CC 10-06-2020 Oral Communications_Late Written CommunicationsCC 10-06-20
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jim Moore <maxcinco@comcast.net>
Sent:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:39 PM
To:Steven Scharf; Darcy Paul; Jon Robert Willey; Liang Chao; Rod Sinks; Cupertino City Manager's Office;
City Attorney's Office
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Jim and Susan Moore and two neighbors (6 votes out of 6) support the Berkeley sqft property tax
model for CUSD
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 Scharf, Vice Major Paul, council members Willey, Chao, and
Sinks, City Manager Feng, and City Attorney Minner,
Sue and I have discussed the Berkeley sqft property tax model with two
other neighbor families (just two so far). All six of us (100%) now
support charging property taxes based on the build-out sqft of the property
as we want to fully fund our neighborhood CUSD schools.
I also discussed the change to a sqft usage property tax with my Son-in-
Law (SIL), a county assessor. He sees no concerns with the Assessor's
Office changing their assessment methodology to accommodate a change
to sqft property tax for CUSD.
Recently, residents learned that there are about 39,000 parcels in
CUSD. For about $5,000, the County assessor will provide the data
showing building sqft for each parcel. With sqft per parcel build-out,
along with the building type (SFH, apt., commercial, ...), a $ charge per
sqft can be determined that brings in the amount required to fully fund the
budget for CUSD.
The Berkeley change to sqft was passed, its first time on the ballot, by
83% of the voters. Residents/voters in CUSD highly value neighborhood
schools as does Berkeley. When the benefits of the Berkeley sqft property
2
tax model are properly presented to CUSD residents, the most likely
outcome is passage with over 67% of CUSD votes.
During Oral Communications, Sudha provided a numerical example of
this property tax change to sqft. A Single Family Home (SFH) and a 200-
unit Apartment complex, each on a single parcel, now pay $250
annually. She assumes the SFH is 2500 sqft. She assumes the Apartment
complex has 200 units, and averages 1000 sqft/unit. In Sudha's example,
at $0.10/sqft, this SFH will pay the same amount, $250, as its prior parcel
tax. The 200-unit Apartment Complex will pay, for its 200,000 total sqft,
$20,000. If we reasonably assume that a SFH has 1 - 2 students, and each
1000 sqft Apartment unit has 1 - 2 students, the fair amount to support
CUSD neighborhood schools is $250 for the SFH, and $20,000 for the
200-unit Apartment complex. Residents want property tax fairness, and
the sqft property tax is fair and equitable. The current parcel tax is not fair
and equitable. Let's work to change it.
Jim Moore
Resident volunteer
Virus-free. www.avg.com
CC 10-06-20
#9
November 2020
Election Positions
Written Comments
Dear city council and city staff,
Thank you for your hard work. 2020 has been a difficult year for all of us. But now is the time we need you to
establish your leadership over your constituency. We need you to take a difficult, but correct stand.
On this November ballot, Proposition 16 will seek voters’ passage to remove this term from Californian
Constitution：“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or
group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public
education, or public contracting.”
Although Proposition 16 is summarized as a bill for diversity, it’s really about “governmental preferences”.
Proposition 16 will legalize discrimination. It distracts the focus on helping the poor and needs instead give
leeway to the powerful and rich especially in preferred races and identity politicians to take advantage of
government resources.
While the nation is questioning the systematic racism, Proposition 16 foreshadows a systematic racism in
California.
That’s why, as a resident and constituent, I’m requesting you to join hundreds of politicians, civil rights leaders,
parents, and children to oppose proposition 16.
Please read out my comments in the meeting. Thank you!
Bri
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.
Page 1 of 1
10/7/2020mhtml:file://C:\Users\cyrahc\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outl...
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Yan Yu <yanyu2005@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 6:28 PM
To:City Council
Subject:No on Prop 16
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 councils,
I would like to convey my strong opposition to Prop 16.
For those ppl supporting prop 16 should go to study the chinese recent history of cultural revolution. The admission
criteria based on the identity politics other than merit based system cause the entire college graduates of that decade
being dismissed and discredited in future decades and people have good reasons to discredit them. Prop 16 will cause
talented people of minorities subject to discredit and dismiss since they are NOT admitted based on their qualifications
but based on their race identity. btw, identity politics will cause science and civilization go stagnant and backwards. We
need to stop this dangerous trend!
