Danessa - Citizen’s Advisory Committee

Oral Communication for Cupertino City Council Meeting on March 7, 2017 by Danessa Techmanski
-----------------------

Citizen’s Advisory Committee--City Council Meeting 3/7/2017

At the Cupertino Goal Setting Retreat two weeks ago the idea of a Citizen’s Advisory Committee was suggested to research and generate potential ideas for the future development and overall character of Cupertino. It is not something that should be done in a hurry, and I would hope that the duration of the committee would allow enough time to incorporate the completion of the traffic study, the full occupation of the Apple 2 Campus, and to digest new development in our immediate neighboring cities. 

There is, unfortunately, a good dose of suspicion about the formation and execution of such a committee so it needs to be handled with the utmost democracy, transparency, and objectiveness. Previous pseudo developer studies, disingenuous workshops, and deceptive campaign efforts have soured many residents. 

Since the Goal Meeting, I have taken several opportunities to talk to residents and would like to share some of their suggestions and concerns about the formation and conduct of such a committee.

1)Committee participants should not have a historic relationship with developers or their associates, and should be chosen by a completely neutral third party as we are attempting to start from a completely clean slate. The point is to get the most reliable and factual information possible to support the long-term success and fit of the many puzzle pieces that make up our city. Anything less objective will come back to have negative financial and quality of life impacts in the future. It pays to be forthright, and unbiased. 

2) The chosen mediator for such a process should be voted on by the committee itself with a minimum of two applicants, and preferably three, who should have no known history or current communications with potential developers or their associates.   Any mediator that has been shown to violate such may be removed by committee vote. Likewise, for any committee member.

3) The size of the group should be at least 30-35 people in order to get the best sampling and representation of Cupertino’s residents, and so as to avoid any one faction from monopolizing the process. Within the group, specialty divisions could be made to advise on housing, traffic, school impact, and surrounding development, which could be summarized and shared with the rest of the group to increase productivity, accuracy, and save time. 

4) There should be bi-monthly updates at City Council Meetings on the group’s progress and findings. Additionally, there should be a once monthly city cost accounting on the group provided at committee meetings. 

5) Quality of life, traffic, more affordable housing and the impact on our schools are of the greatest concern to residents and should be at the forefront of project constraints.

If done fairly, democratically, and honestly a Citizen’s Advisory Committee could be an excellent opportunity for our city officials to buy back some sadly lost public trust. It could provide developers with priceless guidance and planning information, and result in the most sustainable, successful, and utilitarian plan for our city, its residents, and developers as well.