The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 01-25-2023 Item No. 2 Commission and Committee Responsibilities Written CommunicationsCC 1-25-23 Item No. 2 Study Session to consider modifying Municipal Code Title 2 regarding compositions amd responsibilities of existing Commissions and Committees Written Communications From:Peggy Griffin To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:2023-01-25 City Council Study Session Item2 - Consolidation/elimination of Commissions and Committees Date:Monday, January 23, 2023 2:41:23 AM Attachments:CC Agenda Item 2-Summary of Commission-Committee consolidations.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please include this email and the corresponding attachment as part of Written Communication for the 1-25-2023 City Council Study Session, Agenda Item #2 Consolidation/elimination of commissions/committees. Dear City Council and Staff, I understand the desire to reduce the amount of staff time needed to support Commissions and Committees but I think there must be a sweet spot where you can accomplish this without losing much needed functionality. In reading the 1-17-2023 Staff Report and the 1-25-2023 Supplemental Staff Report, I had trouble visualizing exactly what was being done so I, with the help of a friend, created the attached document that summarizes what the Staff Report says using lists. In doing so, I am concerned about the following: 1. All sub-committees – agree, delete them all. The 7 that are no longer active have completed their tasks and done a wonderful job! The others can be absorbed by various departments. 2. Environmental Review Committee – This committee has a critical job to protect the current and future people who live and work in Cupertino by reviewing all discretionary projects (that aren’t exempt) for evaluation under CEQA. The members of this committee were actually trained so they were familiar with the issues. a. As more commercial sites get converted or add residential they need to be evaluated to insure the health and safety of future residents are adequately protected. This applies to old gas station sites, old dry cleaner sites and sites nearby them. b. Environmental reviews can take time and they should not be stuffed into a packed agenda that encourages the items to be passed “on consent” or rushed! They need to be reviewed thoroughly by committee members that are familiar with the material, who have other items on the agenda to focus on. c. If it takes 80 hours annually so be it, if it will protect the current and future health and safety of construction workers and members of the public. It also protects the city against future lawsuits from health issues that arise due to exposure to contaminants. d. REQUEST: Keep the Environmental Review Committee and make sure the new members are trained regarding CEQA. 3. Design Review Committee - The Staff Report is misleading. On page 1 in the bulleted list, it says the Planning Commission will include “functions that were previously designated for Design Review Committee and Environmental Review Committee” but then on Page 5 Paragraph 2 it says “…assigned to the Planning Commission or to Council as appropriate.” a. Which is it? What exact functions fall under the Planning Commission and which fall under the Council? b. This is vague and makes it sound like it can be arbitrarily “adjusted” to one or the other based on a desired vote. c. The functions of commissions need to be clear – not wishy washy. d. REQUEST: If you’re going to consolidate the DRC, give all the functionality to the Planning Commission. 4. Legislative Review Committee – It uses 400 hours of staff time annually. This is critical work. The city needs to keep up with the continually changing laws and proposed laws impacting our city and its residents/businesses. The city needs to be pro-active and the way to do that is to have a committee focused on just this! Cupertino needs to actively stay engaged. a. The 1-17-2023 Staff Report (page 5, paragraph 2) says it’s functionality “…would be addressed by the Council as necessary” BUT the Council is trying to reduce it’s hours. It’s priority is not this! b. The “as necessary” will default to nothing being done. c. REQUEST: Keep the Legislative Review Committee. 5. Economic Development Committee – The 1-17-2023 Staff Report says it will be assigned to Council “as necessary”. The reason this is a codified committee is because for YEARS its meetings were going on without a lot of public visibility. It was a privileged meeting between city staff and the Chamber. They were given information before the public had access to it! a. Please do not go back to this less than transparent way of handling these meetings. b. REQUEST: Keep the Economic Development Committee. If you don’t, have the meetings be part of a REGULAR city council meeting so it’s available to the public. Sincerely, Peggy Griffin Staff recommended Consolida1on of Commissions, Commi4ees, Subcommi4ees Revised 1/22/2023 based on Supplemental Staff Report Changes (also see Staff Report) 10 Commissions: 1)Arts and