CC 04-19-2022 Item No. 2 Brief reports from Councilmembers_Written CommunicationsCC 04-19-2022
Item No. 2
Brief reports on
councilmember
activities ans brief
announcements
Written Communications
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Subject:Misinformation by CUSD - BUSTED! CUSD did not conduct the 7-11 Committee Per Education Code
Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 1:24:46 AM
Below is what I shared at the 4/19 Council meeting. Please add it to the meeting record. And
please also share it with the entire Council too so that they have easy access to this info.
Thanks.
============
Misinformation by CUSD - BUSTED! CUSD did not conduct the 7-11 Committee Per
Education Code
Claim by concerned CUSD Parents CUSD’s Rebuttal (Figure 1 below)
CUSD did not conduct the 7-11
Committee to make a recommendation
“BEFORE decisions are made about
school closure”, as stated by the Education
Code 17387-89.
The 2020 Community Advisory Committee
(CAC), composed of 33 community
members, was a broad representation of
all of CUSD.
The claim is 100% TRUE!CUSD provided an irrelevant fact - a
strawman argument.
Although the Oct. 2020 CAC comprises 33 community members, it simply does not meet the
legal requirement for the 7-11 committee per Education Code 17387-17390 and it does not
follow the CDE Closing a School: Best Practices Guides (“The Guide”). Table 1 below
examines this issue in detail.
Thus, the claim made by concerned CUSD Parents above is TRUE. And the CUSD’s
rebuttal is merely an attempt to ignore the legal requirement and recommendation of
California Department of Education. The number of committee members is irrelevant
when the committee structure simply does tno comply with the basic Brown Act requirement
of the 7-11 committee.
Education Code 17387 states
“It is the intent of the Legislature that leases entered into pursuant to this chapter
provide for community involvement by attendance area at the district level. This
community involvement should facilitate making the best possible judgments about
the use of excess school facilities in each individual situation.
It is the intent of the Legislature to have the community involved before decisions
are made about school closure or the use of surplus space, thus avoiding
community conflict and assuring building use that is compatible with the
community’s needs and desires.”
One might argue that the 7-11 committee is not “mandated” per Education Code 17388;
however, the CDE Closing a School: Best Practices Guides clarified that the 7-11
committee “is an integral component before the difficult decision of school closures”
to ensure that there is “hard, empirical evidence leads to a broadly supported,
incontrovertible conclusion - the district cannot afford to keep a particular school(s) open
without cuts elsewhere - before decisions are made about school closure". Some
highlights from the Guide are collected in Table 2.
Table 1: Examination of Legal Requirements of the 7-11 Committee
The 7-11 Committee
(per Ed Code 17387-
17390 and CDE Closing a
School: Best Practices
Guides
The Oct. 2020
CAC by CUSD
1. Brown Act Committee, per Ed Code
17388
Required Not followed
1.1 Agenda shall be published 72
hours before each meeting
Required Not followed
1.2 The public shall be allowed to
comment on non-agenda items
Required Not followed
1.3 The public shall be allowed to
comment on agenda items
Required Not followed
1.4 The meetings are open to the
public
Required Not followed
2. The members shall be
representative of 7 groups specified in
Ed. Code 17389, such as
representatives of neighborhood
associations, the business community,
the ethnic, age group, and
socioeconomic composition of the
district etc.
Required Not followed.
The 33 members
meet only 3 out of
the 7 groups
specified.
3. The committee shall conduct a
public hearing per Ed Code 17390,
such as
Required Not followed
4. The committee should gather facts,
not only use facts provided by the
district [CDE Closing a School: Best
Practices Guides]]
Recommended No really, since the
2020 CAC did not
gather facts
4.1 The decision shall be based on Recommended Not really
hard, empirical evidence
4.2 The facts should leads to a broadly
supported, incontrovertible conclusion
Recommended No really
4.3 The conclusion should prove that
the district cannot afford to keep a
particular school open without cuts
elsewhere
Recommended No really since the
Oct 2020 CAC
made the
recommendation
based on the faulty
June 2020 budget
projection
4.5 The committee should consider
alternatives to closing schools, such as
expand class-size reduction, dispose
of excess portables, enter into joint
occupancy agreement, shift to full-day
kindergarten, initiate universal pre-
school, etc.
Recommended Not followed.
The Oct 2020 CAC
did not explore
many options,
beyond school
closures.
