thursday, March 16 6:30 p.m. The City will be holding a second Community Meeting for the Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study on Thursday, March 16 at 6:30 p.m. At this meeting, attendees will have the opportunity to hear a presentation on the data that was collected after Community Meeting #1, see initial conceptual designs for the bikeway alternatives, and give input regarding concept preferences. This meeting will be held virtually. Register in advance for this webinar: REGISTER As a reminder, the City of Cupertino is working with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study to develop alternatives for a bikeway (bike lane or bike path) at Lawson Middle School. The goal of the study is to engage students, parents, school and district staff, neighbors, and the community in a dialogue to develop a bikeway design that will provide students safe access to the bike cages on campus while taking a variety of needs into consideration. More info: Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study Survey Image LRSP Final Report Cover Page Share Input on Cupertino’s New Website Design A brand new Cupertino website is in the works to make it easier to find the information you need. We want your feedback! The City is looking for input on how you are using the municipal website. Please take a few minutes to fill out our survey below to assist us in gathering ways that we can make the experience better for you. Take the survey: SURVEY local road safety plan cover image Local Road Safety Plan Final Report Published The City of Cupertino’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues and recommend countermeasures. In addition to informing future infrastructure projects, the information from the LRSP will feed into the upcoming Vision Zero effort. Both efforts aim to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions for all modes of transportation and for all ages and abilities. Having a completed LRSP also enables the City to apply for certain grant funding, such as the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) or One Bay Area Grant (OBAG). The LRSP final report summarizes an analysis of collisions that occurred in Cupertino along with feedback from stakeholders and public outreach, identifies high-injury locations, and recommends countermeasures at each of these high- risk locations. Read the report and more: 0213 FINAL REPORT APPENDICES Review the entire LRSP process here: https://engagecupertino.org/lrsp Funding for the LRSP came from the Federal Highway Administration and the California Department of Transportation. New Year, New Laws There are several newly-enacted California laws to be aware of: AB 1732: This law authorizes law enforcement agencies to request the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to activate a “Yellow Alert” when a fatal hit-and-run crash has occurred and specific criteria has been met to permit alert activation. The law also encourages local media outlets to disseminate the information contained in a Yellow Alert. The new law serves to use the public’s assistance when working to solve fatal hit-and-run crashes. AB 1909 : Drivers are now required to change into another available lane, when possible, to pass cyclists, building on the current requirement for drivers to give cyclists at least three feet of space when passing. The law also permits electric bicycle (e-bike) riders to use bicycle paths and trails, bikeways, and bicycle lanes, except in state parks, which will be subject to the discretion of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. In addition, starting on January 1, 2024, the law allows cyclists to cross an intersection when a “Walk” sign is on. AB 1946: This law requires CHP to work with other traffic safety stakeholders such as the California Office of Traffic Safety, to develop statewide safety and training programs for e-bikes. This training program, which will consist of e-bike riding safety, emergency maneuver skills, rules of the road and laws pertaining to e-bikes, will launch on the CHP’s website in September 2023. AB 2000: Parking lots across the state are now included with public roads as locations where street racing and sideshows are banned. Another law passed in 2021 (AB 3, Fong) allows courts to suspend an individual’s driver’s license for violating this ban beginning on July 1, 2025. AB 2147: This law prohibits peace officers from stopping pedestrians for certain pedestrian-specific violations, such as crossing the road outside of a crosswalk, unless there is an immediate danger of a crash. This information was provided to us by San Mateo County Safe Routes to School. Join us for SR2S Working Group Meetings Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Working Group meetings are held via Zoom on the second Wednesday of most months. If there's a topic you'd like the Working Group to discuss, email us! saferoutes@cupertino.org Visit the link below to register, access agendas, and view the complete list of dates for this school year’s Working Group meetings. We hope to see you at our next meeting! Working Group Meetings kids in a row 0214 Important Upcoming Dates Check links below for meeting registration and/or agenda, typically posted 72 hours in advance of a meeting, where applicable. Saturday, February 4, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Memorial Park Specific Plan Open House at the Cupertino Senior Center: 20251 Stevens Creek Boulevard Wednesday, February 8, 4:00 p.m. SR2S Working Group Meeting Topic: Viva Escuelas Street Fairs in San Jose, Pedestrian Scramble Thursday, February 9, 7 p.m. Memorial Park Specific Plan Register: Community Webinar February (date TBD - it will be moving from the previously scheduled Feb 15), 7:00 p.m. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Topic: Memorial Park Specific Plan, Capital Improvement Program, 280 Trail Survey Wednesday, March 8, 4:00 p.m. SR2S Working Group Meeting Topic: Student Artwork Winners Announced (tentative) Wednesday, March 15, 7:00 p.m. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Topic: TBD Thursday, March 16, 6:30 p.m. Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study Register: Community Meeting #2 Topics: Data and existing conditions report, initial conceptual designs Cupertino cupertino.org/saferoutes city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to ckittymoore@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California · 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0215 0216 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2023 1:06 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Staff advocating for one option I am re-sending this with an appropriate title. One wonders why the city loses public trust. This is one way to lose the public trust from what I have observed since 2015: When the city staff is perceived to be advocating for one position, which some special interest group is advocating. Liang ====== The SR2S newsletter advocates specifically for a "bicycle garden" in memorial park, which may or may not be a good idea for memorial park. An expanded multi-use path network would provide more space for people to walk and bike through the park. Bike connections to the citywide network would connect the park to the bike routes surrounding the park. Finally, a bicycle garden would provide a space for people of all ages and abilities to practice their bike handling skills and rules of the road in the comfort of a park - on mini roads complete with stop signs and signals. This could potentially be a location where elementary school students could take school field trips to learn the important life skills of safe cycling. I would like to know the appropriateness of the city staff utilizing the city newsletter to advocate specifically for one element in a park. I thought the city staff should follow directions from the Council through the city manager, rather than "advocating" for one specific outcome. This puts the staff in a position that some members of the public might perceive as "biased". This is especially sensitive when the position the staff adovcates coincides with some special interest group, who works closely with staff. In the past, members of public have objected to such undue influence by special interest groups through city staff and staff recommendation. To work as a team, the staff cannot "take directions" from multiple sources (the council and other special interest groups) or "give direction" (advocates) to the public. That's confusing. Please address this issue in staff training. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 3, 2023 7:04 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Cupertino Safe Routes to School Newsletter: Memorial Park Bike Options, Student Art Contest, Travel Data, Safety Tips, Lawson Bikeway, and more 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. 0217 Hi Pamela, This is misleading because it advocates for bike uses. That makes this biased. It should not be biased. This survey needs to be scrapped. This is unacceptable. Best regards, Kitty Moore Begin forwarded message: From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 3, 2023 at 3:00:00 PM PST To: Ckittymoore@gmail.com Subject: Cupertino Safe Routes to School Newsletter: Memorial Park Bike Options, Student Art Contest, Travel Data, Safety Tips, Lawson Bikeway, and more Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . Cupertino SR2S Banner February 2023 Memorial Park Project Logo Memorial Park Specific Plan Survey Let the City Know What You'd Like at Memorial Park Bicycle and Pedestrian Elements Are on the Table The City of Cupertino is in the process of redesigning Memorial Park - a large park in the heart of the City. Three concepts have been developed, each with a different focal point: 1) Community Focus, 2) Nature Focus, and 3) Civic Focus. Within these concepts there are many elements being considered, such as an upgraded amphitheater, more cherry trees, and more parking. Three of the elements relate to cycling and/or walking: Expanded Multi-Use Path Network Bike Connections to Citywide Network Bike Traffic Garden multi-use path example Multi-Use Path Bikeway Network Bike Traffic Garden 0218 An expanded multi-use path network would provide more space for people to walk and bike through the park. Bike connections to the citywide network would connect the park to the bike routes surrounding the park. Finally, a bicycle garden would provide a space for people of all ages and abilities to practice their bike handling skills and rules of the road in the comfort of a park - on mini roads complete with stop signs and signals. This could potentially be a location where elementary school students could take school field trips to learn the important life skills of safe cycling. If you would like to learn more about the conceptual designs and elements being considered in the Memorial Park Specific Plan and weigh in on how this important community park should be transformed, we invite you to take the survey, attend one of the upcoming meetings, and/or visit the project website below. The survey closes February 22. TAKE SURVEY Upcoming Meetings: Open House February 4, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Cupertino Senior Center 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino, CA 95014 Community Webinar February 9, 7 p.m. Being held online REGISTER More info: Memorial Park Specific Plan 0219 Via flyer Reminder: Student Art Contest! Design the Vehicle Wrap and Suggest a New Name for Cupertino's Upcoming Expanded Shuttle Service Submissions due February 26 The City of Cupertino's Transportation Division is looking for creative middle and high school students to help rename our community shuttle and redesign the artwork displayed on the vehicles! Via-Cupertino is an on-demand community shuttle that serves all of Cupertino and connects to Sunnyvale’s Caltrain station. Via-Cupertino will be expanding into Santa Clara and transitioning to an all-electric fleet in the spring. We're looking for a new name and fresh new vehicle artwork which reflects both communities, while being relevant if the program expands into other nearby communities in the future. The name and design should convey the following themes: Community, Ease of use, Transit/Mobility, and Public. The new name and graphics should shout “This shuttle is for everyone, please ride!” Students will be able to see their winning artwork on the community shuttle for years to come! Submission Deadline: February 26 Winner Announcement: March 8, 4pm SUBMIT YOUR ENTRY Learn more in the "Via Student Contest" section here: cupertino.org/shuttle Note: it sometimes takes a minute for the Via Student Contest section to open once you click on it. Send any questions to Chris Corrao: chrisc@cupertino.org The contest winner will be announced during the Safe Routes to School Working Group meeting on Wednesday, March 8, 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. If you enter the contest, please reserve that time on your calendar. Good luck!! 0220 bar graph: student travel data Student Travel Data School Year 2022/23 Cupertino Safe Routes to School works with public K-12 schools within the City each year to collect data on how students are getting to school. The survey results are in, and this school year's travel data report is published. The dark blue bar in the graph represents "single family vehicles," or students driving with only their own family in their car. All the other colors represent what we call “alternative transportation.” This includes active and shared modes of travel: walking, biking, carpooling, and transit. One of the main programmatic goals of Cupertino Safe Routes to School is to help increase the number of students using alternative transportation. Now that schools and many offices are back in person, life and commutes are slowly getting back to normal. According to the data, families are starting to carpool again, and more students are biking. Unfortunately, fewer students are walking than last year, possibly because more parents are back in the office, and they are dropping their students off on their way to work. The Cupertino Safe Routes to School team will continue to work to with schools to encourage families to walk to school, which is a great way to jumpstart a healthy new day. Safety Tips to Brighten Short Winter Days blue bike red light Shimmer! Blinking red rear lights aren’t required but are a good idea so drivers know you’re there. Add them to your bike, backpack, or helmet (or all three). Sparkle! Reflective clothing, reflective strips on your backpack, and reflectors on your bike all help drivers see you better when it's dark out. Also, at least one red rear bike reflector is legally required to ride after dark. Speed in Motion Shine! By law, you need one white light in front of your bike after dark so drivers can see you. Make it a bright, wide angle LED light so you can see where you're going, too. 0221 Lawson Bikeway Study Area Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study Community Meeting #2 Thursday, March 16 6:30 p.m. The City will be holding a second Community Meeting for the Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study on Thursday, March 16 at 6:30 p.m. At this meeting, attendees will have the opportunity to hear a presentation on the data that was collected after Community Meeting #1, see initial conceptual designs for the bikeway alternatives, and give input regarding concept preferences. This meeting will be held virtually. Register in advance for this webinar: REGISTER As a reminder, the City of Cupertino is working with Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. to conduct a feasibility study to develop alternatives for a bikeway (bike lane or bike path) at Lawson Middle School. The goal of the study is to engage students, parents, school and district staff, neighbors, and the community in a dialogue to develop a bikeway design that will provide students safe access to the bike cages on campus while taking a variety of needs into consideration. More info: Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study 0222 Survey Image LRSP Final Report Cover Page Share Input on Cupertino’s New Website Design A brand new Cupertino website is in the works to make it easier to find the information you need. We want your feedback! The City is looking for input on how you are using the municipal website. Please take a few minutes to fill out our survey below to assist us in gathering ways that we can make the experience better for you. Take the survey: SURVEY local road safety plan cover image Local Road Safety Plan Final Report Published The City of Cupertino’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues and recommend countermeasures. In addition to informing future infrastructure projects, the information from the LRSP will feed into the upcoming Vision Zero effort. Both efforts aim to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions for all modes of transportation and for all ages and abilities. Having a completed LRSP also enables the City to apply for certain grant funding, such as the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) or One Bay Area Grant (OBAG). The LRSP final report summarizes an analysis of collisions that occurred in Cupertino along with feedback from stakeholders and public outreach, identifies high-injury locations, and recommends countermeasures at each of these high- risk locations. Read the report and more: FINAL REPORT APPENDICES Review the entire LRSP process here: https://engagecupertino.org/lrsp Funding for the LRSP came from the Federal Highway Administration and the California Department of Transportation. 0223 New Year, New Laws There are several newly-enacted California laws to be aware of: AB 1732: This law authorizes law enforcement agencies to request the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to activate a “Yellow Alert” when a fatal hit-and-run crash has occurred and specific criteria has been met to permit alert activation. The law also encourages local media outlets to disseminate the information contained in a Yellow Alert. The new law serves to use the public’s assistance when working to solve fatal hit-and-run crashes. AB 1909 : Drivers are now required to change into another available lane, when possible, to pass cyclists, building on the current requirement for drivers to give cyclists at least three feet of space when passing. The law also permits electric bicycle (e-bike) riders to use bicycle paths and trails, bikeways, and bicycle lanes, except in state parks, which will be subject to the discretion of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. In addition, starting on January 1, 2024, the law allows cyclists to cross an intersection when a “Walk” sign is on. AB 1946: This law requires CHP to work with other traffic safety stakeholders such as the California Office of Traffic Safety, to develop statewide safety and training programs for e-bikes. This training program, which will consist of e-bike riding safety, emergency maneuver skills, rules of the road and laws pertaining to e-bikes, will launch on the CHP’s website in September 2023. AB 2000: Parking lots across the state are now included with public roads as locations where street racing and sideshows are banned. Another law passed in 2021 (AB 3, Fong) allows courts to suspend an individual’s driver’s license for violating this ban beginning on July 1, 2025. AB 2147: This law prohibits peace officers from stopping pedestrians for certain pedestrian-specific violations, such as crossing the road outside of a crosswalk, unless there is an immediate danger of a crash. This information was provided to us by San Mateo County Safe Routes to School. Join us for SR2S Working Group Meetings Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Working Group meetings are held via Zoom on the second Wednesday of most months. If there's a topic you'd like the Working Group to discuss, email us! saferoutes@cupertino.org Visit the link below to register, access agendas, and view the complete list of dates for this school year’s Working Group meetings. We hope to see you at our next meeting! Working Group Meetings kids in a row 0224 Important Upcoming Dates Check links below for meeting registration and/or agenda, typically posted 72 hours in advance of a meeting, where applicable. Saturday, February 4, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Memorial Park Specific Plan Open House at the Cupertino Senior Center: 20251 Stevens Creek Boulevard Wednesday, February 8, 4:00 p.m. SR2S Working Group Meeting Topic: Viva Escuelas Street Fairs in San Jose, Pedestrian Scramble Thursday, February 9, 7 p.m. Memorial Park Specific Plan Register: Community Webinar February (date TBD - it will be moving from the previously scheduled Feb 15), 7:00 p.m. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Topic: Memorial Park Specific Plan, Capital Improvement Program, 280 Trail Survey Wednesday, March 8, 4:00 p.m. SR2S Working Group Meeting Topic: Student Artwork Winners Announced (tentative) Wednesday, March 15, 7:00 p.m. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Topic: TBD Thursday, March 16, 6:30 p.m. Lawson Bikeway Feasibility Study Register: Community Meeting #2 Topics: Data and existing conditions report, initial conceptual designs Cupertino cupertino.org/saferoutes city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to ckittymoore@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California · 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0225 0226 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2023 5:05 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Q1: "In July 2015, nearly three years after Main Street was approved, Fehr& Peers, a transportation consulting firm, completed their Main Street Parking Analysis" Where do I find this parking analysis? Was it put on the Council agenda in 2015? Q2: Could we get a list of the square footages and the tenants please? I assume that this information is readily available since the staff must have done the analysis when any use permit was approved. Which tenant is considered a "restaurant" or a "specialty food service"? Q3: The staff report vaguely mentions that the restaurant uses "being approximately 41%" the percentage of “food service” (i.e., restaurant + specialty foods) uses to slightly over 50% But does this percentage referred to recent changes? Like the Target Express. I am confused. Q4: It seems the staff report implies that there was an approval by the Director of Community Developmemt in 2015 (after receiving the 2015 traffic analysis) to adjust the percentage? Or change the "40% food service use" cap to "40% restsurant" cap. Where do I find the approval letter of such a change? Q5: The staff report states "the center is presently in substantial conformance with Condition #9 of the Resolution," which refers specifically to the "40% food service uses" cap. Please clarify. Does Main Street comply with the Condition #9 in the adopted Resolution or the modification approved by the Director of Community Development later, likely in 2015? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0227 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2023 6:23 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage If I could get the responses or some of the responses earlier, that'd be great. I usually do not have to time to read any responses Tuesday afternoon since I'm at work. Thanks! Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 2:49 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Councilmember Chao, thank you for the questions. CDD staff will try to incorporate them for public distribution before Tuesday meeting. Paemla Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 2:05 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Q1: "In July 2015, nearly three years after Main Street was approved, Fehr& Peers, a transportation consulting firm, completed their Main Street Parking Analysis" Where do I find this parking analysis? Was it put on the Council agenda in 2015? Q2: Could we get a list of the square footages and the tenants please? I assume that this information is readily available since the staff must have done the analysis when any use permit was approved. Which tenant is considered a "restaurant" or a "specialty food service"? Q3: The staff report vaguely mentions that the restaurant uses "being approximately 41%" the percentage of “food service” (i.e., restaurant + specialty foods) uses to slightly over 50% But does this percentage referred to recent changes? Like the Target Express. I am confused. Q4: It seems the staff report implies that there was an approval by the Director of Community Developmemt in 2015 (after receiving the 2015 traffic analysis) to adjust the percentage? Or change the "40% food service use" cap to "40% restsurant" cap. Where do I find the approval letter of such a change? 0228 Q5: The staff report states "the center is presently in substantial conformance with Condition #9 of the Resolution," which refers specifically to the "40% food service uses" cap. Please clarify. Does Main Street comply with the Condition #9 in the adopted Resolution or the modification approved by the Director of Community Development later, likely in 2015? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0229 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2023 12:44 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Background on Main Street project Some most of you are not around when the previous Council approves the Main Street project and then amended it again and again. The public felt cheated by both the Council and the staff during the process. As a result, when it comes to any change to Main Street project, many members of the community are suspicious. As you know, one the trust is lost with the public, it takes a lot to earn their trust again. If one side keeps breaking promises, then one probably should not wonder why the other side doesn't trust them. 1. Main Street was sold to Cupertino residents as Santana Row, when Santana Row was mainly retail shops without much office space. 2. The initial approved version of Main Street had only 100,000 sqft of office space, all senior housing and mostly retail, including a large athletic club, after many community meetings. 3. Then, multiple amendments made the following changes one by one: 4. Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0230 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2023 12:58 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Background on Main Street project (Accidentally sent the previous version. Please discard that version.) Some most of you are not around when the previous Council approves the Main Street project and then amended it again and again. The public felt cheated by both the Council and the staff during the process. As a result, when it comes to any change to Main Street project, many members of the community are suspicious. As you know, one the trust is lost with the public, it takes a lot to earn their trust again. If one side keeps breaking promises, then one probably should not wonder why the other side doesn't trust them. 1. Main Street was sold to Cupertino residents as Santana Row, when Santana Row was mainly retail shops without much office space. 2. The initial approved version of Main Street had only 100,000 sqft of office space, all senior housing and mostly retail, including a large athletic club, after many community meetings. 3. Then, multiple amendments made the following changes one by one: the athletic club was turned into office space The senior housing was turned into one bedroom apartments, which include office, den, loft s d up to 1700 sqft. The promised 0.75 acres park became only 0.5 acre plus one narrow stripe of parking stripe. And it's on a slope, rather than a flat surface. Additional office space was granted to increase the total office space from 100,00 sqft to 295,000 sqft (Almost tripled), including the second floor of the parking garage. The height on that site was 45 feet or 60 feet with ground floor retail. An extra floor was added to the office building, while the ground floor retail is only a small retail space. The extra office space added versus the ground floor retail is 20:1. Then, the public learned that the ground floor retail will be Apple Cage, serving Apple employees only. The set back standard also pushed the existing limit. As you can see, the above is just a list of issues that I can come up with from the top of my head, as someone who actually was not involved with Main Street project, since all of those changes happened long before Dec. 2014, when I attended my first councul meeting. For many Rancho residents who participated in the initial community meetings of Main Street and were promised Santana Row like experience, they are very sensitive to every change made to this project and they don't want to see yet another bother promises. I hope you share the background with your staff so that they can understand the frustration felt by many residents and why they seem to not trust the city. The best way to earn their trust is to just be transparent in what we do and keep the public in the loop along the process. That's all. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0231 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2023 2:26 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Pulling All Consent Items Hi, Tomorrow we are still under the current rules, so I will pull items then. Thanks! Kitty Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 9:34 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Pulling All Consent Items Removing public from this email Councilmember Moore, please confirm that you would still like to pull all items (item 6-15) from the consent calendar for tomorrow’s meeting. Thank you Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 6:28 PM To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Lisa Warren <La-warren@att.net>; Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Subject: Pulling All Consent Items Hi All, Due to the upcoming implementation of new Council Policies regarding Consent Items, I am respectfully pulling all Consent Items from now until my term in office ends. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0232 0233 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2023 4:36 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Direction from Council on Chamber contract Maybe I missed it. Please point me to the date of the Council meeting so I can look up the minutes to see the exact direction to know the scope of the discussion with Chamber. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 10:29 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Direction from Council on Chamber contract Councilmember Chao, staff has been working on the draft agreement with Chamber since last June along with the future agenda item (TBD) requested by Councilmember Moore. This should not be a surprise to you as Council has previously directed staff to proceed with the work. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 7:27 PM To: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Direction from Council on Chamber contract Thanks for the meeting minutes. So, this is yet another item which is not on the adopted 2022-23 Work Program and not proposed by any two Councilmembers on a public meeting. Another surprise to me and likely to the people who are following the City Council meetings closely. This is a staff-initiated item, which is considered an "operational item"? Because? I do think that an agreement or MOU with the Chamber is a good way to consider. However, this item has never been studied by the Council in terms of the scope of work or the type of relationship at all. Thus, I am confused. Under whose direction this item is put on the staff's work program? I am concerned since we are told that the Council's work program is too full and yet I keep finding out items, not on the work program, to get put on the Council agenda. For each additional item, I do need to spend time to research its background in order to make decisions. It also takes on the already very limited City Council meeting time. Liang 0234 Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 2:46 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Direction from Council on Chamber contract Hello Councilmember Chao, According to our records, the chamber contract discussion was brought to Council on 3/15/22. It was continued to the 6/21/22 meeting. No formal direction has been given on the agreement or MOU with the Chamber because staff has not yet been able to negotiate one with the Chamber due to change in leadership at the Chamber. The attached minutes from the June 21st meeting (pages 11 and 12) include a future agenda item request made by two council members at the June 21st meeting, which staff will address via an informational memo to Council. Please note that staff is currently also working on bringing a draft MOU/agreement with the Chamber for Council review and approval. Regards, Tina Tina Kapoor Economic Development Manager City Manager's Office TinaK@cupertino.org (408)777-7607 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 1:48 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Direction from Council on Chamber contract Tina, can you confirm with Clerk’s office and provide the information to Councilmember Chao? Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 1:06 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Direction from Council on Chamber contract My memory is not good. I would like to know in which meeting the Council gave the direction to pursue a contract with the Chamber of Commerce so that I could look up the minutes to see the directions given. 0235 Thanks, Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0236 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2023 9:53 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> CC: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: “May 5, 2022, Auditor report”? I know there was no staff involvement. I'm just wondering whether you know which report they are referring to? Since the city has provided draft responses, I assume that the city would have also looked at what exactly they said we didn't do, just in case we missed anything. So, what's this May 5, 2022 report, which the CGJ seems to think is important and somehow the Council never got to it? Any idea? Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:46 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: “May 5, 2022, Auditor report”? Councilmember Chao, I have no clue how the grand jury drew their conclusion in the report. As Chris and I stated to you multiple times, there was no staff involvement with the preparation of grand jury report. Unfortunately I am not able to provide any follow up to your questions. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 9:23 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: “May 5, 2022, Auditor report”? I'm very puzzled by the following section since I cannot find the document or the meeting it mentioned. The CGJ Report stated: "However, it remains unclear to the Civil Grand Jury whether the City is addressing the fiscal risks identified in the May 5, 2022, Auditor report. The Audit Committee meets regularly and the minutes reflect that there is a workplan. In May 2022, the status of the Audit Committee’s work was on the City Council agenda, but that meeting was later canceled. The Civil Grand Jury could find no evidence in the City Council minutes that the City Council had discussed the risk reduction work plan or had authorized the City Manager to proceed with its implementation." I cannot find this May 5, 2022 Auditor's report referenced above, which is supposed to have identified focal risks? 0237 There is no Audit Committee meeting on May 5, 2022. I looked at the agenda of all the Audit Committee meetings in April and May 2022. I cannot find such a report. The CGJ Report stated "In May 2022, the status of the Audit Committee’s work was on the City Council agenda, but that meeting was later canceled." I looked at the agenda of the two regular meetings in May 2022. I did not find any agenda item with such a report. I did not find any "cancelled" meeting either. "The Civil Grand Jury could find no evidence in the City Council minutes that the City Council had discussed the risk reduction work plan or had authorized the City Manager to proceed with its implementation." Any idea which report and which meeting this section refers to? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0238 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2023 9:58 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Funding allocation for City Hall Renovation I would just like to confirm whether the city has ever allocated any funding to the "City Hall renovation" project in 2015 or any other time? I would think that this is a simple question that would not require too much time to find out. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:49 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Funding allocation for City Hall Renovation Councilmember Chao, I would not be able to articulate the grand jury report and their findings. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 8:52 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org> Subject: Funding allocation for City Hall Renovation Pam, The CGJ Report stated: “Although the 2015 City Council allocated funds for the renovation, the monies were subsequently redirected to expand the City Library.” From my understanding, the above statement is false. Here are what I know. The 2015 Council never allocated nor approved any plan for renovation since they favored a brand new city hall. The 2015 Council approved the $70M Civic Center Master Plan, which includes a new City Hall and the library expansion, but they never allocated any budget for it. There is no “re-directing” of any fund since the 2015 Council or after did not pursue to allocate funds after they examined the financing options for $70M. But just in case I missed any information, could you please confirm my understanding above? Thanks. Liang 0239 Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0240 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 10:57 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Submit Nominations for the 2023 CREST Awards Hi Pamela, Please explain the selection process and provide a copy of where it is written down, no one seems to know… Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 at 10:01 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Submit Nominations for the 2023 CREST Awards 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. Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . City of Cupertino 0241 Submit Nominations for the 2023 CREST Awards Nominations due by Sunday, March 12 Do you know someone who should be recognized for their efforts in volunteering, sustainability, or public safety? For more than 30 years, the City of Cupertino has recognized its outstanding community members with an awards program. Hundreds of residents and community organizations have been honored with the award, now known as the CREST (Cupertino Recognizes Extra Steps Taken) Awards. For the past four years, the City has presented awards in six categories to better reflect the Cupertino community. The categories are: Lifetime Achievement Award (Volunteer) – Recognizes a member of the community who has volunteered in the City of Cupertino for 10+ years. Volunteer of the Year – Recognizes individuals who have made a difference to the Cupertino community through volunteer service. Organization of the Year – Recognizes organizations that have made a difference to the Cupertino community through volunteer service. Rising Star Award (Volunteer) – Recognizes an individual who has volunteered in Cupertino for three or less years but shows a continued commitment to the future of the Cupertino community. Public Safety Champion of the Year – Recognizes an individual or group that has made an outstanding contribution to the safety of Cupertino. Sustainability Champion of the Year – Recognizes a person or group committed to maintaining a sustainable and healthy place to live, work, and play in Cupertino. Award criteria and nomination requirements are on the application form, which can be found at the link below. The nomination form is now 100% online to make it easier and more convenient for the public to nominate their candidate. Please be as detailed as possible. Nominations are due by Sunday, March 12. cupertino.org/crest CREST Awards Cupertino cupertino.org 0242 city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to kmoore@cupertino.org using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California · 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0243 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 10:45 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Council Meal Room and Speaker Cards Hi Pamela, Two members of the public have mentioned concerns to me today about the last Council meeting. One had their speaker card go missing and there was something unusual seen by a member of the public. And there was a guest of a Councilmember on the dais and around our work areas during the break and the guest was also brought into the food room. As a gentle reminder, the Manager is supposed to support all of the Council members, not just those she passes notes and whispers with on the dais. The Manager should help foster decorum and fairness among Councilmembers and not create favoritism towards adhesive spouses. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0244 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:04 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Council Meal Dietetics Hi Pamela, I believe I have rights regarding having dietary needs met when meals are provided so that I am not discriminated against and it is such that HIPAA protects me from privacy violations. While you may have thought suggesting I don’t have a meal was cute, you are violating my rights. I will clarify what my dietary needs are and it will be coordinated for each meeting. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 2:29 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Council Meal Dietetics Councilmember Moore, we will certainly be keeping in mind of your dietary concerns. We will make sure to have low-fat and low- sodium healthy selection (salad and other similar selections) for future dinner order. Alternatively, you can opt out in participating in partaking dinner with us before council meetings. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2023 8:02 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Council Meal Dietetics Hi Pamela, I have mentioned the meals provided to the Planning Commission and Council over the past few years are grossly fattening. I should not eat high sodium and high fat foods according to my physician. My mother and grandmothers died prematurely and I would like to not follow their early deaths. Would you please provide low-fat and low-sodium heart healthy options? If not please write in detail why you will not and why. 0245 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0246 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 11:39 PM EST To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: No Illuminated Public Storage Signs facing the Freeway Hi all, I must say that I feel really badly about this project because the people living across the I-280 were about 130’ outside of being notified and now some have their mountain view blocked while still having freeway noise and pollution. I did not know it would block their view. That is sad enough but they have light trespass and glare. This project came to the Planning Commission when I was on it and they made it sound like it would be elegant. At night, in particular, it is not. Please go look. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Naomi Nishimura <vainaomi@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 3:36 PM To: City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: No Illuminated Public Storage Signs facing the Freeway CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council: Please do not allow Public Storage to have illuminated signage and room lighting facing the freeway until 11p.m. daily. This signage and bright room lighting showing bright orange doors is visible from my home and has been disrupting my quality of life. The proposed lighted sign is 16 square feet on an orange background measuring over 800 square feet. In October, the Planning Commission denied any signage facing the freeway per CMC 19.104; in February, the City Council ignored their decision. As a compromise, I am respectfully requesting that the signage have no illumination and room lightening will be either shut off or significantly dimmed so that the light pollution will not cause sleep disturbance for the residents. The sign does not help prospective customers to find the building and is big enough for advertising the business during daylight hours and bright ugly room lighting is just wasting precious community electricity. Repectly yours, Naomi Nishimura 0247 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:53 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Reminder, join us at the State of the City Address with Mayor Hung Wei. Feb 15. RSVP by Wednesday, Feb 8 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. Begin forwarded message: From: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce <contact@cupertino-chamber.org> Date: February 7, 2023 at 1:14:31 PM PST Subject: Reminder, join us at the State of the City Address with Mayor Hung Wei. Feb 15. RSVP by Wednesday, Feb 8 Reply-To: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce <contact@cupertino-chamber.org> 0248 View this email in your browser. 20455 Silverado Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 I 408 252 7054 I www.cupertino-chamber.org Follow Us! Copyright © 2023 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce 20455 Silverado Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Add us to your address book If you wish to unsubscribe or change your subscriptions, please refer to the links below. Update your preferences Unsubscribe from this list If this message was forwarded to you, you can join the mailing list here. 0249 0250 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:55 PM EST To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: State of the City Address | The Rotary Club of Cupertino 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. The City announcement says you may RSVP and the link sends us to the Rotary Club with Rod Sinks as contact: https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fportal.clubrunner.ca%2F3794%2Fevent%2Fstate-of-the-city- address%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgovdelivery&data=05%7C01%7CChristopherJ%40cupertino.org%7C91170e10e2d04f18e7d808db0ebd1ccc%7C19e13f83dce947c3ae6712c6a63e2ed6%7C0%7C0%7C638119977627400328%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ERnY1G%2Fr3R1LXvUw%2Bf1s7LUkQ%2Baoh6p%2Blt0z%2BxQK47Y%3D&reserved=0 Best regards, 0251 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:26 PM EST To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Attachment(s): "Chamber Summary1.pdf" All, Attached is a summary of Chamber issues which may be helpful. 1. How was the decision to move the City Council State of the City Address meeting to Quinlan made and by whom? a. How is the Mayor directing Staff or Chamber, or Rotary? Explain how this is allowed. 2. How was the decision to have the Rotary and Chamber involved made? a. Who paid for or waived the room fee? Who made that decision? b. What are the Rotary or Chamber providing? Who paid for it? How much? How was that decided? 4. Will the Agenda be amended to include the Roll Call, if not, how is quorum established? 5. When will the Presentation be made available? Holding the State of the City by any outside organization is a practice which should not have started and it had been done away with in order to democratize the event. | am extremely disappointed at this Staff and Mayor decision which does not establish fairness or trust among the Council. Stating that Councilmembers may attend their own City Council Special Meeting, is offensive. This should have been made part of the procedures manual since Staff and the Mayor were already putting this together behind the scenes when the Procedures Manual was being worked on. That does not make sense why it would be kept a secret (State of the City Policy). Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:58 AM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address 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. Note: City’s invitation links to Rotary Club which Mayor Wei is a Board Member of. From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 7, 2023 at 10:01:34 AM PST To: cekmoore@hotmail.com Subject: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com 0252 ity of Cupertino 0253 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Wednesday, February 15 at 5:30 p.m. Reminder: Join us for the 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address presented by the City of Cupertino in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Learn about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and hear what is planned for the year ahead. The event will be held on Wednesday, February 15 with a reception starting at 5:30 p.m. at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 North Stelling Road. The event is free and open to the public, and RSVPs are encouraged. RSVP by tomorrow, February 8 at tinyurl.com/stateofthecity23. 2023 State of the City Flyer cupertino.org 0254 This email was sent to cekmoore@hotmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California - 10300 Torre [sd Avenue - Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0255 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:08 PM EST To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Attachment(s): "Chamber Summary .pdf" As to coordinating schedules and the Roll Call, it would be inappropriate for the Mayor to ask two Councilmembers if they are attending, and leave the others off and have the agenda state “other council members may attend.” This does not create camaraderie. It sounds like this is a council of three. | look forward to the responses. It is odd to see the Mayor essentially help advertise her Rotary Club hosting this event with Chamber, and City Staff has actively worked to support it. Tone from the top. Regards, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:27 AM To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address All, Attached is a summary of Chamber issues which may be helpful. 1. How was the decision to move the City Council State of the City Address meeting to Quinlan made and by whom? a. How is the Mayor directing Staff or Chamber, or Rotary? Explain how this is allowed. 2. How was the decision to have the Rotary and Chamber involved made? a. Who paid for o or waived the room fee? Who made that decision? 2 it? 0256 4. ; e = i = i Incl a e . | a : Is quorum a ; ; | 5. When will the Presentation be made available? Holding the State of the City by any outside organization is a practice which should not have started and it had been done away with in order to democratize the event. | am extremely disappointed at this Staff and Mayor decision which does not establish fairness or trust among the Council. Stating that Councilmembers may attend their own City Council Special Meeting, is offensive. This should have been made part of the procedures manual since Staff and the Mayor were already putting this together behind the scenes when the Procedures Manual was being worked on. That does not make sense why it would be kept a secret (State of the City Policy). Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:58 AM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address 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. Note: City’s invitation links to Rotary Club which Mayor Wei is a Board Member of. From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 7, 2023 at 10:01:34 AM PST To: cekmoore@hotmail.com Subject: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . City of Cupertino 0257 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Wednesday, February 15 at 5:30 p.m. Reminder: Join us for the 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address presented by the City of Cupertino in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Learn about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and hear what is planned for the year ahead. The event will be held on Wednesday, February 15 with a reception starting at 5:30 p.m. at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 North Stelling Road. The event is free and open to the public, and RSVPs are encouraged. RSVP by tomorrow, February 8 at tinyurl.com/stateofthecity23. 2023 State of the City Flyer 0258 cupertino.org city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to cekmoore@hotmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California - 10300 Torre Avenue « Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0259 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:26 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> CC: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Main Street Parking Analysis Attachment(s): "22-125 David J Powers & Associates a Corporation for preparation of an addendum to the MND for Main Street Cupertino.pdf" Hi Pamela, My current ask is for the DJ Powers Third Amendment to the EIR for Main Street. The original question from 2021 was regarding the percentages of restaurants and it wasn’t clear that the use permit had two parts which needed to be studied: parking and traffic which are handled by Fehr and Peers (Luke provided that document) and DJ Powers’ Third Amendment to the FEIR, which I have shown the contract to, and want the report they provided. Please provide the Third Amendment to the FEIR for Main Street. I have attached the contract with DJ Powers again, for reference. 9. MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF RESTAURANTS The maximum square footage of food service uses permitted within the retail space of the mixeduse development shall not be more than 40% of the total retail square footage of 130,500 square feet (or a maximum of 52,600 square feet of restaurant uses) based upon the approved development plan dated August 15, 2012 in accordance with the Main Street Cupertino - Revised Proposed Project Analysis report as Appendix A in the Second Addendum to the Final Certified 2009 EIR prepared by Fehr and Peers. Any future refinements to the restaurant percentage may be approved by the Director of Community Development if a subsequent parking and traffic analysis indicates that there is adequate parking for the various mixtures of uses and there are no additional and/or new significant traffic impacts compared to thresholds studied in the original 2009 Environmental Impact Report and 2012 Addendum. From the original Resolution Item 9 above, there would be a parking analysis and there would be a traffic impact analysis. I am asking for the traffic impact analysis which will be the DJ Powers report. From the attached contract with DJ Powers: DJP& A will prepare a Third Addendum to the certified 2009 EIR for the project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The Third Addendum will disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed modifications to the project, focusing on noise with limited discussions on how the change in use results in the same or similar impacts to aesthetics ( with the addition of the outdoor patio), air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, and transportation. This scope assumes that all other environmental factors ( agricultural and forestry, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, and utilities) will be unaffected by the project. (…) This scope assumes the analysis will find that the modifications would not result in a new or substantially more severe impacts than previously disclosed in the 2009 EIR. 1 This scope includes DJP& A’ s virtual attendance at a kick- off meeting, one project team meeting, and two public hearings. The proposed project used reduce the retail space by 21,000 sf and replace about 7,000 of it with sales tax generating space and leaves the remaining 14,000 sf not providing sales tax revenue. On an off-topic, the Public Storage facility, for the view-blocking and light glare, because it is a storage unit facility it generates zero sales tax and only about $8,500 in property tax per year. So these decisions being done at a Staff level to help out developers, are needing more wholistic review into what the real impacts are to the community. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 2:36 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> 0260 Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Main Street Parking Analysis Councilmember Moore, it seems you are combining two different asks in to one. There was your original ask from last November pertaining to the current uses at Main Street and there is your later ask related to the application that is still under review. My understanding from CDD is that the current as is to convert the Target space to an entertainment use. It is still under review. When it’s ready, it will be before Council for final decision. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 5:58 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Main Street Parking Analysis Hi Pamela, The Powers Amendment to the EIR should be the third Amendment. I have the second amendment. It should be complete. The original EIR did not have the approved Vallco SB 35 plan in it for traffic analysis, so I want to check what is in this Amendment. Has someone been hired to do the peer review? You may be referring to the parking study by Fehr and Peers, which is a different item. My hunch is that Staff has been working to help the developer relocate Bowlmor to the Target location. This would create 14,000 sf of entertainment space which would have what taxation rate? Thanks! Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, February 13, 2023 at 2:25 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Main Street Parking Analysis Councilmember Moore, I believe your ask pertains to a recently submitted use permit application that is still being reviewed. CDD staff will share what has been submitted by the developer. However, any study that is still in draft cannot be shared at this point. Also, I want to note that this is NOT a follow up to the information request from 2/7 meeting. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0261 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 7:29 PM To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Main Street Parking Analysis Hi Luke, Thank you! May I also have the recent Amendment to the EIR per this contract: https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=971800&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 at 2:09 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Main Street Parking Analysis Councilmember Moore, Sorry for the delay getting the requested information to you. Attached are the 2015 and 2023 Fehr & Peers Main Street analyses. Luke Luke Connolly Acting Director of Community Development Community Development LukeC@cupertino.org (408)777-1275 From: Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 3:07 PM To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Main Street Parking Analysis From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 1:35 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> Subject: Main Street Parking Analysis Hi Pamela, May I please have the 2015 Fehr and Peers Main Street Parking Analysis and the 2022 Fehr and Peers analysis from this contract: https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=991718&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino&searchid=04637e6e-f6c5-4e22- bfe1-8545f8746dd5 Preferably before the meeting. Thank you! Kitty Moore 0262 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0263 From: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 7:01 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Council Meal Room and Speaker Cards Good afternoon Pamela, I was not notified of a missing/misplaced speaker card. This is concerning since I am careful about ensuring fairness in our public comment process. I am happy to follow-up with that person. Regards, Kirsten Kirsten Squarcia City Clerk City Manager's Office KirstenS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3225 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:34 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Council Meal Room and Speaker Cards Removing CM Chao and adding Debra and Clerk’s office Kirsten – can you clarify what happened to the speaker card? Did we skip or misplace it? In terms of your suggestions for the “Manager’s behavior, I assume they were mean for me. If so, they are duly noted. However, I would like to further discuss them with you in person. Debra will follow up with a meeting time. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 7:46 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Council Meal Room and Speaker Cards Hi Pamela, Two members of the public have mentioned concerns to me today about the last Council meeting. One had their speaker card go missing and there was something unusual seen by a member of the public. And there was a guest of a Councilmember on the dais and around our work areas during the break and the guest was also brought into the food room. As a gentle reminder, the Manager is supposed to support all of the Council members, not just those she passes notes and whispers with on the dais. The Manager should help foster decorum and fairness among Councilmembers and not create favoritism towards adhesive spouses. Thank you, Kitty Moore 0264 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0265 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 3:31 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Meeting Time Info Request 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, Apparently Councilmembers do not have the same amounts of time scheduled with the Manager, City Attorney, and perhaps other staff. Would you please provide me with a simple break down of each Councilmember and the staff time scheduled for each. I know that I am only scheduled 30 minutes vs more time for other Councilmembers with the Manager, for example. Thanks! Kitty Moore 0266 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 7:39 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Meeting Time Info Request Hi, I am asking for the actual scheduled times. How much is each councilmember scheduled for. If you are not wanting to divulge that, is it not allowed to be shared? Thanks. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 3:32 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Meeting Time Info Request Councilmember Moore, as Chris mentioned, Council may wish to schedule meetings with Chris and I as you see fit. Councilmembers sometimes schedule meetings with Department Heads or other staff to discuss a particular topic. We do not keep a track of these meetings and it will take a substantial amount of research in doing so. To clarify, my weekly 1:1's with councilmembers have been at a minimum of 30-minutes. However, most of my meetings have run close to an hour or longer, pending on topics. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 12:49 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Meeting Time Info Request Hi Councilmember Moore: All councilmembers are offered the opportunity to schedule regular meetings with me at their discretion, without any direction on my part as to frequency or duration. Regards, Chris Christopher Jensen City Attorney City Attorney's Office ChristopherJ@cupertino.org (408)777-3105 -----Original Message----- From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 12:31 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Meeting Time Info Request 0267 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, Apparently Councilmembers do not have the same amounts of time scheduled with the Manager, City Attorney, and perhaps other staff. Would you please provide me with a simple break down of each Councilmember and the staff time scheduled for each. I know that I am only scheduled 30 minutes vs more time for other Councilmembers with the Manager, for example. Thanks! Kitty Moore 0268 From: Christopher Jensen Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 7:59 PM EST To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> CC: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Meeting Time Info Request Hi Councilmember Moore: I do not keep track of time spent meeting with Councilmembers. At this time you are the only Councilmember who has taken me up on my offer to schedule regular (typically biweekly) one-on-one meetings. Regards, Chris Christopher Jensen City Attorney City Attorney's Office ChristopherJ@cupertino.org (408)777-3105 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 4:40 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Meeting Time Info Request Hi, I am asking for the actual scheduled times. How much is each councilmember scheduled for. If you are not wanting to divulge that, is it not allowed to be shared? Thanks. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 3:32 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Meeting Time Info Request Councilmember Moore, as Chris mentioned, Council may wish to schedule meetings with Chris and I as you see fit. Councilmembers sometimes schedule meetings with Department Heads or other staff to discuss a particular topic. We do not keep a track of these meetings and it will take a substantial amount of research in doing so. To clarify, my weekly 1:1's with councilmembers have been at a minimum of 30-minutes. However, most of my meetings have run close to an hour or longer, pending on topics. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 12:49 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> 0269 Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Meeting Time Info Request Hi Councilmember Moore: All councilmembers are offered the opportunity to schedule regular meetings with me at their discretion, without any direction on my part as to frequency or duration. Regards, Chris Christopher Jensen City Attorney City Attorney's Office ChristopherJ@cupertino.org (408)777-3105 -----Original Message----- From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 12:31 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Meeting Time Info Request 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, Apparently Councilmembers do not have the same amounts of time scheduled with the Manager, City Attorney, and perhaps other staff. Would you please provide me with a simple break down of each Councilmember and the staff time scheduled for each. I know that I am only scheduled 30 minutes vs more time for other Councilmembers with the Manager, for example. Thanks! Kitty Moore 0270 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 3:18 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Public Records Requests Hi, I am alarmed at seeing that requests for records asked through our city email account also count as Public Records Requests. This was not made clear in the Procedural Manual Meeting. What this means is that we cannot ask for information from anyone but you which is not in keeping with the Municipal Code. Chris does not work for you, and he was not hired by you. https://cityofcupertinoca.nextrequest.com/requests/23-12 The above link should show the PRR that Jean Bedord did, asking for Councilmember Chao and my requests for records. An internal email request from Councilmember Chao shows up. I had just figured that Staff didn’t like that I used my personal email to make requests, I had noticed that my internal requests hadn’t been posted, and now they are. All this policy does is make you look like you have plenty more beyond HdL, Maze, Boucher, and Chamber backchanneling to hide. This is even more disappointing than I had realized. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0271 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 3:38 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Attachment(s): "Sponsorship Policy.pdf","Pages from Written Communications (Updated 05-04-2022) (3).pdf","Chamber Pages from 06-21-2022 Searchable Packet (1).pdf" Hi Pamela, This email serves as an official complaint regarding the 2023 State of the City Address (SOTC) sponsorship by the Cupertino Rotary and Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Please see the attached Sponsorship Policy. As you are aware, the SOTC was an agendized Special Meeting of the City Council on February 15, 2023. The meeting Agenda stated: SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC MEETING 1. Subject: 2023 Cupertino State of the City Recommended Action: Receive Mayor Hung Wei's 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and what is planned for the year ahead. Other City Councilmembers may also attend. The Agenda did not state that anyone else would be speaking and the meeting was opened by the President of the Rotary who gave a presentation regarding the Rotary and the CEO of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce who then gave a presentation regarding the Chamber. Neither of these presentations were agendized and they came as a surprise to people who are not members of either. As you are aware, | sat in the back of the room, | am not a member of either of these organizations. Councilmember Chao did not attend. Rotary and Chamber members were asked to stand and be recognized. The members of City Council were not named and recognized. Chamber members who regularly do business with the City, endorse candidates, flout the rules regarding the use of facilities and use them for campaigning purposes, contract with the City, and lobby the City, were present. Mayor Wei is a Board Member of the Cupertino Rotary, the Rotary has their plaques all hanging (without permission) in the Community Room where this event was held. This creates an unwelcome appearance of bias towards the Rotary and is against the Sponsorship Policy. Page 4 of the Sponsorship Policy, Resolution 18-101: Sponsorships that are generally not eligible for participation include those whose primary objectives, products, or services consist of the following: a. Religious and The Chamber and Rotary have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in free use of the City facilities. The Chamber Sponsorship is particularly inappropriate because the City contracts with their members: Recology and San Jose Water Company. In fact their members lobbied for the Recology contract renewal as opposed to sending it out to bid. Staff lobbied Council members to sell the water pipe network to San Jose Water Company in order to pay for a new City Hall. These all have the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Chamber is in direct competition with the City with regards to economic development and because of their political activism, should not be sponsoring events, certainly not the SOTC. The Rotary Club is working on a housing project with the City, and with Mayor Wei as their Board Member, certainly has the appearance of a conflict of interest. Why would only the Rotary apply for the Mary Avenue project? In the past the Rotary tried to take over Stocklmeier House to be their office in an effort by Richard Lowenthal. The City Council had been moving away from backchanneling and that work needs to continue. Your actions diminish trust and benefit two organizations with conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If you do not understand the problem and need it more explicitly explained, let me know. Sincerely, Kitty Moore 0272 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 2:17 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Councilmember Moore, State of the City is a city event where Chamber and Rotary are providing support. Since this is a City event, there is no rental fee required to use Quinlan Center. City is providing video support and light refreshment. Chamber and Rotation are helping out with other logistics. Assigned tasks are documented in the executed MOU (attached). Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:08 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address As to coordinating schedules and the Roll Call, it would be inappropriate for the Mayor to ask two Councilmembers if they are attending, and leave the others off and have the agenda state “other council members may attend.” This does not create camaraderie. It sounds like this is a council of three. | look forward to the responses. It is odd to see the Mayor essentially help advertise her Rotary Club hosting this event with Chamber, and City Staff has actively worked to support it. Tone from the top. Regards, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0273 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:27 AM To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address All, Attached is a summary of Chamber issues which may be helpful. 1. How was the decision to move the City Council State of the City Address meeting to Quinlan made and by whom? a. How is the Mayor directing Staff or Chamber, or Rotary? Explain how this is allowed. 2. How was the decision to have the Rotary and Chamber involved made? a. Who paid for or waived the room fee? Who made that decision? b What are the Rotarv or Chamber providing? Who paid for it? 4. Will the Agenda be amended to include the Roll Call, if not, how is quorum established? 5. When will the Presentation be made available? Holding the State of the City by any outside organization is a practice which should not have started and it had been done away with in order to democratize the event. | am extremely disappointed at this Staff and Mayor decision which does not establish fairness or trust among the Council. Stating that Councilmembers may attend their own City Council Special Meeting, is offensive. This should have been made part of the procedures manual since Staff and the Mayor were already putting this together behind the scenes when the Procedures Manual was being worked on. That does not make sense why it would be kept a secret (State of the City Policy). Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:58 AM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <«Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address 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. 0274 Note: City’s invitation links to Rotary Club which Mayor Wei is a Board Member of. From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 7, 2023 at 10:01:34 AM PST To: cekmoore@hotmail.com Subject: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . City of Cupertino 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Wednesday, February 15 at 5:30 p.m. Reminder: Join us for the 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address presented by the City of Cupertino in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Learn about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and hear what is planned for the year ahead. The event will be held on Wednesday, February 15 with a reception starting at 5:30 p.m. at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 North Stelling Road. The event is free and open to the public, and RSVPs are encouraged. RSVP by tomorrow, February 8 at tinyurl.com/stateofthecity23. 0275 2023 State of the City Flyer cupertino.org city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help 0276 This email was sent to cekmoore@hotmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California - 10300 Torre Avenue - Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0277 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 4:31 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Meet the Mayor Hung Wei at the State of the City Address. February 15. RSVP by Wednesday, Feb 8 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 Pamela, The MOU with the Chamber and Rotary was started February 7, 2023, and not completely signed until February 10, 2023, however Staff had already been working with Chamber prior to this date as my invitation came January 26, 2023. What’s going on here? Best regards, Kitty Moore Begin forwarded message: From: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce <contact@cupertino-chamber.org> Date: January 26, 2023 at 12:29:27 PM PST To: Ckittymoore@gmail.com Subject: Meet the Mayor Hung Wei at the State of the City Address. February 15. RSVP by Wednesday, Feb 8 Reply-To: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce <contact@cupertino-chamber.org> 0278 View this email in your browser. 20455 Silverado Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 I 408 252 7054 I www.cupertino-chamber.org Follow Us! Copyright © 2023 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce 20455 Silverado Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Add us to your address book If you wish to unsubscribe or change your subscriptions, please refer to the links below. Update your preferences Unsubscribe from this list If this message was forwarded to you, you can join the mailing list here. 0279 0280 View this email in your browser. 20455 Silverado Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 I 408 252 7054 I www.cupertino-chamber.org Follow Us! From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 4:32 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: You are invited to the State of the City Address on February 15. RSVP by Wednesday, Feb 8 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 Best regards, Kitty Moore Begin forwarded message: From: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce <contact@cupertino-chamber.org> Date: January 23, 2023 at 1:59:38 PM PST To: Ckittymoore@gmail.com Subject: You are invited to the State of the City Address on February 15. RSVP by Wednesday, Feb 8 Reply-To: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce <contact@cupertino-chamber.org> 0281 Copyright © 2023 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce 20455 Silverado Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Add us to your address book If you wish to unsubscribe or change your subscriptions, please refer to the links below. Update your preferences Unsubscribe from this list If this message was forwarded to you, you can join the mailing list here. 0282 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 5:16 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City advertised the SOTC 22 days before the final signature went on the MOU with Rotary and Chamber. Why? Begin forwarded message: From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: January 19, 2023 at 5:36:56 PM PST To: Ckittymoore@gmail.com Subject: 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. City of Cupertino 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Wednesday, February 15 at 5:30 p.m. Join us for the 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address presented by the City of Cupertino in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Learn about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and hear what is planned for the year ahead. The event will be held on Wednesday, February 15 with a reception starting at 5:30 p.m. at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 North Stelling Road. The event is free and open to the public, and RSVPs are encouraged. RSVP by Wednesday, February 8 at tinyurl.com/stateofthecity23. 2023 State of the City Flyer Cupertino cupertino.org city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to ckittymoore@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California · 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0283 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 5:36 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Hi Pamela, | would like to add to my complaint that the City emailed the public about the SOTC event 22 days prior to having the signing of the MOU completed. Once again the City Staff is working with handshake deals. The Chamber and Rotary had already sent their invitations, indicating that City Staff were working with the Chamber and Rotary with NO MOU. This is not unlike the handshake deals that have gone on for decades. These deals are a conflict of interest for the City and for members of Council involved in the organizations. How can we pretend to have a Recology or SJW contract in place in good faith when the City works deals to advertise for them? How can the City have a good faith contract with Rotary, granting them festival fee waivers and a housing project award on Mary without the City Staff and members of Council looking corrupted? This problem just goes from bad to worse the more it gets looked at. Sincerely, Kitty Moore PS: How do we find MOUs in the City Records? Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 at 12:38 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Hi Pamela, This email serves as an official complaint regarding the 2023 State of the City Address (SOTC) sponsorship by the Cupertino Rotary and Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Please see the attached Sponsorship Policy. As you are aware, the SOTC was an agendized Special Meeting of the City Council on February 15, 2023. The meeting Agenda stated: SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC MEETING 1. Subject: 2023 Cupertino State of the City Recommended Action: Receive Mayor Hung Wei's 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and what is planned for the year ahead. Other City Councilmembers may also attend. The Agenda did not state that anyone else would be speaking and the meeting was opened by the President of the Rotary who gave a presentation regarding the Rotary and the CEO of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce who then gave a presentation regarding the Chamber. Neither of these presentations were agendized and they came as a surprise to people who are not members of either. As you are aware, | sat in the back of the room, | am not a member of either of these organizations. Councilmember Chao did not attend. Rotary and Chamber members were asked to stand and be recognized. The members of City Council were not named and recognized. Chamber members who regularly do business with the City, endorse candidates, flout the rules regarding the use of facilities and use them for campaigning purposes, contract with the City, and lobby the City, were present. 0284 Mayor Wei is a Board Member of the Cupertino Rotary, the Rotary has their plaques all hanging (without permission) in the Community Room where this event was held. This creates an unwelcome appearance of bias towards the Rotary and is against the Sponsorship Policy. Page 4 of the Sponsorship Policy, Resolution 18-101: Sponsorships that are generally not eligible for participation include those whose primary objectives, products, or services consist of the following: a. Religious and The Chamber and Rotary have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in free use of the City facilities. The Chamber Sponsorship is particularly inappropriate because the City contracts with their members: Recology and San Jose Water Company. In fact their members lobbied for the Recology contract renewal as opposed to sending it out to bid. Staff lobbied Council members to sell the water pipe network to San Jose Water Company in order to pay for a new City Hall. These all have the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Chamber is in direct competition with the City with regards to economic development and because of their political activism, should not be sponsoring events, certainly not the SOTC. The Rotary Club is working on a housing project with the City, and with Mayor Wei as their Board Member, certainly has the appearance of a conflict of interest. Why would only the Rotary apply for the Mary Avenue project? In the past the Rotary tried to take over Stocklmeier House to be their office in an effort by Richard Lowenthal. The City Council had been moving away from backchanneling and that work needs to continue. Your actions diminish trust and benefit two organizations with conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If you do not understand the problem and need it more explicitly explained, let me know. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 2:17 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Councilmember Moore, State of the City is a city event where Chamber and Rotary are providing support. Since this is a City event, there is no rental fee required to use Quinlan Center. City is providing video support and light refreshment. Chamber and Rotation are helping out with other logistics. Assigned tasks are documented in the executed MOU (attached). Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:08 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> 0285 Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address As to coordinating schedules and the Roll Call, it would be inappropriate for the Mayor to ask two Councilmembers if they are attending, and leave the others off and have the agenda state “other council members may attend.” This does not create camaraderie. It sounds like this is a council of three. | look forward to the responses. It is odd to see the Mayor essentially help advertise her Rotary Club hosting this event with Chamber, and City Staff has actively worked to support it. Tone from the top. Regards, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore < > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:27 AM To: Kitty Moore < >; Christopher Jensen < >; Pamela Wu < >; City Clerk < > Cc: Liang Chao < > Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address All, Attached is a summary of Chamber issues which may be helpful. 1. How was the decision to move the City Council State of the City Address meeting to Quinlan made and by whom? a. How is the Mayor directing Staff or Chamber, or Rotary? Explain how this is allowed. 2. How was the decision to have the Rotary and Chamber involved made? . Will the Agenda be amended to include the Roll Call, if not, how is quorum established? 5. When will the Presentation be made available? 0286 Holding the State of the City by any outside organization is a practice which should not have started and it had been done away with in order to democratize the event. | am extremely disappointed at this Staff and Mayor decision which does not establish fairness or trust among the Council. Stating that Councilmembers may attend their own City Council Special Meeting, is offensive. This should have been made part of the procedures manual since Staff and the Mayor were already putting this together behind the scenes when the Procedures Manual was being worked on. That does not make sense why it would be kept a secret (State of the City Policy). Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@qmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:58 AM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address 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. Note: City’s invitation links to Rotary Club which Mayor Wei is a Board Member of. From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 7, 2023 at 10:01:34 AM PST To: cekmoore@hotmail.com Subject: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . City of Cupertino 0287 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Wednesday, February 15 at 5:30 p.m. Reminder: Join us for the 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address presented by the City of Cupertino in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Learn about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and hear what is planned for the year ahead. The event will be held on Wednesday, February 15 with a reception starting at 5:30 p.m. at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 North Stelling Road. The event is free and open to the public, and RSVPs are encouraged. RSVP by tomorrow, February 8 at tinyurl.com/stateofthecity23. 2023 State of the City Flyer 0288 cupertino.org city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to cekmoore@hotmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California - 10300 Torre Avenue : Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0289 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10:25 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Attachment(s): "Cupertino Chamber Announces Endorsements for City Council - Cupertino Chamber of Commerce.pdf","Chamber No Contract Invoices 06-21-2022 Agenda Item 19.pdf" Hi Pamela, Attached is a Chamber Candidate Endorsement and Agenda Item 19 regarding a payment made to the Chamber from June 21, 2022 which includes 5 years of payments which we were not allowed to discuss, and which Councilmember Chao and | put on the Future Agenda Items, and you refused to bring back before the election, and have still not brought it back. This was Jim Throop’s last night where he mentioned “evergreen agreements” whereby there’s not only no contract, but the agreement continues on forever. That was in response to the Chamber handshake deal item on the agenda that night. The Staff report for Agenda Item 19 was incorrect in that it implies that Council directed there to be an MOU with Chamber. The Chamber was paid $65k to build a website for themselves which JR Fruen then trademarked the “I love Cupertino” logo for the Chamber. The City’s IT Department would be in direct competition for this website. The City had no signed contract for the website, and the website is in the Chamber's name, for their benefit. Former Economic Development Manager Angela Tsui, went to work for HdL in November 2019, and walked her Economic Development work over to HdL and retained her office space at City Hall. The City formed a 6 month contract with HdL with Angela as their employee, overran that contract amount and billed the city over the contract amount, then formed another 6 month contract, exceeded that contract total, and the item went to Council in 2021 when it was decided to end that contract and let HdL go on the matter of Economic Development. Ms. Tsui, it turned out was also signing off on the liability waivers for the Chamber to use Community Hall for free. Staff was waiving their festival fees which are their fundraisers. She had also contracted for an Innovation District on Bubb Rd. and began what looked like a Specific Plan for the area, which was discussed at the old EDC which included Apple (recall Bubb Rd. is mostly Apple, and that they had an Apple rep. on the EDC). | also did a public record’s request regarding the licensed businesses and noticed we have over 2,500 of them. | requested several times that our business licenses be put on line for the public to have access. After several months, Staff put them online. This is mentioned because the Chamber has less than 200 business members. The City has coordinated ribbon-cuttings with our new Economic Development Manager, and has more than enough expertise in our IT Department to put together a website. The Chamber’s functions are not only duplicative of the City’s, they have 1/10 of the business reach, and with the lobbying, candidate support (allowing candidates to campaign at their fundraising festivals when the City waived their fees and did not enforce the festival rules prohibiting campaigning and provided booths to candidates Fruen, Bono, and Mohan), candidate contributions, and candidate endorsements, this is a separate member benefit, not public benefit like a 501 (c)(3), organization that must not be comingled into the City’s business. We have contracts with their members which include San Jose Water Company and Recology. Their members have lobbied Council to benefit their members. | hope this information is helpful, | tried to be brief. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:36 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Hi Pamela, | would like to add to my complaint that the City emailed the public about the SOTC event 22 days prior to having the signing of the MOU completed. Once again the City Staff is working with handshake deals. 0290 The Chamber and Rotary had already sent their invitations, indicating that City Staff were working with the Chamber and Rotary with NO MOU. This is not unlike the handshake deals that have gone on for decades. These deals are a conflict of interest for the City and for members of Council involved in the organizations. How can we pretend to have a Recology or SJW contract in place in good faith when the City works deals to advertise for them? How can the City have a good faith contract with Rotary, granting them festival fee waivers and a housing project award on Mary without the City Staff and members of Council looking corrupted? This problem just goes from bad to worse the more it gets looked at. Sincerely, Kitty Moore PS: How do we find MOUs in the City Records? Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 at 12:38 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Hi Pamela, This email serves as an official complaint regarding the 2023 State of the City Address (SOTC) sponsorship by the Cupertino Rotary and Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Please see the attached Sponsorship Policy. As you are aware, the SOTC was an agendized Special Meeting of the City Council on February 15, 2023. The meeting Agenda stated: SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC MEETING 1. Subject: 2023 Cupertino State of the City Recommended Action: Receive Mayor Hung Wei's 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and what is planned for the year ahead. Other City Councilmembers may also attend. The Agenda did not state that anyone else would be speaking and the meeting was opened by the President of the Rotary who gave a presentation regarding the Rotary and the CEO of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce who then gave a presentation regarding the Chamber. Neither of these presentations were agendized and they came as a surprise to people who are not members of either. As you are aware, | sat in the back of the room, | am not a member of either of these organizations. Councilmember Chao did not attend. Rotary and Chamber members were asked to stand and be recognized. The members of City Council were not named and recognized. Chamber members who regularly do business with the City, endorse candidates, flout the rules regarding the use of facilities and use them for campaigning purposes, contract with the City, and lobby the City, were present. Mayor Wei is a Board Member of the Cupertino Rotary, the Rotary has their plaques all hanging (without permission) in the Community Room where this event was held. This creates an unwelcome appearance of bias towards the Rotary and is against the Sponsorship Policy. Page 4 of the Sponsorship Policy, Resolution 18-101: Sponsorships that are generally not eligible for participation include those whose primary objectives, products, or services consist of the following: a. Religious and —— 0291 The Chamber and Rotary have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in free use of the City facilities. The Chamber Sponsorship is particularly inappropriate because the City contracts with their members: Recology and San Jose Water Company. In fact their members lobbied for the Recology contract renewal as opposed to sending it out to bid. Staff lobbied Council members to sell the water pipe network to San Jose Water Company in order to pay for a new City Hall. These all have the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Chamber is in direct competition with the City with regards to economic development and because of their political activism, should not be sponsoring events, certainly not the SOTC. The Rotary Club is working on a housing project with the City, and with Mayor Wei as their Board Member, certainly has the appearance of a conflict of interest. Why would only the Rotary apply for the Mary Avenue project? In the past the Rotary tried to take over Stocklmeier House to be their office in an effort by Richard Lowenthal. The City Council had been moving away from backchanneling and that work needs to continue. Your actions diminish trust and benefit two organizations with conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If you do not understand the problem and need it more explicitly explained, let me know. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 2:17 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Councilmember Moore, State of the City is a city event where Chamber and Rotary are providing support. Since this is a City event, there is no rental fee required to use Quinlan Center. City is providing video support and light refreshment. Chamber and Rotation are helping out with other logistics. Assigned tasks are documented in the executed MOU (attached). Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:08 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address As to coordinating schedules and the Roll Call, it would be inappropriate for the Mayor to ask two Councilmembers if they are attending, and leave the others off and have the agenda state “other council members may attend.” This does not create camaraderie. It sounds like this is a council of three. | look forward to the responses. It is odd to see the Mayor essentially help advertise her Rotary Club hosting this event with Chamber, and City Staff has actively worked to support it. 0292 Tone from the top. Regards, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore < > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:27 AM To: Kitty Moore < >; Christopher Jensen < >; Pamela Wu < >; City Clerk < > Cc: Liang Chao < > Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address All, Attached is a summary of Chamber issues which may be helpful. 1. How was the decision to move the City Council State of the City Address meeting to Quinlan made and by whom? a. How is the Mayor directing Staff or Chamber, or Rotary? Explain how this is allowed. 2. How was the decision to have the Rotary and Chamber involved made? a. Who paid for or waived the room fee? Who made that decision? b. What are the Rotary or Chamber providing? Who paid for it? How much? How was that decided? 4. Will the Agenda be amended to include the Roll Call, if not, how is quorum established? 5. When will the Presentation be made available? Holding the State of the City by any outside organization is a practice which should not have started and it had been done away with in order to democratize the event. | am extremely disappointed at this Staff and Mayor decision which does not establish fairness or trust among the Council. Stating that Councilmembers MA@Y attend their own City Council Special Meeting, is offensive. This should have been made part of the procedures manual since Staff and the Mayor were already putting this together behind the scenes when the Procedures Manual was being worked on. That does not make sense why it would be kept a secret (State of the City Policy). Sincerely, 0293 Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:58 AM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kkmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Note: City’s invitation links to Rotary Club which Mayor Wei is a Board Member of. From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 7, 2023 at 10:01:34 AM PST To: cekmoore@hotmail.com Subject: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . City of Cupertino 0294 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Wednesday, February 15 at 5:30 p.m. Reminder: Join us for the 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address presented by the City of Cupertino in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Learn about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and hear what is planned for the year ahead. The event will be held on Wednesday, February 15 with a reception starting at 5:30 p.m. at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 North Stelling Road. The event is free and open to the public, and RSVPs are encouraged. RSVP by tomorrow, February 8 at tinyurl.com/stateofthecity23. 2023 State of the City Flyer 0295 cupertino.org city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to cekmoore@hotmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California - 10300 Torre Avenue - Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0296 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 12:44 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Thanks, Pamela, | believe your response is telling me to be quiet about this and go away. Have a good rest of the week. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 7:07 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Councilmember Moore, thank you for your detailed emails regarding your complaint. In reviewing the information, Chris and | believe that your complaint should be reported to City’s fraud / waste / abuse hotline. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 2:37 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Hi Pamela, | would like to add to my complaint that the City emailed the public about the SOTC event 22 days prior to having the signing of the MOU completed. Once again the City Staff is working with handshake deals. The Chamber and Rotary had already sent their invitations, indicating that City Staff were working with the Chamber and Rotary with NO MOU. This is not unlike the handshake deals that have gone on for decades. These deals are a conflict of interest for the City and for members of Council involved in the organizations. How can we pretend to have a Recology or SJW contract in place in good faith when the City works deals to advertise for them? How can the City have a good faith contract with Rotary, granting them festival fee waivers and a housing project award on Mary without the City Staff and members of Council looking corrupted? This problem just goes from bad to worse the more it gets looked at. Sincerely, Kitty Moore 0297 PS: How do we find MOUs in the City Records? Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 at 12:38 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Hi Pamela, This email serves as an official complaint regarding the 2023 State of the City Address (SOTC) sponsorship by the Cupertino Rotary and Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Please see the attached Sponsorship Policy. As you are aware, the SOTC was an agendized Special Meeting of the City Council on February 15, 2023. The meeting Agenda stated: SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC MEETING 1. Subject: 2023 Cupertino State of the City Recommended Action: Receive Mayor Hung Wei's 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and what is planned for the year ahead. Other City Councilmembers may also attend. The Agenda did not state that anyone else would be speaking and the meeting was opened by the President of the Rotary who gave a presentation regarding the Rotary and the CEO of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce who then gave a presentation regarding the Chamber. Neither of these presentations were agendized and they came as a surprise to people who are not members of either. As you are aware, | sat in the back of the room, | am not a member of either of these organizations. Councilmember Chao did not attend. Rotary and Chamber members were asked to stand and be recognized. The members of City Council were not named and recognized. Chamber members who regularly do business with the City, endorse candidates, flout the rules regarding the use of facilities and use them for campaigning purposes, contract with the City, and lobby the City, were present. Mayor Wei is a Board Member of the Cupertino Rotary, the Rotary has their plaques all hanging (without permission) in the Community Room where this event was held. This creates an unwelcome appearance of bias towards the Rotary and is against the Sponsorship Policy. Page 4 of the Sponsorship Policy, Resolution 18-101: Sponsorships that are generally not eligible for participation include those whose primary objectives, products, or services consist of the following: Religious and a. The Chamber and Rotary have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in free use of the City facilities. The Chamber Sponsorship is particularly inappropriate because the City contracts with their members: Recology and San Jose Water Company. In fact their members lobbied for the Recology contract renewal as opposed to sending it out to bid. Staff lobbied Council members to sell the water pipe network to San Jose Water Company in order to pay for a new City Hall. These all have the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Chamber is in direct competition with the City with regards to economic development and because of their political activism, should not be sponsoring events, certainly not the SOTC. The Rotary Club is working on a housing project with the City, and with Mayor Wei as their Board Member, certainly has the appearance of a conflict of interest. Why would only the Rotary apply for the Mary Avenue project? In the past the Rotary tried to take over Stocklmeier House to be their office in an effort by Richard Lowenthal. The City Council had been moving away from backchanneling and that work needs to continue. Your actions diminish trust and benefit two organizations with conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If you do not understand the problem and need it more explicitly explained, let me know. 0298 Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 2:17 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Councilmember Moore, State of the City is a city event where Chamber and Rotary are providing support. Since this is a City event, there is no rental fee required to use Quinlan Center. City is providing video support and light refreshment. Chamber and Rotation are helping out with other logistics. Assigned tasks are documented in the executed MOU (attached). Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:08 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address As to coordinating schedules and the Roll Call, it would be inappropriate for the Mayor to ask two Councilmembers if they are attending, and leave the others off and have the agenda state “other council members may attend.” This does not create camaraderie. It sounds like this is a council of three. | look forward to the responses. It is odd to see the Mayor essentially help advertise her Rotary Club hosting this event with Chamber, and City Staff has actively worked to support it. Tone from the top. Regards, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0299 From: Kitty Moore < > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:27 AM To: Kitty Moore < >; Christopher Jensen < >; Pamela Wu < >; City Clerk < > Cc: Liang Chao < > Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address All, Attached is a summary of Chamber issues which may be helpful. 1. How was the decision to move the City Council State of the City Address meeting to Quinlan made and by whom? a. How is the Mayor directing Staff or Chamber, or Rotary? Explain how this is allowed. 2. How was the decision to have the Rotary and Chamber involved made? a. Who paid for or waived the room fee? Who made that decision? b. What are the Rotary or Chamber providing? Who paid for it? How much? How was that decided? 4. Will the Agenda be amended to include the Roll Call, if not, how is quorum established? 5. When will the Presentation be made available? Holding the State of the City by any outside organization is a practice which should not have started and it had been done away with in order to democratize the event. | am extremely disappointed at this Staff and Mayor decision which does not establish fairness or trust among the Council. Stating that Councilmembers MA@Y attend their own City Council Special Meeting, is offensive. This should have been made part of the procedures manual since Staff and the Mayor were already putting this together behind the scenes when the Procedures Manual was being worked on. That does not make sense why it would be kept a secret (State of the City Policy). Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore < > 0300 Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:58 AM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Note: City’s invitation links to Rotary Club which Mayor Wei is a Board Member of. From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 7, 2023 at 10:01:34 AM PST To: cekmoore@hotmail.com Subject: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. City of Cupertino 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Wednesday, February 15 at 5:30 p.m. Reminder: Join us for the 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address presented by the City of Cupertino in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Learn about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and hear what is planned for the year ahead. The event will be held on Wednesday, February 15 with a reception starting at 5:30 p.m. at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 North Stelling Road. The event is free and open to the public, and RSVPs are encouraged. RSVP by tomorrow, February 8 at tinyurl.com/stateofthecity23. 0301 2023 State of the City Flyer cupertino.org city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to cekmoore@hotmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California - 10300 Torre Avenue « Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0302 0303 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 1:01 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: CDTFA Attachment(s): "Bradley-Burns Distribution Handout_042921v3.pdf","June 2023 CDTFA Audit Public Update.pdf" Hi Pamela, The City’s own documentation outlines the expected drop in sales tax and that it is from CDTFA. This is from public information to the Council. The City, no I said who the top sales tax revenue generators are. I had also been providing CDTFA information to the VTA PAC regarding what each city’s sales tax revenues are because VTA has 2016 Measure B funding doled out to each city and I had collected that data and shared it and ask that it go to the Board to ensure equity in transit. I had also noted the the CDTFA amount for Cupertino doesn’t match our city’s, and researched into the Insight and Apple 35%/65% tax sharing agreements. I had even done my own calculations regarding the audit. Part of why Staff doesn’t like me… Have a good rest of your week. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:07 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: CDTFA Councilmember Moore, I don’t agree with your rational, and the city website does not disclose any more information than the statement that the City is undergoing a CTDFA audit. Information staff shared with you to get to the $30M estimate was confidential during a closed session. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:39 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: CDTFA Hi Pamela, Anyone understanding where the taxes come from would be able to estimate the CDTFA audit impact, in fact I was the person who told Director Alfaro that their estimates were too low. I said something like $32M. https://stories.opengov.com/cupertino/published/bqBgArFL5 Kitty Moore 0304 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0305 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 1:53 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: CDTFA Hi Pamela, https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx? id=962141&page=16&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino&searchid=c4afce7f-1e0e-4f6c-8986-cc49dedb396c You may want to go through the presentations and minutes from the Audit Committee for the past two years. The linked file above mentions the spike in sales tax the City received (around page 18) and makes it clear its electronics. Then we started hearing about this significant CDTFA audit, and not to mention Apple. I also know that BAZ Industries is the name the Accounts Payable posts for Apple sales tax reimbursements and have the publicly available contracts for both Apple and Insight. I made a commitment to really do my homework on the Audit Committee along with reviewing the Accounts Payable and the Budget documents as thoroughly as I could to understand them all and how the finances operate. There was one meeting with Dir. Alfaro where she mentioned the audit possibility results and I felt they were too low, we were shown charts. You can work backwards from the BAZ payments to determine their total sales amount out of the $58 Million or so that CDTFA posts. That was something I did along with tracking when the reimbursements are sent relative to the fiscal year to double check the ACFR amount which was slightly off and I asked Crowe about it. The financial documents we see do not reflect the entire picture of money movement by any means, and the annual accounting award looks good, but is paid for by the city to apply, and was granted regardless of embezzlement or proper internal controls or not. Now, with the short finance staff and not all local, I am very concerned that we have returned to having super user access happening again. Regards, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 10:01 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: CDTFA Hi Pamela, The City’s own documentation outlines the expected drop in sales tax and that it is from CDTFA. This is from public information to the Council. The City, no I said who the top sales tax revenue generators are. I had also been providing CDTFA information to the VTA PAC regarding what each city’s sales tax revenues are because VTA has 2016 Measure B funding doled out to each city and I had collected that data and shared it and ask that it go to the Board to ensure equity in transit. I had also noted the the CDTFA amount for Cupertino doesn’t match our city’s, and researched into the Insight and Apple 35%/65% tax sharing agreements. I had even done my own calculations regarding the audit. Part of why Staff doesn’t like me… Have a good rest of your week. Kitty Moore 0306 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:07 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: CDTFA Councilmember Moore, I don’t agree with your rational, and the city website does not disclose any more information than the statement that the City is undergoing a CTDFA audit. Information staff shared with you to get to the $30M estimate was confidential during a closed session. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:39 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: CDTFA Hi Pamela, Anyone understanding where the taxes come from would be able to estimate the CDTFA audit impact, in fact I was the person who told Director Alfaro that their estimates were too low. I said something like $32M. https://stories.opengov.com/cupertino/published/bqBgArFL5 Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0307 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 12:22 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Melissa Robertson <MelissaR@cupertino.org>; Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: Meals Provided for the Public at Council Meetings Hi Pamela, What is the meal policy for food put in the Council and Staff kitchen in Community Hall? I have never seen it handled oddly until the last two meetings. JR’s husband and Connie Cunningham apparently were granted access to the kitchen area before the whole Council had arrived and were given meals. I avoided the food and decided to eat nothing. At the end of the meeting JR, Hung, and JR’s husband went into the kitchen and carted off trays of the food. They asked if we (myself, Liang, and Kirsten) wanted some as they walked out. I would like my meal to have a bit of security around it, or just stick the trays in the lobby for everyone to mess through. I think the individual meals provided more security, however, if you are trying to make the meals like a soup kitchen, then that’s a Council Budget question to feed the needy, and for the Budget Officer to figure out? Who constitutes “the needy” is it JR’s friends? Is there a conflict with the labor agreement with regards to providing food? Who has researched this? This needs to be addressed so that individuals do not exploit the system. I suggest bringing this to Council to discuss. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0308 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 1:57 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address | agree. Please just forward the complaint to the FWA hotline. For other organizations to utilize the city venue (city facility and city staff resource for video taking and PR to advertise to all citizens) to advertise their own organization in a special Council Meeting as if it is their own club meeting, it is a misuse of public resource to publicize their own club and organization. The flyer of the state of the city by Cupertino Chamber and Rotary Club was likely only sent out to their own members or email subscribers, while excluding other Cupertino residents. Thanks. Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 7:08 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Councilmember Moore, thank you for your detailed emails regarding your complaint. In reviewing the information, Chris and | believe that your complaint should be reported to City’s fraud / waste / abuse hotline. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 2:37 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Hi Pamela, | would like to add to my complaint that the City emailed the public about the SOTC event 22 days prior to having the signing of the MOU completed. Once again the City Staff is working with handshake deals. The Chamber and Rotary had already sent their invitations, indicating that City Staff were working with the Chamber and Rotary with NO MOU. This is not unlike the handshake deals that have gone on for decades. These deals are a conflict of interest for the City and for members of Council involved in the organizations. How can we pretend to have a Recology or SJW contract in place in good faith when the City works deals to advertise for them? How can the City have a good faith contract with Rotary, granting them festival fee waivers and a housing project award on Mary without the City Staff and members of Council looking corrupted? 0309 This problem just goes from bad to worse the more it gets looked at. Sincerely, Kitty Moore PS: How do we find MOUs in the City Records? Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 at 12:38 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Hi Pamela, This email serves as an official complaint regarding the 2023 State of the City Address (SOTC) sponsorship by the Cupertino Rotary and Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Please see the attached Sponsorship Policy. As you are aware, the SOTC was an agendized Special Meeting of the City Council on February 15, 2023. The meeting Agenda stated: SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC MEETING 1. Subject: 2023 Cupertino State of the City Recommended Action: Receive Mayor Hung Wei's 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and what is planned for the year ahead. Other City Councilmembers may also attend. The Agenda did not state that anyone else would be speaking and the meeting was opened by the President of the Rotary who gave a presentation regarding the Rotary and the CEO of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce who then gave a presentation regarding the Chamber. Neither of these presentations were agendized and they came as a surprise to people who are not members of either. As you are aware, | sat in the back of the room, | am not a member of either of these organizations. Councilmember Chao did not attend. Rotary and Chamber members were asked to stand and be recognized. The members of City Council were not named and recognized. Chamber members who regularly do business with the City, endorse candidates, flout the rules regarding the use of facilities and use them for campaigning purposes, contract with the City, and lobby the City, were present. Mayor Wei is a Board Member of the Cupertino Rotary, the Rotary has their plaques all hanging (without permission) in the Community Room where this event was held. This creates an unwelcome appearance of bias towards the Rotary and is against the Sponsorship Policy. Page 4 of the Sponsorship Policy, Resolution 18-101: Sponsorships that are generally not eligible for participation include those whose primary objectives, products, or services consist of the following: a. Religious and The Chamber and Rotary have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in free use of the City facilities. The Chamber Sponsorship is particularly inappropriate because the City contracts with their members: Recology and San Jose Water Company. In fact their members lobbied for the Recology contract renewal as opposed to sending it out to bid. Staff lobbied Council members to sell the water pipe network to San Jose Water Company in order to pay for a new City Hall. These all have the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Chamber is in direct competition with the City with regards to economic development and because of their political activism, should not be sponsoring events, certainly not the SOTC. The Rotary Club is working on a housing project with the City, and with Mayor Wei as their Board Member, certainly has the appearance of a conflict of interest. Why would only the Rotary apply for the 0310 Mary Avenue project? In the past the Rotary tried to take over Stocklmeier House to be their office in an effort by Richard Lowenthal. The City Council had been moving away from backchanneling and that work needs to continue. Your actions diminish trust and benefit two organizations with conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If you do not understand the problem and need it more explicitly explained, let me know. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 2:17 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Councilmember Moore, State of the City is a city event where Chamber and Rotary are providing support. Since this is a City event, there is no rental fee required to use Quinlan Center. City is providing video support and light refreshment. Chamber and Rotation are helping out with other logistics. Assigned tasks are documented in the executed MOU (attached). Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:08 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address As to coordinating schedules and the Roll Call, it would be inappropriate for the Mayor to ask two Councilmembers if they are attending, and leave the others off and have the agenda state “other council members may attend.” This does not create camaraderie. It sounds like this is a council of three. | look forward to the responses. It is odd to see the Mayor essentially help advertise her Rotary Club hosting this event with Chamber, and City Staff has actively worked to support it. Tone from the top. Regards, Kitty Moore 0311 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore < > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:27 AM To: Kitty Moore < >; Christopher Jensen < >; Pamela Wu < >; City Clerk < > Cc: Liang Chao < > Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address All, Attached is a summary of Chamber issues which may be helpful. 1. How was the decision to move the City Council State of the City Address meeting to Quinlan made and by whom? a. How is the Mayor directing Staff or Chamber, or Rotary? Explain how this is allowed. 2. How was the decision to have the Rotary and Chamber involved made? 4. Will the Agenda be amended to include the Roll Call, if not, how is quorum established? 5. When will the Presentation be made available? Holding the State of the City by any outside organization is a practice which should not have started and it had been done away with in order to democratize the event. | am extremely disappointed at this Staff and Mayor decision which does not establish fairness or trust among the Council. Stating that Councilmembers MA@Y attend their own City Council Special Meeting, is offensive. This should have been made part of the procedures manual since Staff and the Mayor were already putting this together behind the scenes when the Procedures Manual was being worked on. That does not make sense why it would be kept a secret (State of the City Policy). 0312 Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:58 AM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kkmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Note: City’s invitation links to Rotary Club which Mayor Wei is a Board Member of. From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 7, 2023 at 10:01:34 AM PST To: cekmoore@hotmail.com Subject: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . City of Cupertino 0313 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Wednesday, February 15 at 5:30 p.m. Reminder: Join us for the 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address presented by the City of Cupertino in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Learn about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and hear what is planned for the year ahead. The event will be held on Wednesday, February 15 with a reception starting at 5:30 p.m. at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 North Stelling Road. The event is free and open to the public, and RSVPs are encouraged. RSVP by tomorrow, February 8 at tinyurl.com/stateofthecity23. 2023 State of the City Flyer 0314 cupertino.org city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help This email was sent to cekmoore@hotmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California - 10300 Torre Avenue - Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0315 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 4:35 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group I'm meeting the Government Relations person from Silicon Valley Business Group. If the staff wants to join the meeting to know what we talk about, which Pamela expressed a desire to know, you are welcome to join. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 10:41 AM To: Kristen Brown <kbrown@svlg.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group 3/9 at 1:30pm would work. Thanks. Liang Get Outlook for iOS Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kristen Brown <kbrown@svlg.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 10:09 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group 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 Councilmember Chao, I'm following-up today to invite you to join a Zoom meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group staff. We are interested in learning more about the issues of importance to you in your time on Council and how we may serve as a resource to you. Might you be available for a 30-minute virtual meeting at any of the following times? Tuesday, 3/7 at 12:00pm Thursday, 3/9 at 1:030pm Tuesday, 3/14 at 1:30pm If none of these times work for you, I'd be happy to look at additional dates. All the best, Kristen On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 10:41 AM Kristen Brown <kbrown@svlg.org> wrote: Hi Councilmember Chao,0316 I hope this message finds you well! I'm reaching out today to invite you to join a Zoom meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group staff. We are interested in learning more about the issues of importance to you in your time on Council and how we may serve as a resource to you. Might you be available for a 30-minute virtual meeting at any of the following times? Monday, 2/6 at 11:30am Thursday, 2/9 at 1:00pm Thursday, 2/23 at 1:30pm If none of these times work for you, I'd be happy to look at additional dates. Additionally, I wanted to make sure you received an invitation to join us at our special event celebrating newly elected officials from across the region. Our Member Mixer & Election Winner Celebration will take place this Thursday, February 2nd from 5pm to 7pm. We would love to have you join us! All the best, Kristen -- Kristen Brown (She/Her) Vice President, Local & Regional Government Relations Co-Lead, Women's Leadership Series M: 831.435.0806 Connect with us: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook -- Kristen Brown (She/Her) Vice President, Local & Regional Government Relations Co-Lead, Women's Leadership Series M: 831.435.0806 Connect with us: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook 0317 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 4:50 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group Some contexts. I received some contradicting advise from Pamela this morning in our discussion of last Thursday's meeting arranged by Santosh and I'm a bit confused. Advice #1: Pamela advised that a councilmember should not meet with these business entities to talk about the future of the city since the staff wants to know what we talk about in these meetings. Advice #2: Then, Pamela also advised that when the staff attends such a meeting, the staff should take control of the meeting and it is then an official meeting between the city of Cupertino and the business entity. In that case, anything a councilmember said could be construed as representing the city. Preferred Protocol #3: Thus, I decided that a cleaner way is to just not involve the city staff in any such meetings in the future so that the city staff does not get confused of their roles and the guests do not get confused of the intent of the meeting. Then, I got confused later and tried to follow advice #1 from Pamela when I forwarded her the meeting arrangement with SVLG, which does represent the interest of many big businesses. I'll follow Preferred Protocol #3 in the future, since Advice #1 and Advice #2 conflict with each other. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 1:35 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group I'm meeting the Government Relations person from Silicon Valley Business Group. If the staff wants to join the meeting to know what we talk about, which Pamela expressed a desire to know, you are welcome to join. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 10:41 AM To: Kristen Brown <kbrown@svlg.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group 3/9 at 1:30pm would work. Thanks.0318 Liang Get Outlook for iOS Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kristen Brown <kbrown@svlg.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 10:09 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group 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 Councilmember Chao, I'm following-up today to invite you to join a Zoom meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group staff. We are interested in learning more about the issues of importance to you in your time on Council and how we may serve as a resource to you. Might you be available for a 30-minute virtual meeting at any of the following times? Tuesday, 3/7 at 12:00pm Thursday, 3/9 at 1:030pm Tuesday, 3/14 at 1:30pm If none of these times work for you, I'd be happy to look at additional dates. All the best, Kristen On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 10:41 AM Kristen Brown <kbrown@svlg.org> wrote: Hi Councilmember Chao, I hope this message finds you well! I'm reaching out today to invite you to join a Zoom meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group staff. We are interested in learning more about the issues of importance to you in your time on Council and how we may serve as a resource to you. Might you be available for a 30-minute virtual meeting at any of the following times? Monday, 2/6 at 11:30am Thursday, 2/9 at 1:00pm Thursday, 2/23 at 1:30pm If none of these times work for you, I'd be happy to look at additional dates. Additionally, I wanted to make sure you received an invitation to join us at our special event celebrating newly elected officials from across the region. Our Member Mixer & Election Winner Celebration will take place this Thursday, February 2nd from 5pm to 7pm. We would love to have you join us! All the best, Kristen -- Kristen Brown (She/Her) Vice President, Local & Regional Government Relations Co-Lead, Women's Leadership Series M: 831.435.0806 0319 Connect with us: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook -- Kristen Brown (She/Her) Vice President, Local & Regional Government Relations Co-Lead, Women's Leadership Series M: 831.435.0806 Connect with us: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook 0320 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:06 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group The City Manager suggested: "What I respectfully requested from you this morning is to have a meeting like last Thursday coordinated through city staff." If I follow your advice, I would be directing the staff to attend a meeting when their attendance is entirely optional. That totally defeat the intent of the meeting to have an informal discussion to learn from industry professionals. So, you and your staff have totally misunderstood the intent of the meeting last Thursday regarding retail trend and then tried to paint a picture based on your own presumption. I cannot help with that. I'll follow my preferred protocol #3, as stated to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 2:10 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group Councilmember Chao, your upcoming meeting with the Silicon Valley Leadership group is very different from the meeting Santosh Rao organized. What I respectfully requested from you this morning is to have a meeting like last Thursday coordinated through city staff. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 1:50 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group Some contexts. I received some contradicting advise from Pamela this morning in our discussion of last Thursday's meeting arranged by Santosh and I'm a bit confused. Advice #1: Pamela advised that a councilmember should not meet with these business entities to talk about the future of the city since the staff wants to know what we talk about in these meetings. Advice #2: Then, Pamela also advised that when the staff attends such a meeting, the staff should take control of the meeting and it is then an official meeting between the city of Cupertino and the business entity. In that case, anything a councilmember said could be construed as representing the city. Preferred Protocol #3: Thus, I decided that a cleaner way is to just not involve the city staff in any such meetings in the future so that the city staff does not 0321 get confused of their roles and the guests do not get confused of the intent of the meeting. Then, I got confused later and tried to follow advice #1 from Pamela when I forwarded her the meeting arrangement with SVLG, which does represent the interest of many big businesses. I'll follow Preferred Protocol #3 in the future, since Advice #1 and Advice #2 conflict with each other. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 1:35 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org > Subject: Fwd: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group I'm meeting the Government Relations person from Silicon Valley Business Group. If the staff wants to join the meeting to know what we talk about, which Pamela expressed a desire to know, you are welcome to join. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 10:41 AM To: Kristen Brown <kbrown@svlg.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group 3/9 at 1:30pm would work. Thanks. Liang Get Outlook for iOS Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kristen Brown <kbrown@svlg.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 10:09 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group 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 Councilmember Chao, I'm following-up today to invite you to join a Zoom meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group staff. We are interested in learning 0322 more about the issues of importance to you in your time on Council and how we may serve as a resource to you. Might you be available for a 30-minute virtual meeting at any of the following times? · Tuesday, 3/7 at 12:00pm · Thursday, 3/9 at 1:030pm · Tuesday, 3/14 at 1:30pm If none of these times work for you, I'd be happy to look at additional dates. All the best, Kristen On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 10:41 AM Kristen Brown <kbrown@svlg.org> wrote: Hi Councilmember Chao, I hope this message finds you well! I'm reaching out today to invite you to join a Zoom meeting with Silicon Valley Leadership Group staff. We are interested in learning more about the issues of importance to you in your time on Council and how we may serve as a resource to you. Might you be available for a 30-minute virtual meeting at any of the following times? · Monday, 2/6 at 11:30am · Thursday, 2/9 at 1:00pm · Thursday, 2/23 at 1:30pm If none of these times work for you, I'd be happy to look at additional dates. Additionally, I wanted to make sure you received an invitation to join us at our special event celebrating newly elected officials from across the region. Our Member Mixer & Election Winner Celebration will take place this Thursday, February 2nd from 5pm to 7pm. We would love to have you join us! All the best, Kristen -- Kristen Brown (She/Her) Vice President, Local & Regional Government Relations Co-Lead, Women's Leadership Series M: 831.435.0806 Connect with us: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook -- Kristen Brown (She/Her) Vice President, Local & Regional Government Relations Co-Lead, Women's Leadership Series M: 831.435.0806 Connect with us: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook 0323 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:58 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Hi Pamela, I was asked by Santosh if I wanted to attend, and was surprised that Tina and Bill showed up. The subject matter seemed to be an exploration of what is going on in retail. I have attended ICSC and CAREA events along with events held by Sand Hill Property and met with various developers over the years. I asked Tina if she had given them her contact and she already had. I have no idea why Tina and Bill were there, but when she came in I asked Santosh is this was expected and he said yes. We can, and do converse with developers, they are stakeholders. It would be my preference if no Staff were present, but I didn’t organize it. Over the years, the most inappropriate meetings have been Staff working with, and forming plans the public doesn’t want, with developers. At least with Councilmembers, we have a duty to divulge the contact. Have a nice evening. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:09 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Councilmember Chao and Councilmember Moore, I learned of a meeting that took place at City Hall on 2/23, that involved Tina Kapoor, Bill Mitchell (city staff), Santosh Rao (Cupertino resident), LBX Investments (retail investors) and both of you. Tina and I were notified of such meeting the day of via an email from Councilmember Chao. As I was out of the office that day, I was not able to attend. However, I asked Tina to attend, along with another staff member. Bill Mitchell attended the meeting virtually. In the original email invitation from Councilmember Chao, it is unclear that Councilmember Moore would be in attendance as well. Based on the summary provided by Tina and Bill, the intent of the meeting was to receive input from LBX Investments, a retail developer. Both Santosh and council members were interested in learning how to attract more retail opportunities to the City. Although LBX Investment disclosed that they currently do not have any projects in Northern California, it is unclear if the intent of the meeting is to seek any investment opportunity in the City. LBX Investment did highlight that places they have made investment typically do not have many regulations (unlike California). During the meeting, Santosh asked IBX Investment how city staff can learn more of retail opportunities, and the developer suggested attending conferences such as ICSC or ULI. At the end of the meeting, Councilmember Moore asked Tina to provide her contact information to LBX Investment representative. I am writing to inform you that the meeting was highly inappropriate and respectfully ask you to delegate such meetings in the future to city staff. I respectfully request all of the future contacts to be coordinated through City Manager’s office. When appropriate, city staff will invite council, private residents to these meetings. Pamela 0324 Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0325 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:19 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Pamela, In my conversation with you, I have specifically requested that you include the email thread where I invited the staff to attend if you are going to write any report so that there is the context, rather than just a third person description of what happened. But you did not include the context. I was trying to be inclusive and invited the city staff just in case you are interested and are available. This is a meeting arranged by a resident to meet with industry professionals who are in an area Cupertino wish to develop, since as a councilmember I am interested to enhance my knowledge in such area by talking to different people to learn different perspectives. This is completely within my responsibility as a city councilmember. If you strongly think the meeting was inappropriate, please quote any Muni Code or any state law, rather than making up rules on the fly. It is quite confusing to be accused of inappropriate behavior on a rule I did not know existed. Appreciate it. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:09 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Councilmember Chao and Councilmember Moore, I learned of a meeting that took place at City Hall on 2/23, that involved Tina Kapoor, Bill Mitchell (city staff), Santosh Rao (Cupertino resident), LBX Investments (retail investors) and both of you. Tina and I were notified of such meeting the day of via an email from Councilmember Chao. As I was out of the office that day, I was not able to attend. However, I asked Tina to attend, along with another staff member. Bill Mitchell attended the meeting virtually. In the original email invitation from Councilmember Chao, it is unclear that Councilmember Moore would be in attendance as well. Based on the summary provided by Tina and Bill, the intent of the meeting was to receive input from LBX Investments, a retail developer. Both Santosh and council members were interested in learning how to attract more retail opportunities to the City. Although LBX Investment disclosed that they currently do not have any projects in Northern California, it is unclear if the intent of the meeting is to seek any investment opportunity in the City. LBX Investment did highlight that places they have made investment typically do not have many regulations (unlike California). During the meeting, Santosh asked IBX Investment how city staff can learn more of retail opportunities, and the developer suggested attending conferences such as ICSC or ULI. At the end of the meeting, Councilmember Moore asked Tina to provide her contact information to LBX Investment representative. I am writing to inform you that the meeting was highly inappropriate and respectfully ask you to delegate such meetings in the future to city staff. I respectfully request all of the future contacts to be coordinated through City Manager’s office. When appropriate, city staff will invite council, private residents to these meetings. Pamela 0326 Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0327 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 11:26 PM EST To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers I intend to continue to utilize the city meeting rooms when I am meeting people as a city councilmember and when it makes sense to do so. It is my right as a council member to use a city meeting room and I'm being transparent on who I meet in my role as a city council member. If any one has a problem with that, please let me know your rationale. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:02 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Hi Councilmember Chao, Yesterday on the CALE call were FOUR Councilmembers and the PC Chair. I put a note in the chat with a “friendly Brown Act reminder” and I jumped off leaving Hung Wei, Sheila Mohan, and JR Fruen and Steven Scharf. Pamela’s job includes helping each Councilmember succeed, without preference. I appreciate understanding that you invited Tina Kapoor, and she could confer with Pamela and decline. If Pamela is attempting to say you’re directing Staff, that would be a problem, because she could decline. It felt like Bill was added as a babysitter and he did not contribute. In the future, just meet elsewhere and avoid this hassle. The Manager is not only unsupportive, but antagonistic. I appreciate your positive efforts to provide better understanding of the retail situation here. Thank you and keep up the good work! Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 6:39 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Pamela seems to think somehow two Councilmembers attending the meeting is not advisable either. And took issue with that. Pamela wrote: "In the original email invitation from Councilmember Chao, it is unclear that Councilmember 0328 Moore would be in attendance as well." The fact is that I did not know Councilmember Moore would attend either when I forwarded the meeting request to extend the invitation to the city staff, just in case they are interested and are available. Santosh did call later to inform me that Councilmember Moore can also attend, not long before 2pm, the meeting time. I don't see much difference between two Councilmembers attending such meeting versus one, as long as it is not a quorum of the council. In my conversation with Pamela this morning, I mentioned that some city Councilmembers regularly attend the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action committee meeting, in their capacity as a councilmember too. It's clear that they don't represent the council in that context. Pamela indicated that she doesn't think any councilmember should attend the Chamber LAC either. If that's another new rule, the staff might wish to communicate that clearly to all Councilmembers. I know that before I got on the Council, Cupertino Councilmembers attended Chamber LAC meetings. After I got on the council, I have attended Chamber LAC meetings many times to be more connected to our business community. I got busy in the past one or two years and have not attended. If that's inappropriate now, based on new legal advice, it's a good idea to clarify that to all Councilmembers and the Chamber. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 6:19 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Pamela, In my conversation with you, I have specifically requested that you include the email thread where I invited the staff to attend if you are going to write any report so that there is the context, rather than just a third person description of what happened. But you did not include the context. I was trying to be inclusive and invited the city staff just in case you are interested and are available. This is a meeting arranged by a resident to meet with industry professionals who are in an area Cupertino wish to develop, since as a councilmember I am interested to enhance my knowledge in such area by talking to different people to learn different perspectives. This is completely within my responsibility as a city councilmember. If you strongly think the meeting was inappropriate, please quote any Muni Code or any state law, rather than making up rules on the fly. It is quite confusing to be accused of inappropriate behavior on a rule I did not know existed. Appreciate it. Liang 0329 Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:09 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Councilmember Chao and Councilmember Moore, I learned of a meeting that took place at City Hall on 2/23, that involved Tina Kapoor, Bill Mitchell (city staff), Santosh Rao (Cupertino resident), LBX Investments (retail investors) and both of you. Tina and I were notified of such meeting the day of via an email from Councilmember Chao. As I was out of the office that day, I was not able to attend. However, I asked Tina to attend, along with another staff member. Bill Mitchell attended the meeting virtually. In the original email invitation from Councilmember Chao, it is unclear that Councilmember Moore would be in attendance as well. Based on the summary provided by Tina and Bill, the intent of the meeting was to receive input from LBX Investments, a retail developer. Both Santosh and council members were interested in learning how to attract more retail opportunities to the City. Although LBX Investment disclosed that they currently do not have any projects in Northern California, it is unclear if the intent of the meeting is to seek any investment opportunity in the City. LBX Investment did highlight that places they have made investment typically do not have many regulations (unlike California). During the meeting, Santosh asked IBX Investment how city staff can learn more of retail opportunities, and the developer suggested attending conferences such as ICSC or ULI. At the end of the meeting, Councilmember Moore asked Tina to provide her contact information to LBX Investment representative. I am writing to inform you that the meeting was highly inappropriate and respectfully ask you to delegate such meetings in the future to city staff. I respectfully request all of the future contacts to be coordinated through City Manager’s office. When appropriate, city staff will invite council, private residents to these meetings. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0330 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 3:38 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Complaint RE SOTC Sponsorship Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Attachment(s): "Sponsorship Policy.pdf","Pages from Written Communications (Updated 05-04-2022) (3).pdf","Chamber Pages from 06-21-2022 Searchable Packet (1).pdf" Hi Pamela, This email serves as an official complaint regarding the 2023 State of the City Address (SOTC) sponsorship by the Cupertino Rotary and Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Please see the attached Sponsorship Policy. As you are aware, the SOTC was an agendized Special Meeting of the City Council on February 15, 2023. The meeting Agenda stated: SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC MEETING 1. Subject: 2023 Cupertino State of the City Recommended Action: Receive Mayor Hung Wei's 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and what is planned for the year ahead. Other City Councilmembers may also attend. The Agenda did not state that anyone else would be speaking and the meeting was opened by the President of the Rotary who gave a presentation regarding the Rotary and the CEO of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce who then gave a presentation regarding the Chamber. Neither of these presentations were agendized and they came as a surprise to people who are not members of either. As you are aware, | sat in the back of the room, | am not a member of either of these organizations. Councilmember Chao did not attend. Rotary and Chamber members were asked to stand and be recognized. The members of City Council were not named and recognized. Chamber members who regularly do business with the City, endorse candidates, flout the rules regarding the use of facilities and use them for campaigning purposes, contract with the City, and lobby the City, were present. Mayor Wei is a Board Member of the Cupertino Rotary, the Rotary has their plaques all hanging (without permission) in the Community Room where this event was held. This creates an unwelcome appearance of bias towards the Rotary and is against the Sponsorship Policy. Page 4 of the Sponsorship Policy, Resolution 18-101: Sponsorships that are generally not eligible for participation include those whose primary objectives, products, or services consist of the following: a. Religious and The Chamber and Rotary have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in free use of the City facilities. The Chamber Sponsorship is particularly inappropriate because the City contracts with their members: Recology and San Jose Water Company. In fact their members lobbied for the Recology contract renewal as opposed to sending it out to bid. Staff lobbied Council members to sell the water pipe network to San Jose Water Company in order to pay for a new City Hall. These all have the appearance of a conflict of interest. The Chamber is in direct competition with the City with regards to economic development and because of their political activism, should not be sponsoring events, certainly not the SOTC. The Rotary Club is working on a housing project with the City, and with Mayor Wei as their Board Member, certainly has the appearance of a conflict of interest. Why would only the Rotary apply for the Mary Avenue project? In the past the Rotary tried to take over Stocklmeier House to be their office in an effort by Richard Lowenthal. The City Council had been moving away from backchanneling and that work needs to continue. Your actions diminish trust and benefit two organizations with conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If you do not understand the problem and need it more explicitly explained, let me know. Sincerely, Kitty Moore 0331 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 2:17 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Councilmember Moore, State of the City is a city event where Chamber and Rotary are providing support. Since this is a City event, there is no rental fee required to use Quinlan Center. City is providing video support and light refreshment. Chamber and Rotation are helping out with other logistics. Assigned tasks are documented in the executed MOU (attached). Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:08 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address As to coordinating schedules and the Roll Call, it would be inappropriate for the Mayor to ask two Councilmembers if they are attending, and leave the others off and have the agenda state “other council members may attend.” This does not create camaraderie. It sounds like this is a council of three. | look forward to the responses. It is odd to see the Mayor essentially help advertise her Rotary Club hosting this event with Chamber, and City Staff has actively worked to support it. Tone from the top. Regards, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0332 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 11:27 AM To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address All, Attached is a summary of Chamber issues which may be helpful. 1. How was the decision to move the City Council State of the City Address meeting to Quinlan made and by whom? a. How is the Mayor directing Staff or Chamber, or Rotary? Explain how this is allowed. 2. How was the decision to have the Rotary and Chamber involved made? a. Who paid for or waived the room fee? Who made that decision? b. What are the Rotary or Chamber providing? Who paid for it? How much? How was that decided? 4. Will the Agenda be amended to include the Ko ow IS quorum established : 5. When will the Presentation be made available? Holding the State of the City by any outside organization is a practice which should not have started and it had been done away with in order to democratize the event. | am extremely disappointed at this Staff and Mayor decision which does not establish fairness or trust among the Council. Stating that Councilmembers may attend their own City Council Special Meeting, is offensive. This should have been made part of the procedures manual since Staff and the Mayor were already putting this together behind the scenes when the Procedures Manual was being worked on. That does not make sense why it would be kept a secret (State of the City Policy). Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:58 AM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <«Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address 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. 