Thanks!
yan
Sent from my iPhone
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:tessa parish <tessa@parishrealestategroup.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 6:35 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office
Subject:Comment item #9 Agenda 10/6/2020
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 & Council members,
I would like to urge the Council to NOT decide to take ANY position on ANY proposition. I believe this violates the spirit
of the existing State Law
General Prohibition on Use of Public Facilities
"State law in RCW 42.17A.555 prohibits the use of facilities of a public office to support or oppose a ballot measure or an
election campaign for public office. This prohibition is not new, as it was a part of Initiative 276 adopted by the voters in
1972.
It is important for local government officials to be aware of what may and may not be done in regard to supporting or
opposing a ballot proposition. These rules apply to all units of local government and their officials and employees,
including counties, cities, towns, transit districts, port districts and other special districts.
The general prohibition against use of public facilities is very broad and comprehensive. The term "public facilities" is
defined to include use of stationery, postage, equipment, use of employees during working hours, vehicles, office space,
publications of the office, or lists of persons served by the local government. This prohibition means that elective or
appointive personnel of local governments may not work to support or oppose a ballot proposition during work time or
allow public facilities to be used for that purpose."
Though some of the Council members may be passionately opposed or in support of a specific proposition, in my
opinion it is not ok to use their position to "promote" their wishes on a people.
Thank you for your consideration,
Tessa Parish
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:tessa parish <tessa@parishrealestategroup.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 7:22 PM
To:City Clerk
Cc:Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Attorney's Office
Subject:Final amended statement on item #9
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 and Council members,
I urge you NOT to take a position on ANY proposition as it does not reflect the opinion of ALL of the residents and
perhaps not even the majority.
Just as we wouldn't allow campaigning on public property. I think that when Cities take the position of an item currently
on the ballot, it violates the spirit of that law. This year's propositions are very controversial and while city council
members may be passionate about any one proposition, I don't think it is supports our democratic process.
Thank you,
Tessa Parish
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:mzhang <myyzhang@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 8:01 PM
To:City Council
Subject:Vote No to Prop 16, 19, 21
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 Cupertino City Council Members,
I am a Cupertino resident. Please vote No to Prop 16, Prop 19 and Prop 21. My reasons are the
following.
No for Prop 16: People should be selected based on their qualification, regardless of their skin
color. Dr. ML King said similar slogan.
No for Prop 19: To protect seniors in California to live peacefully.
No for Prop 21: Rent control is not good for the market economy. It will kill the rental business.
Thanks,
Michael Zhang
Resident of Cupertino
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Venkat Ranganathan <n.r.v@live.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 9:32 PM
To:City Council
Subject:Prop 16
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
I tried to speak but because of audio issue could not speak. I would like to urge the council to abstain or vote
NO on Prop 16 as it will not be helping in uplifting the lots of the underprivileged it purports to help. Having
first hand experience on societal impacts on such quota reservation policies, I can foresee that Prop 16 will be
ushering California as a race aware society for all the benefits and will become another tool in the hands of
the politicians to further divide the people for their own benefit. I understand the emotions of well‐meaning
people who feel the pain of the underprivileged who want to vote yes on this but deeper reflection on the
societal impacts we will have in future will help them understand the issues this proposition will unforl. We
need to address the race relations in a fundamentally different way by providing learning opportunities than
create further divisions and quotas in the college seats, employment options etc., based on race.
Thanks
Venkat
Sent from Outlook
CC 10-06-20
#10
Proposed Municipal
Code Amendment
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 5:05 PM
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2020-10-06 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 10-limiting access to City Attorney
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 in the written communication for the City Council meeting 2020–10‐06 Agenda Item #10.
Dear City Council,
I urge you to reject this proposal and subsequent change to our laws. If there’s a problem, solve it without another law!
Limiting access to our City Attorney by our elected representatives is BS! There are times and issues that require more
access and times when 2 hours are way too much. Arbitrarily putting a limit on getting answers to legal questions
regarding issues in our city or that come up before our council is very short sighted!