Table 2: Highlights from CDE Closing a School: Best Practices
Guides
Highlights from CDE Closing a School: Best Practices Guides
Common Sense to Form the 7-11 (DAC) Committee. “It is a legislative intent, but not a
mandate, for a district to have and use a District Advisory Committee (DAC) "before
decisions are made about school closure" (Education Code Section 17387). But
whether an intent or a mandate, the advice is good. … While this Section specifies a
legislative "intent," not a mandate, its application is common sense and should be an
integral part of school-closure decisions.” [CDE Closing a School: Best Practices
Guides]
Gather the facts. The decision to close a school must be based upon hard, empirical
evidence that leads to a broadly supported, incontrovertible conclusion-the district
cannot afford to keep a particular school(s) open without cuts elsewhere (budget,
staffing, etc.). [CDE Closing a School: Best Practices Guides]
Use 7-11 Committee is an Integral component in the difficult decisions of school
closure: “Even though the DAC's responsibilities are specific to decisions after a school
has been closed, those decisions should be made in concert with decisions about which
schools, if any, to close. To restrict the DAC to post facto responsibilities is to neglect
an integral component in the difficult decisions of school closure. DAC meetings are
subject to the Brown Act and must be open to the public” [CDE Closing a School: Best
Practices Guides]
Consider options. During the fact-finding process, the expanded, school-closure
committee should consider alternatives to closing schools.
expand class-size reduction to create a need for more classrooms;
dispose of excess portables or leased facilities;
use surplus classrooms for other district functions;
enter into joint-use/joint occupancy agreements;
convert to community day school use;
convert to a small high school;
shift to full-day kindergarten;
initiate universal pre-school program
Figure 1: The CUSD provided misinformation in its slides to address
“false claims”, since the claim made below is 100% true.
Claim by Concerned CUSD Parents CUSD’s Claim
CUSD did not conduct 7-11 committee
before school closure decisions are/were
made
The sentence (to the left) is FALSE
The sentence is 100% TRUE!CUSD provided misinformation
—------------
Attachment A: Education Code 17387-17390
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?
lawCode=EDC&division=1.&title=1.&part=10.5.&chapter=4.&article=1.5.
17387. It is the intent of the Legislature that leases entered into pursuant to this chapter
provide for community involvement by attendance area at the district level. This community
involvement should facilitate making the best possible judgments about the use of excess
school facilities in each individual situation.
It is the intent of the Legislature to have the community involved before decisions are made
about school closure or the use of surplus space, thus avoiding community conflict and
assuring building use that is compatible with the community’s needs and desires.
(Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 277, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1997. Operative January 1,
1998.)
17388.
The governing board of any school district may, and the governing board of each school
district, prior to the sale, lease, or rental of any excess real property, except rentals not
exceeding 30 days, shall, appoint a district advisory committee to advise the governing
board in the development of districtwide policies and procedures governing the use or
disposition of school buildings or space in school buildings which is not needed for school
purposes.
(Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 277, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1997. Operative January 1,
1998.)
17389.
A school district advisory committee appointed pursuant to Section 17388 shall consist of
not less than seven nor more than 11 members, and shall be representative of each of the
following:
(a) The ethnic, age group, and socioeconomic composition of the district.
(b) The business community, such as store owners, managers, or supervisors.
(c) Landowners or renters, with preference to be given to representatives of neighborhood
associations.
(d) Teachers.
(e) Administrators.
(f) Parents of students.
(g) Persons with expertise in environmental impact, legal contracts, building codes, and land
use planning, including, but not limited to, knowledge of the zoning and other land use
restrictions of the cities or cities and counties in which surplus space and real property is
located.
(Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 277, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1997. Operative January 1,
1998.)
17390.
The school district advisory committee shall do all of the following:
(a) Review the projected school enrollment and other data as provided by the district to
determine the amount of surplus space and real property.
(b) Establish a priority list of use of surplus space and real property that will be acceptable to
the community.
(c) Cause to have circulated throughout the attendance area a priority list of surplus space
and real property and provide for hearings of community input to the committee on
acceptable uses of space and real property, including the sale or lease of surplus real
property for child care development purposes pursuant to Section 17458.
(d) Make a final determination of limits of tolerance of use of space and real property.
(e) Forward to the district governing board a report recommending uses of surplus space
and real property.
(Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 277, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1997. Operative January 1,
1998.)
Liang Chao
Vice Mayor
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Cc:Peggy Griffin
Subject:Fw: Invoices for EMC
Date:Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:48:23 AM
Attachments:EMC Invoice 21-457.pdf
EMC Invoice 21-505.pdf
EMC Invoice 21-551.pdf
image001.png
image004.png
image006.png
image009.png
image012.png
image014.png
image017.png
image019.png
Those are the invoices I shared at the meeting for EMC.
Please add it to the meeting record.
Thanks.
Liang Chao
Vice Mayor
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192
From: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2022 9:30 AM
To: Liang Chao <LiangChao@cupertino.org>
Cc: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.org>
Subject: FW: Invoices for EMC
To date, we have paid approximately $96K to EMC.
Jim
Jim Throop
City Manager
City Manager's Office
JimT@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1402
From: Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 11:00 AM
To: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org>; Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>
Subject: RE: Invoices for EMC
Hi Jim,
Attached are the invoices from EMC.
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks!
Thomas Leung
Senior Management Analyst
Administrative Services
ThomasL@cupertino.org
From: Jim Throop <JimT@cupertino.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 11:42 AM
To: Kristina Alfaro <KristinaA@cupertino.org>; Thomas Leung <ThomasL@cupertino.org>
Subject: Invoices for EMC
I was asked by VM Chao to see invoices from EMC concerning the housing element process.
Can you please send me copies? Pdf is best.
Thanks
Jim
Jim Throop
City Manager
City Manager's Office
JimT@cupertino.org
(408) 777-1402
Invoice
DATE
12/31/21
INVOICE NO.
21-551
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014-3255
Attn: Gian Martire
TERMS
Net 30
DUE DATE
1/30/22
PROJECT NO.
GP-090
PROJECT NAME
Housing Element Update 2023-31
PROJECT LOCATION
Cupertino, California
CLIENT PROJECT NO.
BILLING PERIOD
December 2021
We appreciate your business!TOTAL
BUDGET
511,814.50
For invoice questions, please contact Cris Staedler at
staedler@emcplanning.com or (831) 649-1799 x202.
ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT
MC/21 Martin Carver, AICP, Principal 4.22 225.00 949.50
AF/21 Ande Flower, AICP, Principal Planner 54.5 200.00 10,900.00
SGA/21 Susan Groves-Ameil, Administrative Assistant 0.58 115.00 66.70
LH/21 Lauren Hoerr, Associate Planner 46.29 150.00 6,943.50
RJ/21 Richard James, AICP, Principal 2.23 225.00 501.75
PKB/21 Polaris Kinison Brown, Principal Planner 2.89 200.00 578.00
TWA/21 Teri Wissler Adam, Senior Principal 2.25 250.00 562.50
Subtotal 20,501.95
Airfare Air Travel Expenses 184.21 184.21
Postage Postage Expenses (Internal) 1.59 1.59
Copying Copying Expenses (Internal) 31.80 31.80
Subtotal 217.60
ExpenseAdmin. Direct Expenses Administration (10%) 10.00% 21.76
Subs Metta Urban Design - November (See
Attached)
6,965.00 6,965.00
Subs Metta Urban Design - December (See Attached) 5,385.00 5,385.00
Subs ELS Architecture & Urban Design (See
Attached)
1,650.00 1,650.00
Subs Language Connections (See Attached) 800.00 800.00
Subtotal 14,800.00
SubsAdmin10 Subconsultant Administration (10%) 10.00% 1,480.00
Page 1
Invoice
DATE
12/31/21
INVOICE NO.
21-551
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014-3255
Attn: Gian Martire
TERMS
Net 30
DUE DATE
1/30/22
PROJECT NO.
GP-090
PROJECT NAME
Housing Element Update 2023-31
PROJECT LOCATION
Cupertino, California
CLIENT PROJECT NO.
BILLING PERIOD
December 2021
We appreciate your business!TOTAL
BUDGET
511,814.50
For invoice questions, please contact Cris Staedler at
staedler@emcplanning.com or (831) 649-1799 x202.
ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT
Total Budget $511,814.50
Prior Billing $59,644.89
Current Billing $37,021.31
Total Billing $96,666.20
Remaining Budget $415,148.30
Estimated Percent Complete: 19%
Page 2
$37,021.31