Culture 2)Bicycle Pedestrian – 240 hrs annually 3)Housing – 200 hrs annually 4)Library – 350 hrs annually 5)Parks & RecreaCon – 750 hrs annually 6)Planning – 1100 hrs annually; add Design Review (40 hrs) and Environmental Review CommiMee (80 hrs) 7)Public Safety – 200 hrs annually 8)Sustainability – 220 hrs annually 9)Teen – 300 hrs annually 10)Technology, InformaCon & CommunicaCons (TICC) – 120 hrs annually Committees and staff hours spent: NC=not codiﬁed PROPOSED ACTION: see each committee below 1)AdministraCve Hearing CommiMee (NC) – 30 hrs annually 2)Audit CommiMee – 230 hrs annually 3)Design Review CommiMee (add to Planning OR City Council “as appropriate”) – 40 hrs annually 4)Disaster Council – 30 hrs annually OLD NEW COMMISSIONS 1 ARTS AND CULTURE ARTS AND CULTURE CMC 2.80 2 BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CMC 2.92.080 3 HOUSING HOUSING CMC 2.86.100 4 LIBRARY LIBRARY CMC 2.68.070 5 PARKS & RECREATION PARKS & RECREATION CMC 2.68.070 6 PLANNING PLANNING CMC 2.32.070 (INCLUDES FUNCTIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED FOR DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE) 7 PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC SAFETY CMC 2.60.070 8 SUSTAINABILITY SUSTAINABILITY CMC 2.94.080 9 TEEN TEEN CMC 2.95.080 10 TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION (TICC) TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION (TICC) CMC 2.74.060 COMMITTEES 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING 2 AUDIT AUDIT 3 DESIGN REVIEW PC OR CITY COUNCIL CMC 2.90.090 TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR TO COUNCIL AS APPROPRIATE. 4 DISASTER COUNCIL DISASTER COUNCIL CMC 2.40.025 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY COUNCIL CMC 2.96.010 TO BE ADDRESSED BY COUNCIL AS NECESSARY 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PC OR CITY COUNCIL CMC 2.84.080 TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR TO COUNCIL AS APPROPRIATE. *FISCAL STRATEGIC COMMITTEE - *HOUSING ELEMENT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT - *LEGISLATIVE REVIEW CITY COUNCIL TO BE ADDRESSED BY COUNCIL AS NECESSARY 5)Economic Development CommiMee (assigned to Council “as necessary”) – 60 hrs annually 6)Environmental Review CommiMee (add to Planning OR City Council “as appropriate”) – 80 hrs annually 7)Fiscal Strategic CommiMee (NC) 8)Housing Element Community Engagement Plan (CEP) CommiMee (assigned to Comm. Dev. Staff) 9)LegislaCve Review CommiMee (NC) (assigned to Council “as necessary”) – 400 hrs annually 10)Sister CiCes CommiMee a.CoperCno, Italy b.Toyokawa, Japan c.Hsinchu, Taiwan d.Bhubaneswar, India See Feb 15, 2022 Staff Report (Comparables ORANGE: Smaller, NAVY: Comparable, RED: Too Big) ALL SUBCOMMITTEES: eliminate giving responsibility to City Manager I-All sub-committees that are no longer active and have completed their tasks: PROPOSED ACTION: eliminate 1)Audit Expansion subcommiMee 2)Bidding and contract Process subcommiMee 3)Bubb Road subcommiMee 4)City Hall RenovaCon / Expansion Project subcommiMee 5)Farmer’s Market subcommiMee 6)Fiscal Strategic Plan CommiMee 7)ResidenCal Design Standards subcommiMee II-Subcommittees approved by Council but pending councilmember appointments: PROPOSED ACTION: “…delegate the speciﬁc concerns to the City Manager and have staff recommendations brought back for Council’s decision as appropriate.” 1)Closed Session Minutes subcommiMee 2)LegislaCve Aide selecCon subcommiMee (assign to Admin. Services staff) 3)Summer Intern applicaCon review subcommiMee (assign to Admin. Services staff) 4)Homelessness subcommiMee (assign to Community Development staff) 5)FesCval fee waiver subcommiMee (assigned to Parks and RecreaCon staff) City #Population FTE* 1 Monte Sereno 3 3,492 7 2 Los Altos Hills 16 8,300 26 3 Saratoga 9 31,030 57 4 Los Altos 15 31,190 95 5 Los Gatos 9 31,439 90 6 Campbell 11 42,288 104 7 Morgan Hill 4 45,742 123 8 Gilroy 11 58,756 138 9 Cupertino 17 66,762 198 10 Palo Alto 14 67,019 711 11 Mountain View 19 82,272 253 12 Milpitas 17 84,196 230 13 Santa Clara 14 128,717 530 14 Sunnyvale 11 156,503 735 From:Rhoda Fry To:City Clerk; City Council Subject:City Council Agenda January 25, 2022 STUDY SESSION #2 compositions and responsibilities of existing Commissions and Committees Date:Wednesday, January 25, 2023 2:26:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please post the following for today’s study session #1 and #2. Regarding today’s STUDY SESSION – Timing - I have looked back several years of City Council Meetings and I have never seen a council meeting that is intended for public participation to begin at 4pm. Typically special meetings for the public start at 5:30 PM and occasionally 5:00 PM. Is this what we can expect moving forward? I thought that our City Council encouraged public participation in our city : (. Can you please share with the community what the intentions are moving forward? Former Council Members on Commissions - I am very sad to see Mayor Wei’s attempt to remove former Mayor Scharf from the Planning Commission by employing a