Example: Westport had a lot of issues and as a resident, I’d want every question answered!
Please do not put a cap on access to legal unbiased answers from our City Attorney! Don’t force council members to
have to seek and pay for outside and potentially biased opinions. That’s why we have a City Attorney!
Consider always making available to other council members, the questions and answers asked and answered.
Consider, during big projects/big issues, having a question answer closed session between all the City Council members
and the City Attorney.
Consider, showing/sharing the City Attorney’s calendar to all Council Members.
Please do not put a cap on getting answers!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:10 PM
To:Jon Robert Willey
Cc:City Clerk; City Council
Subject:2020-10-06 CC mtg Item 10
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 Councilman Willey,
You were right on with how you instructed the City Attorney on needs to provide to the City Council.
Thank you for speaking out for support!
Peggy
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Jean Bedord <Jean@bedord.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 7, 2020 5:03 PM
To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk
Subject:Feedback on Item #10 , Limit use of City Attorney Time, Council Meeting, Oct. 6
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.
Mayor Scharf, Vice Mayor Paul and councilmembers,
I was appalled by the consideration of this item at council last night. As stated in the staff report, this agenda item was
requested by council on March 3, 2020. As Mayor Scharf commented, the council is probably wasting tens of thousands
of dollars that are probably unnecessary, and he recognized that limiting INDIVIDUAL use could reduce the city legal
costs. The two hour limit was a reasonable recommendation by staff, consistent with other municipal codes.
In my corporate life, I worked with many lawyers. I was expected to do my homework, getting clarification from staff
before consulting with the attorney on the legal aspects, NOT the operational aspects of a matter. Wasting expensive
legal time was unacceptable. As a member of the public, I expect the same level of preparedness from council
members. This was not demonstrated last night. As the Mercury News observed on Sept. 16, "Cupertino has developed
a well‐deserved reputation for having one of the most dysfunctional city councils in the Bay Area."
I consider an apology to staff in order. They did what council asked them to do, and should be treated
professionally. Council needs to discipline itself.
Please put this feedback in the public record for the Oct. 6 city council meeting.
Warm regards,
Jean Bedord
CC 10-06-20
#11
Coronavirus Relief
Act
Written Comments
1
Cyrah Caburian
From:Swim5am (Connie Cunningham) <Swim5am@comcast.NET>
Sent:Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:43 PM
To:City Council
Subject:October 6, 2020 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, COVID-19 Response CARES Act Framework
and Funding Priorities
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.
October 6, 2020 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item 11, COVID‐19 Response: Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic
Security (CARES) Act Framework and Funding Priorities
Mayor, Vice‐Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Manager:
I am not surprised that this Agenda Item for spending well over $1,000,000 was the last agenda item to be heard at the
Council meeting tonight. I have seen it happen often that important items are not discussed until very late in the
evening.
I pull out one topic for comparative purposes:
Page 3, last paragraph: “ To date the City has spent approximately …. $24,500,… on Category 4….. Category 4 included
homeless encampment, employee telework, and senior meal delivery.”….”The City is proposing to spend an additional
$580,3000 as follows:… Category 4 — Proposed Requests:
$18,000 Senior meal delivery
$50,000 Telework capabilities
$‐0‐ Zero additional funds were proposed for homeless encampment
What a jaw‐dropping number. No wonder it was reserved until the end of the day.
Over $500,000 for such things as door openers and acrylic shields, hands‐free pluming fixtures, occupancy sensors,
sanitary coating for plenums, touches drinking fountain replacements, etc. etc. etc.
Then another several hundred thousand for yet another category.
None of these categories strike me as serious as helping the 159 homeless people living in Cupertino who are suffering
from the pandemic, too. Or helping seniors. Cupertino has several grantees that could use extra funds during these
times. Even if you don’t include WVCS since the City has already helped them, there are many other grantees for
support such as senior assistance, abused spouses, and others.
COVID has exposed the cracks in how our system works.
Words fail me. I am disappointed. Extremely disappointed.
I urge you to spend more of these funds on people desperately trying to survive. Just look at the various grants that the
City supports already as a starting place.
2
Connie L Cunningham
Housing Commission (self only)