0333 Note: City’s invitation links to Rotary Club which Mayor Wei is a Board Member of. From: City of Cupertino <cupertino@public.govdelivery.com> Date: February 7, 2023 at 10:01:34 AM PST To: cekmoore@hotmail.com Subject: RSVP by Tomorrow for 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Reply-To: cupertino@public.govdelivery.com Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page . City of Cupertino 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address Wednesday, February 15 at 5:30 p.m. Reminder: Join us for the 2023 Cupertino State of the City Address presented by the City of Cupertino in partnership with the Cupertino Rotary and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Learn about the current state of affairs in Cupertino and hear what is planned for the year ahead. The event will be held on Wednesday, February 15 with a reception starting at 5:30 p.m. at Quinlan Community Center, 10185 North Stelling Road. The event is free and open to the public, and RSVPs are encouraged. RSVP by tomorrow, February 8 at tinyurl.com/stateofthecity23. 0334 2023 State of the City Flyer cupertino.org city of Cupertino City of Cupertino, California Website | 408.777.3200 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 twitter Manage Preferences | Help 0335 This email was sent to cekmoore@hotmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California - 10300 Torre Avenue - Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 0336 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2023 11:02 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Council Meal Dietetics Hi Pamela, I have mentioned the meals provided to the Planning Commission and Council over the past few years are grossly fattening. I should not eat high sodium and high fat foods according to my physician. My mother and grandmothers died prematurely and I would like to not follow their early deaths. Would you please provide low-fat and low-sodium heart healthy options? If not please write in detail why you will not and why. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0337 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 10:45 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Council Meal Room and Speaker Cards Hi Pamela, Two members of the public have mentioned concerns to me today about the last Council meeting. One had their speaker card go missing and there was something unusual seen by a member of the public. And there was a guest of a Councilmember on the dais and around our work areas during the break and the guest was also brought into the food room. As a gentle reminder, the Manager is supposed to support all of the Council members, not just those she passes notes and whispers with on the dais. The Manager should help foster decorum and fairness among Councilmembers and not create favoritism towards adhesive spouses. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0338 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 1:00 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Item 11 Error and Questions Attachment(s): "Economic Development Committee Brown Act.pdf","EDC Minutes 1996 to 2021_compressed_1.pdf","Chamber Summary .pdf","Chamber Summary1.pdf" Hi Pamela, Item 11: there is no Local Assessment Committee, the Agenda is in error. Please review the attachments. What is you reason for preferring secret meetings with your own private “working group” is better than having a codified Economic Development Committee? When you think of transparency, trust, and accountability, how is you private “working group” going to foster that? Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0339 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 12:40 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Item 6 Bench Question Hi Pamela, What precedent does the City have for giving away city property to an individual? Is it good policy to give away city property when staff made an error? Who authorized staff to redo the donation policy when staff is allegedly very busy such that they cannot do the Work Plan and CIP items? Is this good strategic focus? Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0340 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 3:18 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Public Records Requests Hi, I am alarmed at seeing that requests for records asked through our city email account also count as Public Records Requests. This was not made clear in the Procedural Manual Meeting. What this means is that we cannot ask for information from anyone but you which is not in keeping with the Municipal Code. Chris does not work for you, and he was not hired by you. https://cityofcupertinoca.nextrequest.com/requests/23-12 The above link should show the PRR that Jean Bedord did, asking for Councilmember Chao and my requests for records. An internal email request from Councilmember Chao shows up. I had just figured that Staff didn’t like that I used my personal email to make requests, I had noticed that my internal requests hadn’t been posted, and now they are. All this policy does is make you look like you have plenty more beyond HdL, Maze, Boucher, and Chamber backchanneling to hide. This is even more disappointing than I had realized. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0341 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 11:02 PM EST To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Hi Councilmember Chao, Yesterday on the CALE call were FOUR Councilmembers and the PC Chair. I put a note in the chat with a “friendly Brown Act reminder” and I jumped off leaving Hung Wei, Sheila Mohan, and JR Fruen and Steven Scharf. Pamela’s job includes helping each Councilmember succeed, without preference. I appreciate understanding that you invited Tina Kapoor, and she could confer with Pamela and decline. If Pamela is attempting to say you’re directing Staff, that would be a problem, because she could decline. It felt like Bill was added as a babysitter and he did not contribute. In the future, just meet elsewhere and avoid this hassle. The Manager is not only unsupportive, but antagonistic. I appreciate your positive efforts to provide better understanding of the retail situation here. Thank you and keep up the good work! Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 6:39 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Pamela seems to think somehow two Councilmembers attending the meeting is not advisable either. And took issue with that. Pamela wrote: "In the original email invitation from Councilmember Chao, it is unclear that Councilmember Moore would be in attendance as well." The fact is that I did not know Councilmember Moore would attend either when I forwarded the meeting request to extend the invitation to the city staff, just in case they are interested and are available. Santosh did call later to inform me that Councilmember Moore can also attend, not long before 2pm, the meeting time. I don't see much difference between two Councilmembers attending such meeting versus one, as long as it is not a quorum of the council. In my conversation with Pamela this morning, I mentioned that some city Councilmembers regularly attend the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action committee meeting, in their capacity as a councilmember too. It's clear that they don't represent the council in that context. Pamela indicated that she doesn't think any councilmember should attend the Chamber LAC either. If that's another new rule, the staff might wish to communicate that clearly to all Councilmembers. I know that before I got on the Council, Cupertino Councilmembers attended Chamber LAC meetings. After I got on the council, I have attended Chamber LAC meetings many times to be more connected to our business community. I got busy in the past one or two years and have not attended. If that's inappropriate now, based on new legal advice, it's a good idea to clarify that to all Councilmembers and the Chamber. Thanks.0342 Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 6:19 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Pamela, In my conversation with you, I have specifically requested that you include the email thread where I invited the staff to attend if you are going to write any report so that there is the context, rather than just a third person description of what happened. But you did not include the context. I was trying to be inclusive and invited the city staff just in case you are interested and are available. This is a meeting arranged by a resident to meet with industry professionals who are in an area Cupertino wish to develop, since as a councilmember I am interested to enhance my knowledge in such area by talking to different people to learn different perspectives. This is completely within my responsibility as a city councilmember. If you strongly think the meeting was inappropriate, please quote any Muni Code or any state law, rather than making up rules on the fly. It is quite confusing to be accused of inappropriate behavior on a rule I did not know existed. Appreciate it. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:09 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Councilmember Chao and Councilmember Moore, I learned of a meeting that took place at City Hall on 2/23, that involved Tina Kapoor, Bill Mitchell (city staff), Santosh Rao (Cupertino resident), LBX Investments (retail investors) and both of you. Tina and I were notified of such meeting the day of via an email from Councilmember Chao. As I was out of the office that day, I was not able to attend. However, I asked Tina to attend, along with another staff member. Bill Mitchell attended the meeting virtually. In the original email invitation from Councilmember Chao, it is unclear that Councilmember Moore would be in attendance as well. Based on the summary provided by Tina and Bill, the intent of the meeting was to receive input from LBX Investments, a retail developer. Both Santosh and council members were interested in learning how to attract more retail opportunities to the City. 0343 Although LBX Investment disclosed that they currently do not have any projects in Northern California, it is unclear if the intent of the meeting is to seek any investment opportunity in the City. LBX Investment did highlight that places they have made investment typically do not have many regulations (unlike California). During the meeting, Santosh asked IBX Investment how city staff can learn more of retail opportunities, and the developer suggested attending conferences such as ICSC or ULI. At the end of the meeting, Councilmember Moore asked Tina to provide her contact information to LBX Investment representative. I am writing to inform you that the meeting was highly inappropriate and respectfully ask you to delegate such meetings in the future to city staff. I respectfully request all of the future contacts to be coordinated through City Manager’s office. When appropriate, city staff will invite council, private residents to these meetings. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0344 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 8:32 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Council Meal Room and Speaker Cards The individual turned another card in when they realized they hadn’t been called, this was not alleging Kirsten did anything, but that someone else did. I have no idea if people are stressed and forgetful or what happened, but I am passing it along to be aware of. I am very well aware of Kirsten’s excellent work and extremely high standards! Best regards and Happy Valentine’s Day to everyone! Kitty Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 5:23 PM To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Council Meal Room and Speaker Cards Kirsten, thanks for clarifying that there wasn’t any missing / misplaced speaker incident from the 2/7 meeting. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:01 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Council Meal Room and Speaker Cards Good afternoon Pamela, I was not notified of a missing/misplaced speaker card. This is concerning since I am careful about ensuring fairness in our public comment process. I am happy to follow-up with that person. Regards, Kirsten Kirsten Squarcia City Clerk City Manager's Office KirstenS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3225 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 2:34 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Council Meal Room and Speaker Cards 0345 Removing CM Chao and adding Debra and Clerk’s office Kirsten – can you clarify what happened to the speaker card? Did we skip or misplace it? In terms of your suggestions for the “Manager’s behavior, I assume they were mean for me. If so, they are duly noted. However, I would like to further discuss them with you in person. Debra will follow up with a meeting time. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 7:46 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Council Meal Room and Speaker Cards Hi Pamela, Two members of the public have mentioned concerns to me today about the last Council meeting. One had their speaker card go missing and there was something unusual seen by a member of the public. And there was a guest of a Councilmember on the dais and around our work areas during the break and the guest was also brought into the food room. As a gentle reminder, the Manager is supposed to support all of the Council members, not just those she passes notes and whispers with on the dais. The Manager should help foster decorum and fairness among Councilmembers and not create favoritism towards adhesive spouses. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0346 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 7:39 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Meeting Time Info Request Hi, I am asking for the actual scheduled times. How much is each councilmember scheduled for. If you are not wanting to divulge that, is it not allowed to be shared? Thanks. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 3:32 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Meeting Time Info Request Councilmember Moore, as Chris mentioned, Council may wish to schedule meetings with Chris and I as you see fit. Councilmembers sometimes schedule meetings with Department Heads or other staff to discuss a particular topic. We do not keep a track of these meetings and it will take a substantial amount of research in doing so. To clarify, my weekly 1:1's with councilmembers have been at a minimum of 30-minutes. However, most of my meetings have run close to an hour or longer, pending on topics. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 12:49 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Meeting Time Info Request Hi Councilmember Moore: All councilmembers are offered the opportunity to schedule regular meetings with me at their discretion, without any direction on my part as to frequency or duration. Regards, Chris Christopher Jensen City Attorney City Attorney's Office ChristopherJ@cupertino.org (408)777-3105 -----Original Message----- From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2023 12:31 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Meeting Time Info Request 0347 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, Apparently Councilmembers do not have the same amounts of time scheduled with the Manager, City Attorney, and perhaps other staff. Would you please provide me with a simple break down of each Councilmember and the staff time scheduled for each. I know that I am only scheduled 30 minutes vs more time for other Councilmembers with the Manager, for example. Thanks! Kitty Moore 0348 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 5:20 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Hi Pamela, | am sorry that you do not accept that my assessment of your work does not match your own, nor do you seem to care why that would be. You are demanding that | not tell you what | think unless it bolsters your own self-assessment, and so | will no longer share my opinions. Have a good day. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:07 AM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Councilmember Moore, please note that | take great pride in my line of work. As an ICMA member serving the role of the Cupertino City Manager, | operate not only according to the Cupertino Municipal Code but also the code of ethics for any City Manager. With that said, | take great offense from your statements that | have been unfair to council where | play favoritism towards selected councilmembers. | dedicate the same amount of time to each of you where you need my assistances. | schedule the same frequencies and meeting duration for all of the 1:1s, except for a longer discussion time with the Mayor as | have explained to you previously. In fact, | have reached out several times to meet with you to discuss your concerns, but | have yet to receive any response back from you. You have also elected to not attend our regular 1:1 meetings for several weeks, without any advanced notices. Perhaps you are caught up with other calendaring conflicts. Yet we continue to reserve such meeting times on our calendars. | serve each councilmember and the entire council, with dignity and professionalism. When | learned of last week’s meeting, | found it highly inappropriate in many different ways. It is my obligation to inform you and Councilmember Chao immediately. If you disagree, | ask that you follow the guidelines from the adopted ethic _ “The professional and personal conduct of City elected/appointed officials and staff should berespectful of others, recognizing that individuals can . City elected/appointed officials and staff should refrain upon the character or motives of others, including members of the Council, boards and commissions, , or the public.” Lastly, | ask you to retrieve all of your unsubstantiated statements on how | have unfairly treated councilmembers, how | have been unsupportive and antagonistic toward selected councilmembers and etc. | find these statements extremely harmful and demand you to stop such behaviors immediately. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0349 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:06 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Hi Councilmember Chao et al, | appreciate that you assert yourself as an equal Councilmember when my advice is to avoid the Manager because she is unsupportive. The City Attorney does not adhere to the Municipal Code “candor” issue and will choose to provide information which defends the City at the expense of blunt accuracy, in my opinion, which renders his words suspect and not useful. Despite such a wonderful education and experience. | find our 2 employees useless for my needs to be honest and forthright, provide clarity, knowledge, and honesty, candor if that is better, the point is that they are under Mayor Wei’s rule and will play accordingly. | know it is a revenge tour, it has been researched. This is the current reality. And neither live here. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0350 From: Liang Chao < > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:30 PM To: Christopher Jensen < >; Kitty Moore < > Cc: Pamela Wu < > Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers | joined the CALE call too and caught the last 20 minutes with the AG. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kitty Moore < > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:03 PM To: Liang Chao < >; Pamela Wu < > Cc: Christopher Jensen < > Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Hi Councilmember Chao, Yesterday on the CALE call were FOUR Councilmembers and the PC Chair. | put a note in the chat with a “friendly Brown Act reminder” and | jumped off leaving Hung Wei, Sheila Mohan, and JR Fruen and Steven Scharf. Pamela’s job includes helping each Councilmember succeed, without preference. | appreciate understanding that you invited Tina Kapoor, and she could confer with Pamela and decline. If Pamela is attempting to say you’re directing Staff, that would be a problem, because she could decline. It felt like Bill was added as a babysitter and he did not contribute. In the future, just meet elsewhere and avoid this hassle. The Manager is not only unsupportive, but antagonistic. | appreciate your positive efforts to provide better understanding of the retail situation here. Thank you and keep up the good work! Kitty Moore 0351 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 6:39 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Pamela seems to think somehow two Councilmembers attending the meeting is not advisable either. And took issue with that. Pamela wrote: "In the original email invitation from Councilmember Chao, it is unclear that Councilmember Moore would be in attendance as well." The fact is that | did not know Councilmember Moore would attend either when | forwarded the meeting request to extend the invitation to the city staff, just in case they are interested and are available. Santosh did call later to inform me that Councilmember Moore can also attend, not long before 2pm, the meeting time. | don't see much difference between two Councilmembers attending such meeting versus one, as long as it is not a quorum of the council. In my conversation with Pamela this morning, | mentioned that some city Councilmembers regularly attend the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action committee meeting, in their capacity as a councilmember too. It's clear that they don't represent the council in that context. Pamela indicated that she doesn't think any councilmember should attend the Chamber LAC either. If that's another new rule, the staff might wish to communicate that clearly to all Councilmembers. | know that before | got on the Council, Cupertino Councilmembers attended Chamber LAC meetings. After | got on the council, | have attended Chamber LAC meetings many times to be more connected to our business community. | got busy in the past one or two years and have not attended. If that's inappropriate now, based on new legal advice, it's a good idea to clarify that to all Councilmembers and the Chamber. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 6:19 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Pamela, In my conversation with you, | have specifically requested that you include the email thread where | invited the staff to attend if you are going to write any report so that there is the context, rather than just a third person description of what happened. But you did not include the context. | was trying to be inclusive and invited the city staff just in case you are interested and are available. 0352 This is a meeting arranged by a resident to meet with industry professionals who are in an area Cupertino wish to develop, since as a councilmember | am interested to enhance my knowledge in such area by talking to different people to learn different perspectives. This is completely within my responsibility as a city councilmember. If you strongly think the meeting was inappropriate, please quote any Muni Code or any state law, rather than making up rules on the fly. It is quite confusing to be accused of inappropriate behavior on a rule | did not know existed. Appreciate it. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:09 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: 2/23/2023 meeting with Santosh and Councilmembers Councilmember Chao and Councilmember Moore, | learned of a meeting that took place at City Hall on 2/23, that involved Tina Kapoor, Bill Mitchell (city staff), Santosh Rao (Cupertino resident), LBX Investments (retail investors) and both of you. Tina and | were notified of such meeting the day of via an email from Councilmember Chao. As | was out of the office that day, | was not able to attend. However, | asked Tina to attend, along with another staff member. Bill Mitchell attended the meeting virtually. In the original email invitation from Councilmember Chao, it is unclear that Councilmember Moore would be in attendance as well. Based on the summary provided by Tina and Bill, the intent of the meeting was to receive input from LBX Investments, a retail developer. Both Santosh and council members were interested in learning how to attract more retail opportunities to the City. Although LBX Investment disclosed that they currently do not have any projects in Northern California, it is unclear if the intent of the meeting is to seek any investment opportunity in the City. LBX Investment did highlight that places they have made investment typically do not have many regulations (unlike California). During the meeting, Santosh asked IBX Investment how city staff can learn more of retail opportunities, and the developer suggested attending conferences such as ICSC or ULI. At the end of the meeting, Councilmember Moore asked Tina to provide her contact information to LBX Investment representative. | am writing to inform you that the meeting was highly inappropriate and respectfully ask you to delegate such meetings in the future to city staff. | respectfully request all of the future contacts to be coordinated through City Manager’s office. When appropriate, city staff will invite council, private residents to these meetings. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0353 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 5:59 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Pamela, Appreciate the response. Follow-up to Q2: These questions are referring to previous permit approvals either 2015 or subsequent ones when the composition of retail mix is changed. So, I think the information requested in Q2 should be readily available and it has not been provided to me after the question was sent on Feb. 4. Follow-up to Q5: Let me rephrase it. Condition #9 states a required cap of 40% "food service use". A 2015-Modified Permit, approved by the CDC after examining the parking AND traffic analysis (I assume, but I have not seen the approval letter or modified permit) appears to have changed Condition #9 to require a cap of "restaurant use". So, Q5 is trying to clarify whether Main Street is substantially compliant with "40% cap on food service use" or "40% cap on restaurant use"? Thanks! Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 1:35 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Councilmember Chao, Please see my responses below in red. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:32 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage To recap, here are my questions. I don't see answers in the 2/21 memo: I’ve provided an explanation to you in my 2/20 email (see attached). If you disagree with my explanation, it is different than stating that staff did not provide you with an answer.0354 Q2: Could we get a list of the square footages and the tenants please? I assume that this information is readily available since the staff must have done the analysis when any use permit was approved. Which tenant is considered a "restaurant" or a "specialty food service"? I am not sure if this information is readily available. If we still have the 2015 record and is available, CDD staff can follow up. We do not have the current data. Q3: The staff report vaguely mentions that the restaurant uses "being approximately 41%" the percentage of “food service” (i.e., restaurant + specialty foods) uses to slightly over 50% But does this percentage referred to recent changes? Like the Target Express. I am confused. No, it does NOT include the recent target express modification. Q4: It seems the staff report implies that there was an approval by the Director of Community Developmemt in 2015 (after receiving the 2015 traffic analysis) to adjust the percentage? Or change the "40% food service use" cap to "40% restsurant" cap. Where do I find the approval letter of such a change? CDD staff will provide the 2015 approval. Q5: The staff report states "the center is presently in substantial conformance with Condition #9 of the Resolution," which refers specifically to the "40% food service uses" cap. Please clarify. Does Main Street comply with the Condition #9 in the adopted Resolution or the modification approved by the Director of Community Development later, likely in 2015? The development is in substantial conformance with condition of approval #9. Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:27 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Hi Councilmember Chao: Item #14 on the February 21 agenda responds to these questions, except to they extent they arise from pending applications that have not been presented to Council. Regards, Chris Christopher Jensen City Attorney City Attorney's Office ChristopherJ@cupertino.org (408)777-3105 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 8:21 PM To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Chris, My questions sent on Feb. 4 are still not answered. This is a violation of the Municipal 0355 Code, which specifically stated that the city staff should respond to council questions. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 1:31 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage The memo in the 2/21 Council agenda, dated 2/7, still does not answer my questions. I would like to first get my questions sent on Feb. 4 answered. It's been 16 days. I sent those questions the Saturday before the last Council meeting on 2/7. I was told after the Council meeting: "Councilmember Chao, responses to your questions below will be included in an addendum to the 2/21 council report" on Feb. 8." I have waited patiently for answers for more than 2 weeks. Then, I did not find any additional information in the 2/21 Council agenda on this item. The staff report for this Main Street memo is dated 2/7. So, no new information has been provided. Please first provide written answers to my questions ASAP. Appreciate it. And I would like the relevant documents, rather than narratives, since, as you know, I like to dig into details, such as these documents referenced in the 2/7 staff report: 1. Aug. 15, 2012 Main Street Cupertino-Revised Proposed Project Analysis report 2. 2012 Addendum to the Final Certified 2009 EIR prepared by Fehr and Peers 3. 2015 Fehr & Peers Main Street Parking Analysis (I already received) Any document to provide the city versus the property data as mentioned in the 2/7 staff report: "While additional analysis could be done to refine and reconcile the differences between City and property owner data, such as minor differences that exist in the floor areas of individual tenant spaces, it can be concluded that the overall percentage of restaurant uses would not change much, if at all," such as communications with the property owner. These questions are related to an earlier permit and approval, so I think the data and information should be readily available. As for the new permit application from January, 2023, I would prefer written answers and links to documents first so I have time to digest. This saves us time. My memory s not as good these days. Having written documents help me to not misremember things and can check and re- read things. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 8:25 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage 0356 Councilmember Chao, unfortunately, these information will not be included in the 2/21 staff report as the item is share the same information that CM Moore received last November. If it helps, CDD staff and myself are more than happy to schedule a time to go over your questions with you in person. Debra can assist with meeting coordination. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:41 PM To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Thanks. Please include it in the 2/21 council agenda since this report is referenced in the staff report, but is not available on the City website since it's never been on a council agenda. Regarding my questions sent on 2/4: "responses to your questions below will be included in an addendum to the 2/21 council report." I'm looking forward to the response in the addendum. Thanks. Liang Thanks, looking it Get Outlook for iOS Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 4:00 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Councilmember Chao, Attached is the 2015 Fehr & Peers parking analysis you requested. The analysis was not on a City Council agenda in 2015. Luke Connolly Acting Director of Community Development Community Development LukeC@cupertino.org (408)777-1275 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 8:26 PM To: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>0357 Subject: Re: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Thanks for making all the information available. That's the best way to clarify any misunderstanding. When information is only made partially available, people have to make assumptions on the missing pieces. Maybe not "amendments", but "parking and traffic analysis"? The 2/7 memo from staff stated "In July 2015, nearly three years after Main Street was approved, Fehr& Peers, a transportation consulting firm, completed their Main Street Parking Analysis" My question from 2/4: Where do I find this parking analysis? Was it put on the Council agenda in 2015? Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 3:15 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Pamela, I’ll get this resolved. There’s a lot of incorrect information out there, for instance there isn’t a 2015 EIR or any amendment to the original 2009 EIR. I’ll draft something to clarify this. Luke Connolly Acting Director of Community Development Community Development LukeC@cupertino.org (408)777-1275 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 2:24 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Luke, please provide the link to the 2015 EIR. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2023 8:16 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage 0358 I heard that another Councilmember already got a response from staff with 2015 amendment of the EIR, as mentioned in the 2/7 Council meeting. And I heard from another resident that there are the second and the third amendments to the EIR with the latest one from January 2023. Could you please kindly forward your response to other Councilmembers to me? I hope that doesn't take too much of staff time. Are there new requests to the city to adjust the "food service use" percentage? Could you please kindly forward such request too? Could you please include all the relevant reports and requests for a change in conditions in the use permit with your report for the 2/21 to save time on back and forth communication asking for more information? This way the public and all Councilmembers have access to such information and are sufficiently informed. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 10:50 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Councilmember Chao, responses to your questions below will be included in an addendum to the 2/21 council report. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 6:16 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage I would still appreciate a response on these questions. These answers should be readily available given that the decision is already made by the Director of Community Development on the request by the applicant. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0359 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 2:05 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Agenda item 14 Main Street “food service” percentage Q1: "In July 2015, nearly three years after Main Street was approved, Fehr& Peers, a transportation consulting firm, completed their Main Street Parking Analysis" Where do I find this parking analysis? Was it put on the Council agenda in 2015? Q2: Could we get a list of the square footages and the tenants please? I assume that this information is readily available since the staff must have done the analysis when any use permit was approved. Which tenant is considered a "restaurant" or a "specialty food service"? Q3: The staff report vaguely mentions that the restaurant uses "being approximately 41%" the percentage of “food service” (i.e., restaurant + specialty foods) uses to slightly over 50% But does this percentage referred to recent changes? Like the Target Express. I am confused. Q4: It seems the staff report implies that there was an approval by the Director of Community Developmemt in 2015 (after receiving the 2015 traffic analysis) to adjust the percentage? Or change the "40% food service use" cap to "40% restsurant" cap. Where do I find the approval letter of such a change? Q5: The staff report states "the center is presently in substantial conformance with Condition #9 of the Resolution," which refers specifically to the "40% food service uses" cap. Please clarify. Does Main Street comply with the Condition #9 in the adopted Resolution or the modification approved by the Director of Community Development later, likely in 2015? Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0360 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 11:29 PM EST To: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Boucher Law Contract and Invoice as request at 2.21.23 City Council Meeting Hi Pamela, Will you please provide the payments which covered the work of “Interim Finance Manager” Lizz Cook. As you are aware, Lizz came to coordinate the Audit Committee meetings after the recruitment Boucher provided failed. She had to be paid somehow. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:01 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Boucher Law Contract and Invoice as request at 2.21.23 City Council Meeting Good Afternoon City Council (bcc) Per the request at the February 21, 2023 City Council meeting, attached are the Boucher Law Contract, updated rate sheet for 2022 along with the invoice from the week ending November 13, 2022 accounts payable specific to Finance Manager. Please be advised that the appointment of staff, including any interim appointments, is a personnel matter that is wholly subject to the discretion of the City Manager and outside of the jurisdiction of the City Council. Kristina Alfaro Director of Administrative Services Administrative Services KristinaA@cupertino.org (408) 777-3220/7608 0361 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 11:35 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Draft Audit Committee Agenda Attachment(s): "Draft Meeting Agenda 7.25.22.docx" FYI. Lizz Cook identifies herself as the Interim Finance Manager, under what contract and invoices was she paid? Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Lizz Cook <lizz@boucher.law> Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 1:23 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Dianne Thompson (she/her) <diannet@cupertino.org>, Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>, Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: Draft Audit Committee Agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings, Chair/Council member Moore: I hope this email finds you well. My name is Lizz Cook and I am the Interim Finance Manger for the City, I look forward to meeting with you face to face during the Audit Committee meeting Monday, July 25, 2022. Attached is a copy of the draft agenda for review, kindly reply all with any questions or comments. Have a great afternoon! Respectfully, Lizz Lizz Cook, Senior Consultant Offices in Northern and Southern California Mail: 2081 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Berkeley Office: (510) 838-1000 | Option 2 Glendale Office: (626) 838-1000 | Option 2 Firm-wide Fax: (510) 838-1111 Website | Firm Services | Connect on LinkedIn CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. INTENDED FOR RECEIPT BY ADDRESSEE(S) ONLY. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this e-mail [and its attachment, if any] is prohibited. Please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message [and its attachment, if any]. 0362 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 11:38 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: September 26, 2022 Audit Committee Meeting - Draft Agenda Attachment(s): "0 - Draft Meeting Agenda 9.26.22.docx" FYI… Also, Jim Throop told me that he had interviewed 5 Boucher recruits and hired none. I do not know why the invoices Council was provided shows bills in July from Boucher, apparently they continued to put out advertisements? I believe Pamela said they were looking at someone from a neighboring city which also fell through. My concern is about a person from Boucher getting paid and using the title of Interim Finance Manager, and there is so far, no record of how she was being paid. I am to assume that the unsigned contract for legal services is what she was working under, but that’s not clear. Please clarify. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Lizz Cook <lizz@boucher.law> Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 at 5:02 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>, Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: September 26, 2022 Audit Committee Meeting - Draft Agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Greetings Chair/Council member Moore, I hope this email finds you dry on a damp Monday evening! Attached is the draft agenda for the September 26, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee for your review and comment. Please note that items five and six are continued from the August 22 meeting, as requested. To allow for the continuation of these items the Budget Format Review Study Session has been moved to a future meeting. In addition, it would be great to have direction from Budget Format Review Subcommittee prior to scheduling the study session. Please reply all with any questions or comments. Have a great evening! Respectfully, Lizz Cook Lizz Cook, Senior Consultant Offices in Northern and Southern California Mail: 2081 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Berkeley Office: (510) 838-1000 | Option 2 Glendale Office: (626) 838-1000 | Option 2 Firm-wide Fax: (510) 838-1111 Website | Firm Services | Connect on LinkedIn 0363 CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED. INTENDED FOR RECEIPT BY ADDRESSEE(S) ONLY. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, distribution, or copying of this e-mail [and its attachment, if any] is prohibited. Please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message [and its attachment, if any]. 0364 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 12:20 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.org>; Jimmy Tan, P.E. <jimmyt@cupertino.org>; Susan Michael AIA <susanm@cupertino.org>; Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Bill Mitchell <BillM@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> Subject: Work Program Hi all, That was a great Work Plan study session this evening which incorporated items from all of the Councilmembers. That is a major accomplishment! This process was much more democratic than the past two years where the only item I suggested, to study the Blesch, Byrne, and Stocklmeier properties even made the cut last year, but was low on the list and nothing happened. It is motivating to see there is a better process. This really was productive, thank you for creating/supporting this improvement process, it really means a lot. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0365 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 1:15 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Santa Clara Cuts Ties With Chamber of Commerce, Citing Potential Conflicts, Self-Dealing | San Jose Inside 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 RE Staff Report on Chamber https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sanjoseinside.com%2Fthe-fly%2Fsanta-clara-cuts-ties-with-chamber-of-commerce-citing-potential- conflicts-self- dealing%2F&data=05%7C01%7CChristopherJ%40cupertino.org%7Cb28105ef3d7443c6c2dd08db1b4a0cc6%7C19e13f83dce947c3ae6712c6a63e2ed6%7C0%7C0%7C638133777093638167%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0LWnr5dPgRVEwv5DNHtxHprx6zlUBPHVLLxXgOaQ1I4%3D&reserved=0 Sent from my iPhone 0366 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 1:17 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Attachment(s): "A - Memorandum.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, Please provide links to all of the agreements cited in the Staff Report. I would like to read them. They had to be located to summarize them. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11679675&GUID=3D529A15-BAD5-4137-8671-C64EEF3B9739 0367 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 1:20 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Attachment(s): "A - Memorandum.pdf" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please add this article to Santa Clara Chamber item at least as a footnote: https://www.sanjoseinside.com/the-fly/santa-clara-cuts-ties-with-chamber-of-commerce-citing-potential-conflicts-self-dealing/ If they cut ties and the report has over $1M listed, that would be misleading to Council? Thanks On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Please provide links to all of the agreements cited in the Staff Report. I would like to read them. They had to be located to summarize them. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11679675&GUID=3D529A15-BAD5-4137-8671- C64EEF3B9739 0368 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 1:24 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Attachment(s): "A - Memorandum.pdf" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please also add this lawsuit item to the Santa Clara Chamber item, people should know about the lawsuit against the Chamber! https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-quietly-settles-lawsuit-with-silicon-valley-chamber-of-commerce/ Thanks. On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Please add this article to Santa Clara Chamber item at least as a footnote: https://www.sanjoseinside.com/the-fly/santa-clara-cuts-ties-with-chamber-of-commerce-citing-potential-conflicts-self-dealing/ If they cut ties and the report has over $1M listed, that would be misleading to Council? Thanks On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Please provide links to all of the agreements cited in the Staff Report. I would like to read them. They had to be located to summarize them. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11679675&GUID=3D529A15-BAD5-4137-8671- C64EEF3B9739 0369 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 1:33 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Attachment(s): "A - Memorandum.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 Pamela, After spot-checking the Staff Report on Santa Clara and their Chamber agreement in the Staff Report table, and seeing how completely misleading it is, please explain why the City would report the relationship with the Chamber there so inaccurately? How can Council make a decision with research like that? Make it make sense please? Is all of the data presented biased and misleading? Why is this considered acceptable? I am justifiably and deeply concerned. Kitty Moore On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:24 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Please also add this lawsuit item to the Santa Clara Chamber item, people should know about the lawsuit against the Chamber! https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-quietly-settles-lawsuit-with-silicon-valley-chamber-of-commerce/ Thanks. On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Please add this article to Santa Clara Chamber item at least as a footnote: https://www.sanjoseinside.com/the-fly/santa-clara-cuts-ties-with-chamber-of-commerce-citing-potential-conflicts-self-dealing/ If they cut ties and the report has over $1M listed, that would be misleading to Council? Thanks On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Please provide links to all of the agreements cited in the Staff Report. I would like to read them. They had to be located to summarize them. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11679675&GUID=3D529A15-BAD5- 4137-8671-C64EEF3B9739 0370 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 3:38 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Hi Pamela, The City of Santa Clara began a lawsuit and settled against their Chamber. I would have liked the Staff Report to accurately report the current status in that city. I think the Report is deeply misleading. I suppose you could say I am directing Staff in asking for more accuracy and clarification, and then send it in your report to the Grand Jury? And then also write me up for wanting links to the agreements? Directing staff to show their sources must be bad too? And demand that I stop this insinuation that staff did anything misleading or incomplete? Forget I pointed the unacceptable oversight out and have a good day. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 11:18 AM To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Councilmember Moore, in June 2022, Council directed staff to research existing agreement with their Chamber of Commerce among neighboring cities within the Santa Clara County. The information provided in the memo followed the direction provided by Council. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:33 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang-Fang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com>; Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions 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 Pamela, After spot-checking the Staff Report on Santa Clara and their Chamber agreement in the Staff Report table, and seeing how completely misleading it is, please explain why the City would report the relationship with the Chamber there so inaccurately? How can Council make a decision with research like that? Make it make sense please? Is all of the data presented biased and misleading? Why is this considered acceptable? 0371 I am justifiably and deeply concerned. Kitty Moore On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:24 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Please also add this lawsuit item to the Santa Clara Chamber item, people should know about the lawsuit against the Chamber! https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-quietly-settles-lawsuit-with-silicon-valley-chamber-of-commerce/ Thanks. On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Please add this article to Santa Clara Chamber item at least as a footnote: https://www.sanjoseinside.com/the-fly/santa-clara-cuts-ties-with-chamber-of-commerce-citing-potential-conflicts-self-dealing/ If they cut ties and the report has over $1M listed, that would be misleading to Council? Thanks On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Please provide links to all of the agreements cited in the Staff Report. I would like to read them. They had to be located to summarize them. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11679675&GUID=3D529A15-BAD5-4137- 8671-C64EEF3B9739 0372 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 4:06 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; lfchao@gmail.com <lfchao@gmail.com>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions For me, #2 is sufficient. 2) have those information provided to you only, but in advance Thanks! Liang Chao City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 11:09 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; lfchao@gmail.com <lfchao@gmail.com>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Councilmember Chao, thank you for the email. As requested of Councilmember Moore earlier, please clarify if 1) you are requesting various agreements with other cities and their chamber of commerce information to be provided to you as part of the Monday written correspondence publication, or 2) have those information provided to you only, but in advance, and 3) you are only requesting other cities’ agreements. Once confirmed, staff will proceed accordingly. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:46 AM To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; lfchao@gmail.com Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Thank you for the memo, which is very informative. And thank you for following up with the request from June 2022 and put it on the Council agenda as an Information Item. (BTW, is there a written explanation for Information Item, regarding the fact that the public cannot comment on it and the Council won't be able to ask questions at the Council meeting. Someone else was confused and asked me. I wish I can point them to a written explanation. Thanks.) The new Councilmembers would also benefit from reading the agenda packet for the June 2022 Council meeting, where the staff provided more info on the fee waivers and payments over the years. I am sure the staff was trying to capture the information and did not realize some agreements are not active any more? Nevertheless, it is a good idea to provide an amended memo just so that we could capture the most current information, now that the staff is aware that the agreement with the City of Santa Clara has stopped. I am always thankful when the staff provides a comparison table with other cities. However, being someone who always like to see data first hand to learn more from other cities. 0373 I really appreciated when the staff sent me all of the Bench Dedication Policy they have reviewed to create a comparison table, rather than only presenting one draft policy to ask the Council to approve. In fact, I was in my own process to collect Bench policies from other cities. As a policymaker, I strongly believe that I am doing my due diligence by looking deeper into background information, rather than just accepting a drafted policy and approving it. I hope the staff appreciate the need of policy makers to look deeper to do our own due diligence. Trust, but verify. Thus, I would appreciate to see the various agreements the staff have reviewed in preparation for this information memo. Thank you for keeping us in formed. Liang Liang Chao City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liangfang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:27 AM To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions 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 have added my city email and will respond from there. On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:24 AM Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Please also add this lawsuit item to the Santa Clara Chamber item, people should know about the lawsuit against the Chamber! https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-quietly-settles-lawsuit-with-silicon-valley-chamber-of-commerce/ Thanks. On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Please add this article to Santa Clara Chamber item at least as a footnote: https://www.sanjoseinside.com/the-fly/santa-clara-cuts-ties-with-chamber-of-commerce-citing-potential-conflicts-self-dealing/ If they cut ties and the report has over $1M listed, that would be misleading to Council? Thanks On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Please provide links to all of the agreements cited in the Staff Report. I would like to read them. They had to be located to summarize them. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11679675&GUID=3D529A15-BAD5-4137-8671- C64EEF3B9739 0374 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2023 5:59 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Thanks! It is awesome that the agreements were linked in the June 2022 staff report. I remember there was a staff report. Since the city was not looking into creating an agreement at the time, I did not look into those agreements. Now that the staff has decided to move towards having an agreement, I now see a need to look into those agreements. Thank you for the awesome job for including links to agreements when creating the comparison table. I hope that this good practice is utilized by all future staff reports. I know that the staff is trying to provide a short summary for each city, which unavoidably could leave out some details. It might be worthwhile to create an updated comparison chart to add a bit more details, especially with more current info, now that the staff is creating an agreement with Chamber. For your consideration. Thanks. Liang Liang Chao Vice Mayor City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 2:42 PM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; lfchao@gmail.com <lfchao@gmail.com>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Councilmember Chao, Please note that chamber agreements for other cities were shared with Council on 3/15/22. The links to these agreements were included in the 2022 staff report. Here is the item from that meeting: https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6035227&GUID=C8832314-5677-4E8F-B6B1- C04AF8BFD9A1&Options=&Search= Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 1:07 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; lfchao@gmail.com; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions For me, #2 is sufficient. 0375 2) have those information provided to you only, but in advance Thanks! Liang Chao City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 11:09 AM To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; lfchao@gmail.com <lfchao@gmail.com>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Councilmember Chao, thank you for the email. As requested of Councilmember Moore earlier, please clarify if 1) you are requesting various agreements with other cities and their chamber of commerce information to be provided to you as part of the Monday written correspondence publication, or 2) have those information provided to you only, but in advance, and 3) you are only requesting other cities’ agreements. Once confirmed, staff will proceed accordingly. Thanks Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:46 AM To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; lfchao@gmail.com Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions Thank you for the memo, which is very informative. And thank you for following up with the request from June 2022 and put it on the Council agenda as an Information Item. (BTW, is there a written explanation for Information Item, regarding the fact that the public cannot comment on it and the Council won't be able to ask questions at the Council meeting. Someone else was confused and asked me. I wish I can point them to a written explanation. Thanks.) The new Councilmembers would also benefit from reading the agenda packet for the June 2022 Council meeting, where the staff provided more info on the fee waivers and payments over the years. I am sure the staff was trying to capture the information and did not realize some agreements are not active any more? Nevertheless, it is a good idea to provide an amended memo just so that we could capture the most current information, now that the staff is aware that the agreement with the City of Santa Clara has stopped. I am always thankful when the staff provides a comparison table with other cities. However, being someone who always like to see data first hand to learn more from other cities. I really appreciated when the staff sent me all of the Bench Dedication Policy they have reviewed to create a comparison table, rather than only presenting one draft policy to ask the Council to approve. In fact, I was in my own process to collect Bench policies from other cities. As a policymaker, I strongly believe that I am doing my due diligence by looking deeper into background information, rather than just accepting a drafted policy and approving it. I hope the staff appreciate the need of policy makers to look deeper to do our own due diligence. Trust, but verify. Thus, I would appreciate to see the various agreements the staff have reviewed in preparation for this information memo. 0376 Thank you for keeping us in formed. Liang Liang Chao City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Liangfang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:27 AM To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Item Chamber Staff Report Initial Questions 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 have added my city email and will respond from there. On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 10:24 AM Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Please also add this lawsuit item to the Santa Clara Chamber item, people should know about the lawsuit against the Chamber! https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-quietly-settles-lawsuit-with-silicon-valley-chamber-of-commerce/ Thanks. On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Please add this article to Santa Clara Chamber item at least as a footnote: https://www.sanjoseinside.com/the-fly/santa-clara-cuts-ties-with-chamber-of-commerce-citing-potential-conflicts-self-dealing/ If they cut ties and the report has over $1M listed, that would be misleading to Council? Thanks On Mar 2, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Please provide links to all of the agreements cited in the Staff Report. I would like to read them. They had to be located to summarize them. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11679675&GUID=3D529A15-BAD5-4137-8671- C64EEF3B9739 0377 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2023 3:12 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> Subject: Procedures on Informational Items Question FW: Council adopted policies and procedures Attachment(s): "23-021 Adopting Cupertino City Council Procedures Manual Procedures.pdf" Hi Pamela, Thank you for providing the Procedural Manual. In reading the Procedural Manual, I cannot find where Council gave up our rights or the Public’s rights to speak on Informational Items. Please will you point to this part in the Manual. It is a long manual, I may have missed it. At the prior meeting, the Informational items were not mentioned at all. For Tuesday’s meeting they are introduced thusly: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Information items are intended to provide background information and routine reports to Councilmembers and the public, without discussion by Council. Members of the public wishing to comment on informational items should do so during oral communications. These items include the Monthly Treasurer’s Reports. To clarify, the Public is being told that they may not speak about these reports unless they speak during Oral Communications, and the Council is not to speak about them at all? What if there is a problem with them? What if any other Informational item has a problem? What do we do then? Remain silent? This is very unusual. Thank you for taking the questions. Kitty Moore From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:18 PM To: Jenny Griffin <grenna5000@yahoo.com> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Council adopted policies and procedures Jennifer and city council (bcc’d), Please find the Council adopted policies and procedures from 2/7/2023. As I mentioned during the meeting, I am more than happy to walk you through the document in details at your convenience. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0378 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2023 10:01 PM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Michael Woo <michaelw@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: FYI: article, 3/9/2023, land swap located in Cupertino for construction subsidized homes Hi, You may change ‘to get’ to ‘which resulted in’ but the same result occurred. Council had suggested more density, and failed. The Vallco Apple property was suggested for recently homeless and family homeless housing. This could be actually local homeless individuals who will be housed at this location and given work-job training to leave the location within 6 months with housing and job prospects, or other support as needed and having an end requirement. How could this be made to work successfully? Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 6:49 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Michael Woo <michaelw@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: FYI: article, 3/9/2023, land swap located in Cupertino for construction subsidized homes Please note that the upzoning at the McCllelan property has resulted in them selling that contaminated site for over $3M more than they bought it for. Proving that rezoning is about profits. That owner didn’t build any housing at all. They made a deal to get entitlements. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 6:37 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: FYI: article, 3/9/2023, land swap located in Cupertino for construction subsidized homes Councilmember Moore, yes, you and Mayor Paul both have advocated for transitional housing, such as Dignity Move. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 6:27 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: FYI: article, 3/9/2023, land swap located in Cupertino for construction subsidized homes 0379 I have advocated for transitional housing there. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 6:11 PM To: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com>, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org > Subject: RE: FYI: article, 3/9/2023, land swap located in Cupertino for construction subsidized homes Councilmember Moore, I was made aware of the transfer. I can provide more details in our 1:1 next week. Please see the attached staff report. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 12:01 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Fwd: FYI: article, 3/9/2023, land swap located in Cupertino for construction subsidized homes 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. Subject: FYI: article, 3/9/2023, land swap located in Cupertino for construction subsidized homes forwarding in case you have not seen this item SCC BoD meeting, Tuesday, 3/14/2023 at 9 am, Agenda Item 78: “78. Approve delegation of authority to the County Executive, or designee, to negotiate, execute, amend, or terminate Property Exchange Agreement with Wolfe Properties, LLC, relating to a potential exchange of County-owned real property located at 10591 N. De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino for real property located at 10333 N. Wolfe Road, Cupertino, following approval by County Counsel as to form and legality, and approval by the Office of the County Executive. Delegation of authority shall expire on June 30, 2024. (LA-1) (ID# 114628)” link to the meeting agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=13345&Inline=True + + + See below for the full text of the article. 0380 “Teacher Housing Proposed on Apple Owned Site in Cupertino” by Marissa Kendal, 3/9/2023, Alden Global Capital: https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/03/09/teacher-housing- proposed-on-apple-owned-site-in-cupertino “ A new affordable housing development catering to teachers and school employees could be coming soon to Cupertino. Santa Clara County officials want to build the project on a vacant North Wolfe Road lot currently owned by Apple. The goal is to give an estimated 75 to 100 educators and support staff, who often don’t make enough to rent or buy homes in the expensive West Valley region, an opportunity to live where they work. The idea is a pet project of Supervisor Joe Simitian, who has co-hosted several town halls where he heard tales of teachers commuting long distances or living doubled- up in tiny apartments because they can’t afford housing near the schools where they teach. “You listen to these stories and you think, my god, there’s got to be an answer,” Simitian said. “There’s got to be a solution. And there is.” The project, which has yet to secure funding , also could open the door for more affordable housing in Cupertino, where the housing shortage is acute and the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $3,140, according to Apartment List. The teacher housing project would take up just about one-third of the 5-acre site, and Simitian hopes to eventually fill the rest of the parcel with additional low-income housing. The city is required by state law to plan for an additional 4,588 new housing units by 2031. The proposal comes as interest in teacher housing is mounting throughout the Bay Area. Teachers and school employees often fall into a category known as the “missing middle” — people who make too much money to qualify for traditional affordable housing, but not enough to afford a home in the exorbitantly expensive Bay Area. A four-unit below-market-rate development for teachers opened in Los Gatos this year thanks to efforts by Sarah Chaffin and her team at housing advocacy organization Support Teacher Housing. Simitian hopes to break ground this spring on a 110-unit teacher housing development he championed in Palo Alto. The Mountain View Whisman school board is building a 144-unit teacher housing development that’s set to be completed in 2024. The median market rent in Santa Clara County is $2,348, but Santa Clara Unified, for example, offers a starting salary of $73,103 — meaning an entry-level teacher in that school district would need to make $500 more per month to be able to afford rent by themselves, according to a 2022 study by the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Simitian and Supervisor Otto Lee have proposed building the Cupertino teacher housing project at 10333 N. Wolfe Road, next to the defunct Vallco Mall that is being turned into a massive housing, retail and office development. The two supervisors hope to acquire the site through a land swap with Apple. The board is set to vote on the deal at its March 14 meeting. The board last year approved pursuing a new teacher housing development . The property that the county has proposed exchanging with Apple is located at 10591 N. De Anza Blvd. in Cupertino — the site of a former Outback Steakhouse restaurant. Santa Clara County bought that property in 2021 with the intention of developing affordable housing there, but Apple has been coveting the site, as it is directly across the street from the tech company’s campus. The land swap is a good deal for the county, Simitian said, as the North De Anza site is only about 1.5 acres, while the North Wolfe Road site is 5 acres — and Apple isn’t asking for any additional funds from the county. Apple, which in 2019 pledged to contribute $2.5 billion in investments, donations and real estate to help combat the affordable housing crisis, declined to comment on the Cupertino land swap. 0381 But even though securing a site for the teacher housing project would be a major first step, it still will be several years before educators and school staff could move in. The county still has to secure funds for the project, which is an increasingly difficult task as interest rates rise. Chaffin of Support Teacher Housing, who spearheaded the development of the Los Gatos project, knows firsthand how tough that can be. To get that project done, she relied on donations from local businesses and organizations. Los Gatos Roofing built the roofs for free and Adnac Fire Protection donated a sprinkler system. The Palo Alto teacher housing project, meanwhile, is backed in part by a $25 million grant from Meta (formerly known as Facebook). “It would be fantastic if Apple could do the same or more on this project,” in Cupertino, Chaffin said. Potentially complicating the process, Cupertino has a history of being less than welcoming to new housing. The state threatened to sue the city in 2019 for failing to meet its housing production obligations. And the Vallco project next door to the proposed teacher housing has faced years of setbacks, including lawsuits brought by residents opposed to the development. But Simitian is confident his constituents will see the need for teachers to have affordable housing in the community where they work. It will help the area maintain its famed high-quality schools, he said, as teachers who spend less time commuting have more time to spend helping students or creating lesson plans. Jason Baker, a member of the school board in the Campbell Union High School District, described the project, which also has the support of Cupertino Mayor Hung Wei, as exciting news. “This is a great way to attract and retain topflight teachers and school staff,” he said in a statement. “The people who are essential to our schools and our students.”” Staff writer Hannah Kanik contributed to this report. 0382 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 12:30 AM EST To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Agreement Question Hi Pamela, RE: https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1013286&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1 I was wondering if you could please tell me how much this contract is for? I am wondering if these domestic violence cases actually resulted in only 20 minutes of assistance describing a card they were given. I haven’t seen anything like this before and would like to understand where the City funds went and why. Thank you. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0383 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 9:19 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Planning Contract See PDF 13. This is a Poli Sci grad with no planning development experience. You are going to train a contractor? Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 8:30 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Planning Contract Councilmember Moore, the rate included in M-Group’s budget is within industry standards. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 9:24 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Planning Contract Hi Pamela, Please look at the qualifications of the planners and their rates to see if you concur in case you have not been made aware of this0384 contract. https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1013034&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino Thank you. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0385 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 9:43 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Agreement Question Hi Pamela, Thank you. Is 57 cases for our population a lot? My concern is whether we have a domestic violence problem (over or under-reporting taken into account) and whether our case victims receive adequate time in care. I have advocated for money to go to another domestic violence home because we have a shortage which can result in people staying in unacceptable situations because there is little societal safety net. When I had asked for money to go for another home I was told something about how the home location cannot be shared, so I could not tell if anything ever happened on that front or not. Ultimately, we need to make sure everyone is receiving support and hopefully has a safe location to relocate to if needed. That is where the question on 20 minutes average came from. I cannot individually ask for a memo, but someday it might be good for Council and the public to be informed for what happens to victims of domestic violence in our city. Who do/should they call and what happened after that? Thank you for the information. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 1:40 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Agreement Question Councilmember Moore, the total contract amount is $4000 and the program is through Sheriff’s Office. Local agencies are entitled to be reimbursed by the State for the cost of State mandated programs and services (GC 17551). Wellhouse Assoc. works with the program agents to confirm costs and then files the claims with the State Controller's Office/State-Mandated Costs Program on behalf of the city. Attached is an FAQ sheet and the link to the SOS webpage is here https://www.sco.ca.gov/ard_mancost.html. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 9:30 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Agreement Question Hi Pamela, RE: https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1013286&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino&cr=1 I was wondering if you could please tell me how much this contract is for? I am wondering if these domestic violence cases actually resulted in only 20 minutes of assistance describing a card they were given. I haven’t seen anything like this before and would like to0386 understand where the City funds went and why. Thank you. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0387 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 11:44 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Thomas Chin <ThomasC@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Food Spoilage Power Outages Hi City Manager Wu, There are many people without power who may not know about the dangers of their food spoiling and becoming dangerous to eat. How has the City let them know? How long can protein items in a refrigerator that isn’t working last? Is the City helping them with anything to preserve food? Are they on their own? People store lots of things in the freezer which are thawing and rotting. What guidance is being given? Where can residents charge their electronic devices? Do we have a charging area? Please provide an update and find a way to get it to the people in the dark and losing battery power. I do not want people to now get sick eating spoiled food. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0388 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 9:51 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Courteous request of the proclamation of Alpha G Dear City Manager Wu, Our Mayor and Vice Mayor welcomed a business to San Jose, using taxpayer resources and money? Is that correct? I appreciate the photograph in your weekly update. Please clarify if I have any of my observations in error. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:44 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Courteous request of the proclamation of Alpha G Please see below regarding the address of Alpha G. It appease to be in San Jose. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 at 9:44 AM To: Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Courteous request of the proclamation of Alpha G Good morning, Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan and Councilmembers (bcc’d on this email) I hope this email finds you well. At your earliest convenience, please advise if you are available on March 17th to attend the Alpha G Ribbon Cutting Ceremony at 10 a.m. and dinner banquet at Grand Dynasty at 6:30 p.m. I will need to RSVP for you. I look forward to hearing back from you soon. Debra Nascimento Executive Assistant City Manager's Office DebraN@cupertino.org (408) 777-1302 0389 Please see the Grand Opening Invitation for Alpha G, they will have the No Cal branch office open at City of Cupertino, the address is 1054 South De Anza Blvd, Suite 102, San Jose, CA 95129. The ribbon cutting ceremony is scheduled at 3/17/2023 Friday at 10:00 am, and the dinner banquet will be served at Grand Dynasty 6:30 pm on 3/17/2023 Friday night, 6164 Bollinger Rd, San Jose, CA 95129. We would like to invite you over to be our ribbon cutting VIP and celebrate this special occasion with us, if you may attend the dinner banquet that would be great. May you advise that you may attend both events. The information below is background information about Alpha G for your reference when your staff draft the certificate of appreciation or the proclamation. Thanks again and we look forward to seeing you on event day. May you please confirm with me or Alice via email or barcode on the invitation for your presence. About us: Innovation business model, diversified services, and pioneer systems. Alpha G is a corporation based on twenty years of professional financial planning experience, providing high-end products with innovative business models, and advanced technological systems. Cultivating a new generation of financial entrepreneurs, Alpha G is committed to provide the elites with the best platform, training, and support with more than 20 years of professional knowledge and experience in the industry and strong financial support in opening branches. Advanced Tech, Alpha G provides smart customer reaching appl robust commission system and systematic platforms in supporting elites in realizing their dreams. More details can be founded at https://www.alphag.com/language/en/ Combination of family office and innovative system, one stop wealth management services and customized service experience. Top Notch services, insurance, real estate, loan, tax, trust, education and immigration High commission, industry leading high level of commissions Training and support, 24/7 service support comprehensive and systematic professional training platform. Advance technological platform, industry empowerment. Mission: Assist in cultivating a new generation of financial entrepreneurs. Vision: Bring the idea of family office into each and every family, helping them to truly achieve their financial dreams. Global offices: San Marino, Irvine, Diamond Bar, New York, Las Vegas, Cupertino, Anaheim, San Francisco, Virginia, Texas, Philadelphia, Portland, Temecula, Shanghai, Taipei, Yunnan, Zhengzhou, Nanjing Best Regards, Peter Ho 510-673-2219 0390 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2023 5:46 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Weekly CM Letter Hi Pamela, Thank you for the information. The Staff support would be the presence of the City Manager, our top employee, which is about as supportive as it gets, and the making of the certificate. Councilmember Chao may not be aware that this was a San Jose business. I think there should be a policy that we do not do Ribbon Cutting events for businesses outside of Cupertino, unless there are some extenuating circumstances, this event has none. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:45 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>, Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Weekly CM Letter Councilmember Moore, Alpha G is located in San Jose but bordering Cupertino. There was no staff support involved with the ribbon cutting event. Mayor Wei, vice mayor Mohan and I attended the event this morning, along with members from chamber of commerce. I believe councilmember Chao will be attending the banquet at grand dynasty tonight. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 -------- Original message -------- From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: 3/17/23 6:41 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>, Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Weekly CM Letter Hi Pamela, From the initial email to Council it appeared that Alpha G. is in San Jose. Will you please confirm their address for the ribbon cutting held with Staff support and attendance. Thank you, Kitty Moore 0391 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 at 2:46 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Weekly CM Letter Good afternoon, Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan, and Councilmembers (bcc’d on this email) I hope this email finds you enjoying this nice weather. Please find my Weekly Letter and Email Matrix. If you have any questions, please let me know. Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0392 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:14 AM EDT To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Weekly CM Letter I did not know that their office is in San Jose. I assumed that it's a Cupertino Business. Then, I embarrassed myself at the Friday night banquet then since I assumed the business location is in Cupertino and made the comment that I'm honored that they choose Cupertino as their office in Silicon Valley. In the banquet, there were Councilmembers from Fremont, Milpitas, Saratoga and a representative of County Supervisor Otto Lee. I think it is all right for city council members to attend such ribbon cutting for businesses or banquets either in or outside of Cupertino if a council member choose to. Any Chamber could contact the council members directly as some other Chamber of Commerce organizations have done without going through the city staff. However, if the city staff time was spent in coordinating it, I would be concerned. As far as I know, Debra spent time coordinating on who is attending etc. Tina Kapoor likely spent time coordinating with Chembet too and likely attended the Ribbon cutting as she usually does. Pamela has attended the ribbon cutting at least. That's a total of three city staff members spending the valuable staff time on coordinating or attending this grand opening of a San Jose business. It is a good question. Is it prudent to do that? However, I think, as a public agency, the city must give all other chamber of commerce or similar organizations equitable access to the city resources (if any access is provided, such as staff and funding) so that one big organization does not dominate the city staff time and funding. Especially the chamber of commerce and similar business organizations serving ethnic minorities. I would like to know what other organizations Cupertino Economic Development office is communicating with in addition to Cupertino Chamber of Commerce? Thanks! Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:47 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>; Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Weekly CM Letter Hi Pamela, Thank you for the information. The Staff support would be the presence of the City Manager, our top employee, which is about as supportive as it gets, and the making of the certificate. Councilmember Chao may not be aware that this was a San Jose business. I think there should be a policy that we do not do Ribbon Cutting events for businesses outside of Cupertino, unless there are some extenuating circumstances, this event has none. Thank you, 0393 Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 at 6:45 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>, Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Weekly CM Letter Councilmember Moore, Alpha G is located in San Jose but bordering Cupertino. There was no staff support involved with the ribbon cutting event. Mayor Wei, vice mayor Mohan and I attended the event this morning, along with members from chamber of commerce. I believe councilmember Chao will be attending the banquet at grand dynasty tonight. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 -------- Original message -------- From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Date: 3/17/23 6:41 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>, Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Weekly CM Letter Hi Pamela, From the initial email to Council it appeared that Alpha G. is in San Jose. Will you please confirm their address for the ribbon cutting held with Staff support and attendance. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 at 2:46 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Subject: Weekly CM Letter Good afternoon, Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan, and Councilmembers (bcc’d on this email) I hope this email finds you enjoying this nice weather. Please find my Weekly Letter and Email Matrix. If you have any questions, please let me know. 0394 Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0395 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 4:44 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Apple's recent reporting of a 1000 gallon leak was only a 'Distraction' Attachment(s): "AP Comms with City.pdf" FYI. Celine Granger does not mention Sodium Nitrite in Trac109 which is poisonous and highly toxic to aquatic life. Unfortunately, that makes me question this entire email exchange for truthfulness. Please review the Health data sheet for this substance. Was this spill reported to SCCDEH and/or SCCFD? It may be required. Apple Park already includes a Superfund site, btw. I request to be sent this email exchange between Fred Weaver, the City, and Apple, with the attachments mentioned, there appears to be data missing. Thank you. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Fred Weaver <fred@vcdevelopmentgroup.com> Date: Monday, March 20, 2023 at 12:42 PM To: Hung Wei <HWei@cupertino.org> Cc: Sheila Mohan <SMohan@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>, J.R. Fruen <JRFruen@cupertino.org>, Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: Apple's recent reporting of a 1000 gallon leak was only a 'Distraction' 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. Hey Mayor Hung Wei, and City of Cupertino Council Members, Good afternoon. I have forwarded a couple of attached emails recently over the last two weeks to Alex Wykoff, Environmental Programs Specialist with your Cupertino Public Works Dept with no response. Alex certainly took interest in a 1000 (one thousand) gallon leak Apple recently reported, see attached email. But Alex took no interest at all in a 200-gallon per day leak from the Underground Hot Water system that has been ongoing from day one since the opening of Apple Park for a documented 350,000 plus gallons of hot water being discharged into City of Cupertino storm drainage system and the shared surrounding communities water table. And, there have been frantic efforts by Apple to cover up the years-long underground leak, including 3 (three) multi-million-dollar projects, undertaken by three separate general contractors, all of which were performed without any permits, or approvals from any Authorities Having Jurisdiction, including your City of Cupertino. And as you may recall, in another part of California, PG&E polluted the water table in a similar fashion. Hinkley, California is a town of roughly 3,500 residents, located 120 miles northeast of Los Angeles. Hinkley is also home to a natural gas compressor station belonging to Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), a California utility that is an affiliate of one of the world’s largest energy companies. In the 1980’s residents of this small San Bernardino County town began complaining that PG&E’s compressor station had polluted their drinking water supply with chromium 6. In 1987, during and environmental assessment, PG&E discovered that the chromium had migrated into Hinkley’s groundwater supply, contaminating ten private drinking wells with chromium 6 concentrations exceeding the state standard. Some Hinkley residents claim that PG&E knew of the chromium 6 contamination as early as 1965 but told no one. For more than forty years, California’s largest utility company, PG&E, had dumped the lethal chemical Hexavalent Chromium (Chrome 6) in their unlined ponds in Hinkley, California. The company’s malfeasance was exposed by a young woman, Erin Brockovich, who0396 worked in a small Los Angeles law firm. Her discoveries led to the largest settlement for a civil class action lawsuit. (Anderson v Pacific Gas & Electric, Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, Barstow Division, File BCV 00300 (1993)) Because of the years-long leakage from Apple’s underground Hot Water pipes including corrosion ‘inhibitors and biocides’, Apple Park could potentially be one of the largest contaminated sites in Northern California. I trust you Mayor Hung Wei, and City of Cupertino Council Members will take interest in this. I look forward to your response. Fred Weaver VC Development Group 16970 San Carlos Blvd., Suite 160-207 Fort Myers, FL 33908 C:213-840-8292 fred@vcdevelopmentgroup.com From: FRED WEAVER <fred@vcdevelopmentgroup.com> Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 at 3:16 PM To: "AlexW@cupertino.org" <AlexW@cupertino.org> Cc: "CityManager@cupertino.org" <CityManager@cupertino.org>, "mattm@cupertino.org" <mattm@cupertino.org>, "andred@cupertino.org" <andred@cupertino.org>, FRED WEAVER <fred@vcdevelopmentgroup.com> Subject: Re: Apple's recent reporting of a 1000 gallon leak was only a 'Distraction' Hey Alex, It has been over a week, and I have not received a response from you. There has been a 200-gallon per day leak from the Underground Hot Water system that has been ongoing from day one since the opening of Apple Park for a documented 350,000 plus gallons of hot water being discharged into City of Cupertino storm drainage system and the shared surrounding communities water table. Alex, the folks you have recently communicated with have known about it. (Please see attached PDF of your recent email) The top Apple inhouse attorneys have known about it. And Apple’s Tim Cook has known about it. Because of the years-long leakage from Apple’s underground Hot Water pipes including corrosion ‘inhibitors and biocides’, Apple Park could potentially be one of the largest contaminated sites in Northern California. I look forward to your response. Fred Weaver VC Development Group 16970 San Carlos Blvd., Suite 160-207 Fort Myers, FL 33908 C:213-840-8292 fred@vcdevelopmentgroup.com From: FRED WEAVER <fred@vcdevelopmentgroup.com> Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 1:00 PM To: "AlexW@cupertino.org" <AlexW@cupertino.org> Cc: FRED WEAVER <fred@vcdevelopmentgroup.com> Subject: Apple's recent reporting of a 1000 gallon leak was only a 'Distraction' Hey Alex, Good morning. 0397 I wanted to advise you that the recent 1000-gallon leak from the Apple Park underground hot water heating system reported by Apple was only a ‘distraction’. Apple just wanted to document a ‘showing of Good Faith.’ But that was not the only leak at Apple Park. There has been a 200-gallon per day leak from the Underground Hot Water system that has been ongoing from day one since the opening of Apple Park for a documented 350,000 plus gallons of hot water being discharged into the Storm Sewer and Groundwater. Alex, the folks you have recently communicated with have known about it. (Please see attached PDF of your recent email) The top Apple inhouse attorneys have known about it. And Apple’s Tim Cook has known about it. I have worked on several Apple projects overseas in the Pac-Asia region, and most recently on both of Apple’s Cupertino campuses. Additionally, there have been frantic efforts by Apple to cover up the years-long underground leak, including 3 (three) multi-million-dollar projects, undertaken by three separate general contractors, all of which were performed without any permits, or approvals from any Authorities Having Jurisdiction. If you would like to understand more, please contact me, and I will be happy to share with you what I have. Sincerely, Fred Weaver VC Development Group 16970 San Carlos Blvd., Suite 160-207 Fort Myers, FL 33908 C:213-840-8292 fred@vcdevelopmentgroup.com 0398 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 9:15 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: 2023-03-21 City Council Mtg-ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- City lost $12M!!! Attachment(s): "Page 42-CDFT Audit-FY_2022-23_Adopted_Budget.pdf","Why Did Cupertino Receive Zero Tax Dollars.pdf","Jan-Mar 2023 CDFT Local Sales Tax for Cupertino LOCAL 43012.pdf" Hi, Please provide the CDTFA correspondence which substantiates what our Treasurer is telling us regarding a true-up. A true-up by CDTFA would mean fraud at some step in the process!? Is this an interpretation of the CDTFA disbursement page in their website by the City Treasurer or is this an actual explanation from CDTFA? I have no information regarding the CDTFA audit, but this is an anomaly which needs to be understood. We have not had a zero payment, point to where it is in the CDTFA record please. It looks like garnishment. I have no confidence in what I am told regarding this audit issue any more. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 5:16 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: 2023-03-21 City Council Mtg-ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- City lost $12M!!! Dear City Council (bcc), Please find my responses (in red) below to the questions raised in this email correspondence received Tuesday evening. Q1: Why did the City not receive ANY sales tax dollars in February 2023? See attached PDF: “Why Did Cupertino Receive Zero Tax Dollars.pdf” It is important to note that the questions and responses being addressed pertain solely to the processes implemented by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). These processes are not connected to the ongoing audit of one of the City's sales taxpayers. The process of reconciling sales tax collections with actual revenue takes the CDTFA several months. The CDTFA estimates sales tax revenue based on the previous year's collections and issues advance payments, which are then trued up based on actual collections in the following months. For Q4, the CDTFA typically pays the City the first advance in December and the second advance in January. In February, the CDTFA typically issues a clean-up payment to account for any discrepancies between the estimated and actual tax collections. However, for Q4 2022 (Oct-Dec 2022), the CDTFA overestimated the City's sales tax revenues and issued an advance payment of $12.5 million. The actual revenue collected by the City for that period amounted to $12.3 million, resulting in an overpayment. Hence, the CDTFA did not issue a clean-up payment in February. Instead, the remaining balance (-$0.3 million) will be adjusted as part of the Q1 2023 (Jan-Mar 2023) payment. The City does not have any control over these actions, as they are part of the CDTFA's true-up process. IMPORTANT POINTS: City got dinged $12M – and the City Treasurer KNEW on 2/15/2023 because the monthly ETF transfer did not happen! This major financial hit is on the city’s CDTFA 2/15/2023 statement. City got dinged $323,511.51 on 3/10/2023 – and the City Treasurer KNEW it! There is no ding. The account statement is reflecting the CDTFA's true-up process. The -$12.5 million on the statement reflects the advance payments made in December and January. The -$0.3 million will be adjusted as part of the Q1 2023 payment. QUESTIONS: Q2: Why wasn’t Council AND the public informed of this massive multi-million dollar loss in revenue? It’s been over a month since the City Treasurer has known about this. This is not a loss. The account statement is reflecting the CDTFA's true-up process. Q3: Why wasn’t the Audit Committee made aware of this when they met on 2/27/2023? There is nothing to report to the Audit Committee as the City has not lost any money. Q4: How much more will the city loose? The City has not lost any money. Q5: Why did this happen? The CDTFA estimates sales tax revenue based on the previous year's collections and issues advance payments, which are then trued up based on actual collections in the following months. However, in the case of the City's Q4 2022 sales tax revenue, the CDTFA overestimated the amount, resulting in an overpayment to the City. Therefore, no clean-up payment was required to be issued to the City in February, and the remaining balance (-$0.3 million) will be adjusted as part of the Q1 2023 payment. Q6: Does the city still have to give 35% of this loss in sales tax to Apple and Insight? As per the City’s sales tax sharing agreements, the City is responsible for distributing funds to taxpayers only after it has received the corresponding funds from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. This ensures that the distribution of funds is based on the actual revenue collected by the City. The City remitted funds to the taxpayers based on actual collections reported to the State on January 20, 2023. As stated above, this is not a loss. The account statement is reflecting the CDTFA's true-up process. 0399 Kristina Alfaro Director of Administrative Services Administrative Services KristinaA@cupertino.org (408) 777-3220/7608 From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:01 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2023-03-21 City Council Mtg-ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- City lost $12M!!! 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 Manager Wu, In this past Tuesday’s March 21st City Council meeting during Oral Communications you responded to Council about the loss of over $12M in sales tax revenue by sayIng that you’d send me a response and send one to the City Council. I strongly request that you put this on the next City Council Agenda as an item TO BE DISCUSSED. Not under Consent. Not as an Information Item. This information and the questions the Public and the Council have regarding this loss of significant revenue will impact upcoming budget decisions and projects. It’s critical the city not hide this from the Public and the Council. It is also critical that the Public and Council have an opportunity to engage in a discussion regarding this critical information. REQUEST: PLEASE discuss this information at the next City Council meeting. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin On Mar 21, 2023, at 4:33 PM, Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> wrote: Please include this email and all 3 attachments as part of Written Communications for tonight’s 3/21/2023 City Council meeting. Dear City Council, City Manager and Director Alfaro, I’ve been concerned about the significant loss in revenue that has been discussed many times so I’ve been looking into the tax revenue the city receives. Q1: Why did the City not receive ANY sales tax dollars in February 2023? See attached PDF: “Why Did Cupertino Receive Zero Tax Dollars.pdf” IMPORTANT POINTS: City got dinged $12M – and the City Treasurer KNEW on 2/15/2023 because the monthly ETF transfer did not happen! This major financial hit is on the city’s CDTFA 2/15/2023 statement. City got dinged $323,511.51 on 3/10/2023 – and the City Treasurer KNEW it! QUESTIONS: Q2: Why wasn’t Council AND the public informed of this massive multi-million dollar loss in revenue? It’s been over a month since the City Treasurer has known about this. Q3: Why wasn’t the Audit Committee made aware of this when they met on 2/27/2023? Q4: How much more will the city loose? Q5: Why did this happen? Q6: Does the city still have to give 35% of this loss in sales tax to Apple and Insight? In last year’s FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget, on PDF Page 42 second paragraph from the bottom it states that there is a CDTFA Audit that will potentially impact sales tax revenue for FY 2022-23. FROM PAGE 42 of document https://apps.cupertino.org/pdf/FY_2022-23_Adopted_Budget.pdf: 0400 Staff has known for over a month (before Feb. 15, 2023) and has not brought this to Council - $12M+ gone! These are our tax dollars. It impacts decisions. REQUEST: Please present this in a public hearing where the public and Council members can ask questions – NOT an Informational Item or a Council Memo. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin 0401 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 9:44 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2023-03-21 City Council Mtg-ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- City lost $12M!!! A $12 M true up looks like fraud somewhere. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 6:15 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: 2023-03-21 City Council Mtg-ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- City lost $12M!!! Hi, Please provide the CDTFA correspondence which substantiates what our Treasurer is telling us regarding a true-up. A true-up by CDTFA would mean fraud at some step in the process!? Is this an interpretation of the CDTFA disbursement page in their website by the City Treasurer or is this an actual explanation from CDTFA? I have no information regarding the CDTFA audit, but this is an anomaly which needs to be understood. We have not had a zero payment, point to where it is in the CDTFA record please. It looks like garnishment. I have no confidence in what I am told regarding this audit issue any more. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 5:16 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Subject: FW: 2023-03-21 City Council Mtg-ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- City lost $12M!!! Dear City Council (bcc), Please find my responses (in red) below to the questions raised in this email correspondence received Tuesday evening. Q1: Why did the City not receive ANY sales tax dollars in February 2023? See attached PDF: “Why Did Cupertino Receive Zero Tax Dollars.pdf” It is important to note that the questions and responses being addressed pertain solely to the processes implemented by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). These processes are not connected to the ongoing audit of one of the City's sales taxpayers. The process of reconciling sales tax collections with actual revenue takes the CDTFA several months. The CDTFA estimates sales tax revenue based on the previous year's collections and issues advance payments, which are then trued up based on actual collections in the following months. For Q4, the CDTFA typically pays the City the first advance in December and the second advance in January. In February, the CDTFA typically issues a clean-up payment to account for any discrepancies between the estimated and actual tax collections. However, for Q4 2022 (Oct-Dec 2022), the CDTFA overestimated the City's sales tax revenues and issued an advance payment of $12.5 million. The actual revenue collected by the City for that period amounted to $12.3 million, resulting in an overpayment. Hence, the CDTFA did not issue a clean-up payment in February. Instead, the remaining balance (-$0.3 million) will be adjusted as part of the Q1 2023 (Jan-Mar 2023) payment. The City does not have any control over these actions, as they are part of the CDTFA's true-up process. IMPORTANT POINTS: City got dinged $12M – and the City Treasurer KNEW on 2/15/2023 because the monthly ETF transfer did not happen! This major financial hit is on the city’s CDTFA 2/15/2023 statement. City got dinged $323,511.51 on 3/10/2023 – and the City Treasurer KNEW it! There is no ding. The account statement is reflecting the CDTFA's true-up process. The -$12.5 million on the statement reflects the advance payments made in December and January. The -$0.3 million will be adjusted as part of the Q1 2023 payment. QUESTIONS: Q2: Why wasn’t Council AND the public informed of this massive multi-million dollar loss in revenue? It’s been over a month since the City Treasurer has known about this. This is not a loss. The account statement is reflecting the CDTFA's true-up process.0402 Q3: Why wasn’t the Audit Committee made aware of this when they met on 2/27/2023? There is nothing to report to the Audit Committee as the City has not lost any money. Q4: How much more will the city loose? The City has not lost any money. Q5: Why did this happen? The CDTFA estimates sales tax revenue based on the previous year's collections and issues advance payments, which are then trued up based on actual collections in the following months. However, in the case of the City's Q4 2022 sales tax revenue, the CDTFA overestimated the amount, resulting in an overpayment to the City. Therefore, no clean-up payment was required to be issued to the City in February, and the remaining balance (-$0.3 million) will be adjusted as part of the Q1 2023 payment. Q6: Does the city still have to give 35% of this loss in sales tax to Apple and Insight? As per the City’s sales tax sharing agreements, the City is responsible for distributing funds to taxpayers only after it has received the corresponding funds from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. This ensures that the distribution of funds is based on the actual revenue collected by the City. The City remitted funds to the taxpayers based on actual collections reported to the State on January 20, 2023. As stated above, this is not a loss. The account statement is reflecting the CDTFA's true-up process. Kristina Alfaro Director of Administrative Services Administrative Services KristinaA@cupertino.org (408) 777-3220/7608 From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:01 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 2023-03-21 City Council Mtg-ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- City lost $12M!!! 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 Manager Wu, In this past Tuesday’s March 21st City Council meeting during Oral Communications you responded to Council about the loss of over $12M in sales tax revenue by sayIng that you’d send me a response and send one to the City Council. I strongly request that you put this on the next City Council Agenda as an item TO BE DISCUSSED. Not under Consent. Not as an Information Item. This information and the questions the Public and the Council have regarding this loss of significant revenue will impact upcoming budget decisions and projects. It’s critical the city not hide this from the Public and the Council. It is also critical that the Public and Council have an opportunity to engage in a discussion regarding this critical information. REQUEST: PLEASE discuss this information at the next City Council meeting. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin On Mar 21, 2023, at 4:33 PM, Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> wrote: Please include this email and all 3 attachments as part of Written Communications for tonight’s 3/21/2023 City Council meeting. Dear City Council, City Manager and Director Alfaro, I’ve been concerned about the significant loss in revenue that has been discussed many times so I’ve been looking into the tax revenue the city receives. Q1: Why did the City not receive ANY sales tax dollars in February 2023? See attached PDF: “Why Did Cupertino Receive Zero Tax Dollars.pdf” IMPORTANT POINTS: City got dinged $12M – and the City Treasurer KNEW on 2/15/2023 because the monthly ETF transfer did not happen! This major financial hit is on the city’s CDTFA 2/15/2023 statement. City got dinged $323,511.51 on 3/10/2023 – and the City Treasurer KNEW it! QUESTIONS: Q2: Why wasn’t Council AND the public informed of this massive multi-million dollar loss in revenue? It’s been over a month since the City Treasurer has known about this. Q3: Why wasn’t the Audit Committee made aware of this when they met on 2/27/2023? Q4: How much more will the city loose? Q5: Why did this happen? Q6: Does the city still have to give 35% of this loss in sales tax to Apple and Insight? In last year’s FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget, on PDF Page 42 second paragraph from the bottom it states that there is a CDTFA Audit that will potentially impact sales tax revenue for FY 2022-23. 0403 FROM PAGE 42 of document https://apps.cupertino.org/pdf/FY_2022-23_Adopted_Budget.pdf: Staff has known for over a month (before Feb. 15, 2023) and has not brought this to Council - $12M+ gone! These are our tax dollars. It impacts decisions. REQUEST: Please present this in a public hearing where the public and Council members can ask questions – NOT an Informational Item or a Council Memo. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin 0404 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 11:14 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Follow up meeting You’re the new rulers, I don’t care. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 6:02 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Follow up meeting Councilmember Moore, I understand your concerns and glad to hear that we can have a chance to chat. Let’s meet at Tous Les Jours (3535 Homestead Rd, Santa Clara, CA 95051 In Santa Clara for coffee. Debra can follow up with the exact time. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 4:47 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Follow up meeting Hi Pamela, If you would like to try lunch Monday or some other day, that can work. Understand that, as I have mentioned already, I am greatly bothered by the internal investigation into violations of the Municpal Code by Council. I fully expect that there will be an assertion that I violated the Municipal code working on the Farmer’s Market and Lawrence Mitty Annexation. I was asked to help with it because I was told there would be no Staff availability. Attached is the event to-do document I made. Debra put things together for the L-M event possibly using some of the attached ideas, I did the set up at the Farmer’s Market event and dragged in some voluntolds to give out cookies and coffee and some high school interns got roped in as well to help decorate it. There is a point with the directing staff issue that gets ridiculous. I went to the Intergenerational mixer and nearly had a heart attack when a staff member asked if I would like a coffee. I froze and sat debating the question. She then assured me that it was ok, she could get it, but I wondered. What will happen, is that the results will come out and I will be treated like Ray, not unlike how Rick Kitson came and verbally attacked me regarding his allowing campaigning booths at Diwali when we had waived the fees. Staff has a political role it plays, and when Staff refused to answer my question about campaigning at Festivals in the Chamber item when Festival Fee waivers was in the packet and in my opinion fair game to ask about, that is Staff opposing a single Councilmember. Let me know either way. Kitty Moore 0405 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 2:59 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Follow up meeting Councilmember Moore, I want to reach out to 1) confirm our next 1:1 meeting on 3/27. If it’s confirmed, any desire in meeting over lunch? 2) follow up on a meeting that Chris and I have been planning for some time. Chris and I would love an opportunity to chat in person, over meal or coffee or any choice that you might prefer. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0406 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 1:23 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 3/27 1:1 meeting Enjoy the coffee chat and all for Tuesday with Wei. Please have a great the rest of the weekend! Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 3:59 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: 3/27 1:1 meeting Councilmember Moore, I am not sure if you intend to keep our 1:1 on 3/27 since we will be having our coffee chat on Tuesday. In any event, I attached the 1:1 agenda and the councilmember committee report form for your reference. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0407 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 1:26 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: The entirety of my reconsideration was not in the council packet Hi all, Rhoda Fry’s information was somehow broken up by staff and not included as an entire group of documents. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 4:00 PM To: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Cc: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: The entirety of my reconsideration was not in the council packet Rhoda, I believe your request was correctly included in the Council’s packet. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 12:21 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: The entirety of my reconsideration was not in the council packet 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 Pamela, The entirety of my reconsideration was not in the council packet. I asked you to include it in the packet per attached but it did not happen. 2/3 of the documents were improperly excluded from the Agenda. That would be another basis for a refund. Regards, Rhoda From: Pamela Wu [mailto:PamelaW@cupertino.org] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 6:11 PM To: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Cc: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Request for Refund of Reconsideration Fee per 2.08.096 0408 Rhoda, there is no opportunity for any refund request as the meeting has concluded. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 2:11 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Request for Refund of Reconsideration Fee per 2.08.096 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. So in your opinion, because council forgot to talk about per procedure, there is no opportunity for refund? Recall, I was unable to speak after Council's deliberation. -----Original Message----- From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Mar 23, 2023 2:07 PM To: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Cc: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>, Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>, Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Request for Refund of Reconsideration Fee per 2.08.096 Rhoda, as I mentioned in my original email. There is no basis for refunding the fee after the hearing is completed. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 12:17 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org >; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Request for Refund of Reconsideration Fee per 2.08.096 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 Manager Wu, Per CMC 2.08.096, it is the council’s decision to make. There is no staff recommendation in the 3/21 staff report to decline reimbursement. As I mentioned previously, after the hearing, I learned that I saved hours of staff time in documenting and assembling evidence of Public Storage’s non-compliance, which has been shared with Public Storage management to bring them into compliance. Without this hearing, Council and Staff would never have known the extent to which our community is galvanized on the quality-of-life issues pertaining to excessive lighting and signage. The Change.Org Petition has received 189 signatures as of this morning (council and0409 clerk were the only recipients). If your City Staff had properly permitted the first sign, the second sign would have come to Council as an exception. The consequences of their error, under your direction, will forever defile our community, creating a Public Nuisance and Health/Safety Hazard and reducing nearby homeowner property values. The funds will not make or break me financially; but it will break my heart as having been a champion for my City for 40 years. As I read the Municipal Code, now that the hearing has concluded, the City Council may refund the fee. Council has been emphasizing following procedure and a discussion of fee reimbursement is part of the Reconsideration process. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry 2022 City of Cupertino CREST Award Recipient for Public Safety Here is a photo from last night around 10:04 PM From: Pamela Wu [mailto:PamelaW@cupertino.org] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 10:13 AM To: Rhoda Fry <fryhouse@earthlink.net> Cc: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org >; Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.org>; Luke Connolly <LukeC@cupertino.org>; Gian Martire <GianM@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Request for Refund of Reconsideration Fee per 2.08.096 Rhoda, I understand you have requested a refund of your reconsideration fee. CMC 2.08.096 provides that “[a]t the conclusion of the reconsideration hearing, the City Council may, in its sole discretion, refund all, or a portion, of the reconsideration fee.” You requested a waiver of the fee in the petition for reconsideration, but neither you nor any Councilmember discussed the waiver at the hearing. Staff did not recommend a waiver and the cost to the City greatly exceeded the reconsideration fee. There is no basis for refunding the fee after the hearing is completed. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 0410 0411 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 11:14 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: 23-010 Balance Studios, Inc for Augmented Reality McClellan Ranch 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 Pamela, This is an interesting contract. I can’t recall the project, will you please point to it in the Work Plan? https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frecords.cupertino.org%2FWebLink%2FDocView.aspx%3Fid%3D1010175%26dbid%3D0%26repo%3DCityofCupertino%26searchid%3D0f21b1cd-9707-4f50-a143- 4722d1cb5da7&data=05%7C01%7CPamelaW%40cupertino.org%7C716fdb91be2a4268fb3008db2d43ac75%7C19e13f83dce947c3ae6712c6a63e2ed6%7C0%7C0%7C638153540911951055%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=iucSA11spox3lJQZWAMb9WV7eamz4j9ZwNkupvq9sGg%3D&reserved=0 Sent from my iPhone 0412 From: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 11:53 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> CC: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Comparing budget over the years Since we need to look into potential areas to reduce budget, I would like to compare current budgets with previous years. I'd appreciate some help on how to do such comparison for different categories of our budget. Thanks, Liang Liang Chao Council Member City Council LiangChao@cupertino.org 408-777-3192 0413 From: Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 12:02 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: 23-010 Balance Studios, Inc for Augmented Reality McClellan Ranch 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 Pamela, I see it was a Special Project for the previous fiscal year, please point to the Budget Policy which states that all appropriated Special Projects are automatically brought forward and appropriated for the next years until that project is completed. Where in the current budget does the public know all of these incomplete appropriated projects exist? This happened with the carpeting and fascia repairs, those were 2 years late. I think the Special Projects need to be either zeroed off or all listed in the Budget. Also note some like AR, have stakeholders mentioned in the contract including CHS. This makes that project more of a Council Work Program item? > On Mar 25, 2023, at 8:14 AM, Kitty Moore <ckittymoore@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Pamela, > > This is an interesting contract. I can’t recall the project, will you please point to it in the Work Plan? > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frecords.cupertino.org%2FWebLink%2FDocView.aspx%3Fid%3D1010175%26dbid%3D0%26repo%3DCityofCupertino%26searchid%3D0f21b1cd-9707-4f50-a143- 4722d1cb5da7&data=05%7C01%7CPamelaW%40cupertino.org%7Cc904254ade394225770108db2d4a615e%7C19e13f83dce947c3ae6712c6a63e2ed6%7C0%7C0%7C638153569723087234%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Mqj5clIgPWf4j%2Bn3WdlAMemYgU5T53p0ZwLOiJ15k7Q%3D&reserved=0 > > > Sent from my iPhone 0414 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 12:32 AM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org> Subject: Special Projects Attachment(s): "March 7, 2023 E - FY 2022-23 Mid-Year Special Projects Update.pdf","November 15, 2022 Update Sp Projects F - FY 2021-22 Special Projects Update.pdf","November 15, 2022 What Year Are these From? G - FY 2022-23 First Quarter Special Projects Update as of 9.30.pdf","Special Projects 2012-2023.pdf" Hi Pamela, I am looking at the Special Projects from 2013 (saw none in 2012) to the present and how they have been accounted for in the Budget and what the policy is for carryover. I think usually these projects and their funding expire at the end of the FY. I cannot find a policy regarding these items. There was mention of creating policies in earlier Budgets. I am concerned about what constitutes a Special Project as this part of the Budget is formed by Staff very late in the Budget Process and Council has not been reviewing it on a line by line basis as it should be doing. 1. I would like a current list each Special Project Staff proposed for this year and an explanation for why the project does not fall under routine maintenance, belong as a proposed Work or CIP item to be brought to Council, and ultimately, what the actual purpose of Special Projects is. 2. Please add a column to the November and March reports on Special Projects from the agendas which I have attached in 3 files, which shows what FY each Special Project was approved in along with when the project was completed (that column is there already). I summarized all of the Special Projects pages from the agendas going back to 2013 in the last file attached for convenience. 3. Special Projects ballooned pretty uncontrollably to over $8Million from Staff asks outside of the normal budget process after 2012. Can you explain it? Why can’t these projects be included in the Work Program or CIP or normal maintenance budget? What was the rationale for bloating this category over the years? It took away from the Emergency Fund $24 M funding, as an example of what it cost us. Thank you, Kitty Moore 0415 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2023 8:49 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> CC: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Written Communications Practice Hi, I want you to be aware of a records struggle I keep having. I have been trying to find a Special Projects update that I believe was put into Written Communications on the website. I have begun the slow process of hunting through every one of them for 2022 because I did not neatly download and store it. That being said, I have been trying to find a way I could quick search and then had this realization that the fairly recent action of putting items related to an agenda item in Written Communications by Staff has resulted in the Agenda having important parts in multiple places. If I go to City Records, the presentations and written communications are not in City Council packets. When Staff puts additional material, like the site selection inventory for the Housing Element, into Written Communications, it makes it hard on the public to know where to find it etc. I think you can follow where it would be a problem. If I am having a hard time finding things after the fact, I am going to imagine it is worse for avid followers of City Council, and impossible for anyone new to the process. I would like the Written Communications including relevant information to the Agenda to be thought about in terms of just postponing the item if possible to limit this fairly recent practice. That’s my only suggestion to try and mitigate the issue. Any ideas you have to help consolidate the items is appreciated. Sincerely, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0416 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 9:09 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Fw: Audit Committee INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - not the same as City Council! Attachment(s): "Agenda.pdf" I agree with Peggy Griffin’s comments. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 10:36 PM To: City of Cupertino Audit Committee <AuditCommittee@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; City Council <CityCouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: Audit Committee INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - not the same as City Council! 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 Audit Committee, Director Alfaro and Budget Manager Leung, Thank you for allowing the public to speak on the INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 5 and 6 yesterday. Attached is yesterday’s, 3/27/2023 Audit Committee agenda. After the meeting was over, I realized that the new members of the Audit Committee were interpreting the agenda item label “INFORMATIONAL ITEM” the same way the City Council has newly adopted the definition i.e. not for discussion! The comments during the meeting implied that allowing the public to speak on items 5 and 6 was an exception, not to be allowed again. In the past, the Audit Committee adopted the label “INFORMATIONAL ITEM” to indicate non-action items BUT they were still able to be discussed by the Audit Committee, question and provide input and the public was allowed to speak on them. The label was used simply to distinguish the difference between an ACTION item and a discussion item. So, there is a conflict in the definition of the term “INFORMATIONAL ITEM” between the new City Council and the Audit Committee. If you look at the attached Audit Committee Agenda, it is CRITICAL that the Audit Committee members and the public be allowed to discuss and question INFORMATIONAL ITEMS! Agenda items 5 and 6 involve the Audit Committee. Item 5 – Budget Format Review Update – several points were provided and discussed that will clarify and improve the presentation in the future Item 6 – Audit Committee Schedule and Work Plan – Why can’t a committee question, discuss and provide input on their own schedule? SUGGESTION: Use a different term such as DISCUSSION ITEM or something similar to avoid the confusion with the newly adopted City Council procedure of not allowing anyone to discuss INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin 0417 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 3:48 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Hi Pamela, Do you have an accurate revenue forecast? “Hard financial times” was hopefully miss-heard. The CM has the duty (interesting it’s not the Treasurer?): “G. To keep the City Council at all times fully advised as to the financial conditions and needs of the City;” I was told that Planning Commissioner Lindskog was “pushing” for the massive City Hall project and saying that it could be rented on Tuesday which is alarming. Was that on the CIP agenda? Without an accurate and public financial picture, and hearing comments from various directions, I am very uncomfortable with the budget process and frankly would be stopping and having a Closed Session discussion about the situation. One rumor I was told was too alarming to want to repeat, but it isn’t helping my sleep. I think there should be clean up of the budget and a Frank discussion with all of Council or a Memo, something. But in order to honor the requirement of the CM duties, I believe Council is in need of a status update, we cannot have these naive asks of new Planning Commissioners with our hands tied to be honest with them. Thank you. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 10:47 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Councilmember Moore, as I mentioned to you on Tuesday, city’s revenue forecast isn’t as healthy as past years and we’ve been working on alternatives to reach a balanced budget for Council’s consideration in May. There is no definitive conclusion on whether the Shakespeare in the Park program will be canceled or not. However, there are potential service reduction impacts imposed to the community and residents due to revenue reduction forecast. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 6:13 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Hi all, I was forwarded information that Shakespeare in the Park has been canceled due to Cupertino falling on hard financial times. Is this true? Both parts. Please clarify why budget cutting is happening. Has there been a press release or is this information going around like a rumor mill? Thank you! Kitty Moore 0418 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0419 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 7:22 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Hi Pamela, Are we waiting on some public report from CDTFA directly to the City? What is the hold up? What documents regarding this budget problem are public record? I hope I have explained that as I am under investigation, and having seen Ray Wang’s abusive session and removal, and the recent censure of Trustee Gilbert Wong, I think it’s best I stay away and use the email until it’s over. I am not happy about the prospects of hiring a criminal defense attorney, so do keep that in mind. Thanks, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 1:33 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Councilmember Moore, thank you for the email. I have been keeping councilmembers informed of the potential budget challenges during my 1:1s. Since you elected to not participate in our 1:1 meetings, I have no way of communicating these information to you in a timely fashion. To that extent, we will be providing the best estimate of city budget in an informational session on 4/13, followed by 2 closed sessions. As far as “rumor” and information that was shared among residents that I am not privy to, I will not comment on its accuracy. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 12:48 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Hi Pamela, Do you have an accurate revenue forecast? “Hard financial times” was hopefully miss-heard. The CM has the duty (interesting it’s not the Treasurer?): “G. To keep the City Council at all times fully advised as to the financial conditions and needs of the City;” I was told that Planning Commissioner Lindskog was “pushing” for the massive City Hall project and saying that it could be rented on Tuesday which is alarming. Was that on the CIP agenda? Without an accurate and public financial picture, and hearing comments from various directions, I am very uncomfortable with the budget process and frankly would be stopping and having a Closed Session 0420 discussion about the situation. One rumor I was told was too alarming to want to repeat, but it isn’t helping my sleep. I think there should be clean up of the budget and a Frank discussion with all of Council or a Memo, something. But in order to honor the requirement of the CM duties, I believe Council is in need of a status update, we cannot have these naive asks of new Planning Commissioners with our hands tied to be honest with them. Thank you. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 10:47 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Councilmember Moore, as I mentioned to you on Tuesday, city’s revenue forecast isn’t as healthy as past years and we’ve been working on alternatives to reach a balanced budget for Council’s consideration in May. There is no definitive conclusion on whether the Shakespeare in the Park program will be canceled or not. However, there are potential service reduction impacts imposed to the community and residents due to revenue reduction forecast. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 6:13 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org > Cc: Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Hi all, I was forwarded information that Shakespeare in the Park has been canceled due to Cupertino falling on hard financial times. Is this true? Both parts. Please clarify why budget cutting is happening. Has there been a press release or is this information going around like a rumor mill? Thank you! Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0421 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2023 1:15 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> CC: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare I am free today. Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:40 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Cc: Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Councilmember Moore, Kristina can provide you information that we’ve received from CDTFA that can be shared in public, which is very little. As I had originally suggested, the best way to answer your questions is to meet in person to walk you through our analysis. Please advise on a time that works for you. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 4:22 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Hi Pamela, Are we waiting on some public report from CDTFA directly to the City? What is the hold up? What documents regarding this budget problem are public record? I hope I have explained that as I am under investigation, and having seen Ray Wang’s abusive session and removal, and the recent censure of Trustee Gilbert Wong, I think it’s best I stay away and use the email until it’s over. I am not happy about the prospects of hiring a criminal defense attorney, so do keep that in mind. Thanks, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>0422 Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 1:33 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Councilmember Moore, thank you for the email. I have been keeping councilmembers informed of the potential budget challenges during my 1:1s. Since you elected to not participate in our 1:1 meetings, I have no way of communicating these information to you in a timely fashion. To that extent, we will be providing the best estimate of city budget in an informational session on 4/13, followed by 2 closed sessions. As far as “rumor” and information that was shared among residents that I am not privy to, I will not comment on its accuracy. Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 12:48 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org > Subject: Re: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Hi Pamela, Do you have an accurate revenue forecast? “Hard financial times” was hopefully miss-heard. The CM has the duty (interesting it’s not the Treasurer?): “G. To keep the City Council at all times fully advised as to the financial conditions and needs of the City;” I was told that Planning Commissioner Lindskog was “pushing” for the massive City Hall project and saying that it could be rented on Tuesday which is alarming. Was that on the CIP agenda? Without an accurate and public financial picture, and hearing comments from various directions, I am very uncomfortable with the budget process and frankly would be stopping and having a Closed Session discussion about the situation. One rumor I was told was too alarming to want to repeat, but it isn’t helping my sleep. I think there should be clean up of the budget and a Frank discussion with all of Council or a Memo, something. But in order to honor the requirement of the CM duties, I believe Council is in need of a status update, we cannot have these naive asks of new Planning Commissioners with our hands tied to be honest with them. Thank you. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 10:47 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Cc: Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Councilmember Moore, as I mentioned to you on Tuesday, city’s revenue forecast isn’t as healthy as past years and we’ve been working on alternatives to reach a balanced budget for Council’s consideration in May. There is no definitive conclusion on whether the Shakespeare in the Park program will be canceled or not. However, there are potential service reduction impacts imposed to the community and residents due to revenue reduction forecast. Pamela 0423 Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 6:13 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org > Cc: Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>; Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Subject: Hard Financial Times Slashing Shakespeare Hi all, I was forwarded information that Shakespeare in the Park has been canceled due to Cupertino falling on hard financial times. Is this true? Both parts. Please clarify why budget cutting is happening. Has there been a press release or is this information going around like a rumor mill? Thank you! Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0424 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2023 10:07 PM EDT To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org> CC: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Waived Fee Table Question Attachment(s): "Meeting Minutes CC 06-09-2022 (Special Meeting).pdf","May 19, 2022 Agenda - 2023-04- 03T104412.321.pdf","Cultural Events Proposed Budget May 19, 2022 M - Parks and Recreation.pdf","Cultural Events FY_2022-23_Adopted_Budget.pdf","Festival Fee WaiversPRR.pdf","Cultural Events FY_202122_Adopted_Budget.pdf" Hi Pamela, Council does not approve slide deck slides. We could use the text of a slide to form a motion, but that particular slide doesn’t actually refer to something in the May 1, 2022 Proposed Budget. If it were in that Proposed Budget, it would make more sense for you to have sent that page of the Proposed Budget to me, not a slide. Please do not send presentation slides regarding requested actions which are not published budget documents The Proposed Budget clearly does not have Festival Fee Waivers in it, and the Final Motions which adopted the Budget do not contain the Festival Fee Waivers. One budgetary mystery is how the Cultural Events budget numbers come up EXACTLY the same with the erroneous insertion of the Festival Fee Waivers. Wouldn’t the drop in $145k of festival fees make any difference at all? City Council DID approve the Community Funding grants in the Budget, we DID NOT approve the Festival Fee Waivers, because they were not in the May 1, 2022 Published Proposed Budget. Here is the May 19, 2022 Budget Study Session item, Festival Fee Waivers fall under Cultural Events in Parks and Recreation attachment M and the Cultural Events pages are attached for the Proposed Budget: STUDY SESSION 15. Subject: Initial Study Session on Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Proposed Budget (Continued from May 17, 2022) Recommended Action: Conduct Initial Study Session on Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Proposed Budget and provide direction to staff Presenter: Thomas Leung, Senior Management Analyst A - Table of Contents B - Introduction C - Budget Message D - Budget Guide E - Community Profile F - Financial Policies G - Financial Schedules H - Council and Commissions I - Administration J - Law Enforcement K - Innovation and Technology L - Administrative Services M - Parks and Recreation N - Community Development O - Public Works P - Non-Departmental Q - Appendix A R - Appendix B S - FY 22-23 Proposed Budget Questions and Reponses I have attached the Cultural Events in the Proposed Published May 1, 2022 Budget, notice No Festival Fee Waivers: 0425 0426 Here is the June 9, 2022 Item 38 final motion to adopt the Budget, Notice there are No Festival Fee Waivers, entire meeting minutes pasted below and attached: Final Motion: Chao moved and Willey seconded to: 2. Adopt Resolution No. 22-064 establishing an Operating Budget of $127,105,125 for FY 2022-23, which includes the following changes to the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget, published on May 1, 2022: b. Approve the operating budget of $125,461,857 outlined in the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget The amended motion carried with Moore voting no. 0427 0428 0429 0430 0431 However, Here is what ended up in the FY 2022-2023 posted Budget, it has had Festival Fee Waivers inserted erroneously and with no mention of the fees being waived by act of City Council and on what date that happened: 0432 0433 0434 The final motion does not say, adopt slide 56 of 72, proposed festival fee waivers, and City Council did not discuss the festival fee waivers. The Budget online needs to have the table removed from page 356. What was odd, was that Staff requested that we return our published Budget books because they were missing pages last year. I am wondering if this was inserted in error. You are probably also aware Council has not approved a slide in a motion, it is also concerning that the slide deck adding Festival Fees does not match the Proposed Budget for Parks and Recreation. I have also attached the Cultural Events FY 2021-2022 showing ZERO Festival Fee Waivers in that Budget, however I also have the PRR showing that Staff waived fees without Council approval without going through the added step of simply inserting an unapproved amount into the Budget as happened in FY 22-23. Best regards, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0435 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 at 2:21 PM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>, Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>, Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Waived Fee Table Question Councilmember Moore, May 17, 2022 – No. 41 FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget Presentation Slide number 56 of 72 of presentations attachment or slide 38 of the budget presentation slide deck June 9, 2022 – FY 2022-23 Budget is approved an includes festival waivers that were presented in the Proposed budget presentation September 16, 2022 – Final Adopted Budget is printed and festival waiver are included in the Parks and Recreation section, Cultural Events budget unit 100-61-605 page 356 Pamela Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 12:59 PM To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.org>; City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org> Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org> Subject: Waived Fee Table Question Hi Kirsten, I keep noticing this Waived Fee table in the online Operating Budget for FY 2022-2023, page 356, pasted below, and I really had no recollection of Council approving it. I need some help reconstructing the chain of events because I do not think it was approved, yet that may mean I just missed it. The Proposed Budget for FY 2022-23 came to Council May 19, 2022 and was referenced to when the Council approved the budget June 7, 2022 continued to June 9th, 2022. I have pasted the June 9, 2022 minutes and highlighted the pertinent section, that it references the May 1, 2022 Proposed Budget. That Proposed Budget, I believe is the one we reviewed on May 19, 2022 and it had no Festival Fee Waivers. Here is what Item 38 looked like May 19, 2022: PUBLIC HEARINGS 38. Subject: Public hearing to consider the Capital Improvement Program (CIP); Consider supplemental information for the Capital Improvements Program; Consider the Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23, adoption of the Budget for FY 2022-23, establishment of the Appropriation Limit, and related actions Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 22-064 establishing an Operating Budget of $126,027,164 for FY 2022-23, which includes the following changes to the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget, published on May 1, 2022: a. Approve the operating budget of $125,461,857 outlined in the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget b. Approve the 12 position requests outlined in the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget. The positions include: i. Administrative Assistant in Administration ii. Associate Planner in Community Development iii. Budget Manager in Administrative Services iv. Code Enforcement Officer in Community Development v. Communications Analyst (Three-Year Limited-Term) in Administration vi. Community Outreach Specialist in Community Development vii.Maintenance Worker Lead in Public Works viii. Management Analyst in Public Works ix. Office Assistant in Community Development x. Purchasing Manager in Administrative Services xi. Senior Planner (Housing) in Community Development xii. Senior Planner (Planning) in Community Development 0436 c. Approve an Assistant City Manager position in Administration and appropriations of $386,988 as included in Attachment E d. Approve a Legislative Aide (Management Analyst) position in Administration and appropriations of $183,365 as included in Attachment E e. Approve a $180,000 reduction in appropriations for the Economic Development Fuse Fellow as included in Attachment E f. Approve a $669,046 reduction in appropriations for Fixed Assets acquisition as included in Attachment E g. Approve $348,427 of additional SB 1 revenue as included in Attachment E. h. Approve appropriations of $736,500 for City Work Program items as included in Attachment E. The items include: i. $50,000 for Analyze Potential Revenue Measures ii. $10,000 for Artwork at the Library/Exhibits/Poetry and Art Day iii. $50,000 for Bicycle Facilities iv. $12,000 for Community Engagement on Alternative Transportation and Parking v. $145,000 for Cupertino Store Implementation vi. $7,500 for Cybersecurity Public Education vii. $50,000 for Electrification Study viii. $200,000 for Homeless Jobs Program ix. $25,000 for Housing for De Anza College Students x. $15,000 for Hybrid Meeting for City Council and Commission Meetings xi. $30,000 for Integrated Plan for Community Engagement xii. $20,000 for Intergenerational Engagement xiii. $60,000 for License Plate Readers xiv. $12,000 for Safe Gun Storage Ordinance xv. $35,000 for Senior Strategy xvi. $15,000 for Student Internship Program i. Approve $107,500 of transfers out from the General Fund to fund City Work Program projects j. Approve budget adjustments as presented in Attachment E 2. Adopt Resolution No. 22-065 establishing a Capital Improvement Program budget of $12,617,200 for FY 2022-23 a. Approve appropriations of $500,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the Blackberry Farms Pools Splash Pad project b. Approve appropriations of $4,000,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the City Hall and Library Parking Garage: Design and Construction project c. Approve appropriations of $1,300,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the City Lighting - LED Lighting project d. Approve appropriations of $525,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the De Anza Boulevard Buffered Bike Lanes project e. Approve appropriations of $850,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the Jollyman All-Inclusive Play Area: Adult-Assistive Bathroom Facilities project f. Approve appropriations of $90,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the Stocklmeir, Bryne and Blesch: Inspection Reports and Analysis project g. Approve appropriations of $95,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the ADA Improvements project h. Approve appropriations of $300,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the Annual Playground Replacement project i. Approve appropriations of $200,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the Park Amenity Improvements project j. Approve appropriations of $75,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the Street Light Installation - Annual Infill project k. Approve $4,308,600 of transfers out from the Capital Reserve to fund the Capital Improvement Program budget in FY 2022-23 l. Approve appropriations of $23,600 in the Blackberry Farm Enterprise Fund for the Blackberry Farm Golf Renovation / Alternative Use Study project m. Approve appropriations of $350,000 in the Recreation Program Enterprise Fund for the Major Recreation Facilities: Use and Market Analysis project 3. Adopt Resolution No. 22-066 establishing an Appropriations Limit of $122,756,522 for FY 2022-23 4. Adopt Resolution No. 22-067 amending the Unrepresented Employees' Compensation Program to add a Budget Manager and Purchasing Manager Presenter: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Staff Report Supplemental Staff Report Supplemental Staff Report Attachment A – CIP Project Ranking A - Draft Resolution - Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23 B - Draft Resolution - Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23 C - Draft Resolution - Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23 0437 D - Budget Adjustments Summary and Detail E - Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23 F - Appropriation Limit Price and Population Factors updated G - Budget Manager and Purchasing Manager Job Descriptions H - Draft Resolution Amending Unrepresented Employees' Compensation Program 06.07.2022 I - Unrepresented Comp - Revised - 06.07.2022 Clean Draft - Adding Budget and Purchasing Mgr J - Unrepresented Comp - Revised - 06.07.2022 Redline Draft - Adding Budget and Purchasing Mgr K - Proposed Budget Questions and Reponses L - Planning Commission Draft Resolution M - CIP Supplemental Information From Page 9, June 7, 2022 Agenda item 38 continued to June 9, 2022 Minutes: Final Motion: Chao moved and Willey seconded to: 2. Adopt Resolution No. 22-064 establishing an Operating Budget of $127,105,125 for FY 2022-23, which includes the following changes to the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget, published on May 1, 2022: b. Approve the operating budget of $125,461,857 outlined in the FY 2022-23 Proposed Budget The amended motion carried with Moore voting no. The Proposed Budget for Parks and Recreation has the same total cost as the Operating Budget online, however, this Waived Fee table below was added. Can you please point me to where/when the Waived Fee table was added? Thank you, Kitty Moore 0438 Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 at 10:33 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>, Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org >, Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Cc: Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Free Facility Use 0439 Councilmember Moore, The fee waivers for the facilities are a part of the festival costs chart that is called out in the proposed budget meetings and a part of the budget book. The chart contains a column entitled Facilities/Parks/Road Permits under the waived fees section of the chart. Staff does not waive any fees that are not approved by City Council as a part of the chart. If a festival asks for more space after this chart has been approved, festivals are informed that they must pay for any extra spaces. In the current policy, an organization complies with the festival policy if they are a local tax exempt or civic organization. They may also request City sponsorship which is what is approved by City Council through the budget process. City staff puts together the festivals costs chart based on the organizations who have requested city sponsorship. The chart is broken down by organization/festival and by specific costs, this break down is meant to allow Council to see and approve the costs and/or organizations at their discretion. I hope this helps, Rachelle Sander Director of Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation RachelleS@cupertino.org (408) 777-3131 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 10:08 AM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Cc: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>; Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: Re: Free Facility Use Hi Pamela, The festivals did get in the Budget, we did not get to reforming the Festival Fee waiver policy, my apologies. What is missing is the free facility use question. Council did not waive free use of facilities, do we have an accounting of this, as to whether Rotary and Chamber are continuing to have free use, for example. The Festival Fee waiver policy was supposed to make the waivers only eligible for 501(c)(3)s. While I do see an egg hunt in the festivals, and that is likely a 501(c)(3), is it appropriate to waive fees for a church? Additionally, without a policy in place for the selection of the Festivals which have their fees waived, are we subject to a discrimination problem? I don’t know how the group selected to have their fees waived came to be. Can someone provide some insight on that and how it will happen (selection) this year? Thank you, and sorry I used a search in Acrobat and the table did not show up, despite having the word ‘festival’ in it. Go figure. Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 From: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Date: Monday, April 3, 2023 at 9:46 AM To: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org>, Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org >, Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org> Cc: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>, Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org>, Debra Nascimento <DebraN@cupertino.org> Subject: RE: Free Facility Use Councilmember Moore, both the Festival Fee Waiver and Facility Fee waivers are included in any year’s budget, which were presented to Council during budget adoption. Rachelle and the budget team can provide you the specific document and where to find in the budget. Pamela 0440 Pamela Wu City Manager City Manager's Office PamelaW@cupertino.org (408)777-1322 From: Kitty Moore <Kmoore@cupertino.org> Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 1:53 PM To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.org> Cc: Rachelle Sander <RachelleS@cupertino.org>; Matt Morley <MattM@cupertino.org> Subject: Free Facility Use Hi Pamela, The Adopted Budget for FY 2022-2023 had no Festival Fee Waivers or Free Facility use waived. What I am observing, is that Staff is waiving these fees and there is no City Council approval. The Festival Fee manual shows that Council would approve the waivers. I would like a listing of all of the Festival Fees which have been waived for this FY and expected for the end of the year. I would also like a listing of all Facility use permit fees which have been waived for this FY. https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/finance/non-profit-support-opportunities This webpage needs to clarify the grants which were Council Approved in the Budget and the free Festival and Facility use which Staff approved, will that please be added for clarification. How much money for City facility use is Staff allowed to be giving away? I know of no dollar amount. Thank you, Kitty Moore Kitty Moore Councilmember City Council Kmoore@cupertino.org (408) 777-1389 0441