newly-invented rule that can be overturned at a future date. This appears in the red-lined version of the proposed changes. Planning Commissioners should be removed for cause. Unless and until there is cause to remove Mr. Scharf, he should remain on the commission. Keep in mind that past commissioners and past councilmembers can also have influence on staff even if they are not sitting on a commission. This council is moving into a very dangerous direction by considering the unnecessary removal of a sitting commissioner. Influence on Staff: Staff should disclose communications with past commissioners and past councilmembers on agenda items. Regarding public comment and the 9-minute proposal: I did not see anything pertaining to the opportunity for the public to have their comments read into the public comment by the City Clerk. Waiting 9 minutes before closing public comment is too long. In the past, people needed to get their cards in by the time staff had completed their presentation. Now we’re at 5 minutes and that is more than sufficient. Also, this allows the mayor the opportunity to reset the allotted time from 3 minutes to 2 minutes if there are a lot of speakers. There’s also a problem about moving oral communications (non-agenda items) to the end of the meeting for in-person attendees. People who call in are given priority. Someone who is there in person who is sent to the end of the meeting, will have to stay on site until the end of the meeting and potentially sit through many items that are not of interest. People who call in on zoom during oral communications should be placed last. Also, the half-hour rule should apply to a half-hour of actual speaker time, not the overhead time of calling the person and not the cumulative allocated time. I do not see that my comments for #2 have been rolled forward to today’s agenda written communications, so I am resending them below. I also think that the public should have the opportunity to review public comment ahead of the meeting. Thank You Very Much, Rhoda Fry From: Rhoda Fry [mailto:fryhouse@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 3:41 PM To: 'City Clerk' <CityClerk@cupertino.org>; 'citycouncil@cupertino.org' <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Subject: City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 STUDY SESSION #2 compositions and responsibilities of existing Commissions and Committees Dear City Council, Regarding, City Council Agenda January 17, 2022 STUDY SESSION #2 compositions and responsibilities of existing Commissions and Committees Please retain the Design Review Committee and Environmental Review Committee and Economic Development Committee and Legislative Review Committee 1. Please retain the Design Review Committee and Environmental Review Committee These committees already do not meet very often and it would be much easier to keep them on standby than to have to re-form them if necessary. The City of Los Altos actually has a Design Review Commission – it isn’t even a committee. Don’t we want to make Cupertino a better place to live? The types of people who serve on Design Review are going to be somewhat different from the types of people who serve on the Planning Commission. Someone who serves on Design Review has a narrower focus and specific expertise. The same is true for the Environmental Review Committee. Many of these meetings are already being cancelled – but let’s keep them penciled-in in case they’re needed. Again, specific interest/expertise is required for this work. You might have an architect serve on design review and an environmental specialist serve on the environmental review committee. Members on one would not likely serve on the other. Moreover, having a meeting of people with a specific focus on a specific topic will yield superior results and advice to the planning commission. 2. “Council discontinue all previously formed subcommittees and delegate the areas of concerns to the City Manager to review and research.” This is troubling. It should be up to the City Council to determine whether a subcommittee is needed. 3. The staff is recommending getting rid of Design Review, Economic Development, Environmental Review, and Legislative Review. This is not okay. We have members of the public who can serve on these and can assist the City in providing superior solutions. Please note that the Chamber of Commerce is not a substitute for Economic Development. The Chamber serves its members, many of whom have businesses outside of our City. When people contact the Chamber, the Chamber will provide recommendations to members of their organizations – not non- member businesses within our City. Having seen the presentations on the Economic Development Committee, I thought it was going to be an amazing asset for our community. Similarly, we need a forum under which staff and the community can review the effects of new legislation on our community. Please explain how the City spent 40 hours on the Design Review Committee in 2022? It never met in 2022. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry