Cupertino City Council
December 20, 2022

CITY OF CUPERTINO
CI

TY COUNCIL
AGENDA
This will be a teleconference meeting without a physical location.

Tuesday, December 20, 2022
6:45 PM
Televised Regular City Council Meeting (6:45)

TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION TO HELP STOP THE SP
READ OF COVID-19
In accordance with Government Code 54953(e), this will be a teleconference meeting without a physical location to help stop the spread of COVID-19.

Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:
1) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV. 2) The meeting will also be streamed live on and online at www.Cupertino.org/youtube and www.Cupertino.org/webcast
Members of the public wishing to comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways:
1) E-mail comments by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 20 to the Council at [email protected]. These e-mail comments will also be forwarded to Councilmembers by the City Clerk’s office before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the meeting.
2) Teleconferencing Instructions
Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the teleconference meeting as follows:

Oral public comments will be accepted during the teleconference meeting. Comments may be made during “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the public comment period for each agenda item.

To address the City Council, click on the link below to register in advance and access the meeting:

1 CC 12-20-2022
1 of 114
City Council A genda December 20, 2022
Online
R
egister in advance for this webinar:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_QJmY1ET7SpyRxAzzpHM_QA Phone
Dial: 669-900-6833 and enter Webinar ID: 970 2928 1641 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak, *6 to unmute yourself). Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number.

Or an H.323/SIP room system:

H.323:
162.255.37.11 (US West)
162.255.36.11 (US East)
Meeting ID: 970 2928 1641
SIP: [email protected]
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Please read the following instructions carefully:

1. You can directly download the teleconference software or connect to the meeting in your internet browser. If you are using your browser, make sure you are using a current and up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.

2. You will be asked to enter an email address and a name, followed by an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. If you wish to make an oral public comment but do not wish to provide your name, you may enter “Cupertino Resident” or similar designation.

3. When the Mayor calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand,” or, if you are calling in, press *9. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.

4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted and the specific agenda topic.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this teleconference City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance.

2 CC 12-20-2022
2 of 114
City Council A genda December 20, 2022
In addition, upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting age
ndas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format.

ROLL CALL
CE
REMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS - None

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter within t
he jurisdiction of the Council and not on the agenda. The total time for Oral Communications will ordinarily be limited to one hour. Individual speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. As necessary, the Chair may further limit the time allowed to individual speakers, or reschedule remaining comments to the end of the meeting on a first come first heard basis, with priority given to students. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Council from discussing or making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. A councilmember may, however, briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by speakers. A councilmember may also ask a question for clarification, provide a reference for factual information, request staff to report back concerning a matter, or request that an item be added to a future City Council agenda in response to public comment.

REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
C
ONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1-9)
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the pu
blic, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously.

1. S ubject: Consider approval of the November 29 City Council minutes Recommended Action: App rove the November 29 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes

2. S ubject: Consider approval of the December 5 City Council minutes Recommended Action: App rove the December 5 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes

3. S ubject: Consider approval of the December 6 City Council minutes Recommended Action: App rove the December 6 City Council minutes A - Draft Minutes

4. S ubject: Consider approval of the December 9 City Council minutes Recommended Action: App rove the December 9 City Council minutes

3 CC 12-20-2022
3 of 114
City Council A genda December 20, 2022
A - Draft Minutes

5. Subject: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino for the period December 20, 2022 through January 19, 2023 pursuant to the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-151 authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino for the period December 20, 2022 through January 19, 2023 pursuant to the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361
Staff Report
A – Draft Resolution
B – Adopted Resolution No. 22-142
C – Health Officer Recommendation Regarding Public Governmental Meetings

6. S ubject: Consider cancellation of the January 3, 2023 City Council meeting Recommended Action: Ca ncel the January 3, 2023 City Council meeting Staff Report

7. Subject: Consider the Mitigation Fee Act - an annual and five-year report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022 (Continued from December 6, 2022)
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-145 entitled "A Resolution of the City of Cupertino City Council approving the annual and five -year Development Impact Fee report for FY ending June 30, 2022" to:

1. Make the required findings as identified in the Resolution; and

2. Approve the annual and five-year Development Impact Fee report for the FY ending June 30, 2022, as required by Government Code Section 66000 et seq Staff Report
A - Annual and Five-Year Report
B - Draft Resolution

8. Subject: Consider approval of response to 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report Entitled, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped” Recommended Action: Approve the response to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report Entitled, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped” Staff Report
A - Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report
B – Draft Response Letter to Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County

9. S ubject: Consider appointment of 2023 Councilmember Committee Assignments Recommended Action: App rove 2023 Councilmember Committee Assignments A - 2023 Council Committee Assignments

4 CC 12-20-2022
4 of 114
City Council A genda December 20, 2022
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED (As necessary)

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements: Individuals who influence or attempt to influence l
egislative or administrative action may be required by the City of Cupertino’s lobbying ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.100) to register and report lobbying activity. Persons whose communications regarding any legislative or administrative are solely limited to appearing at or submitting testimony for any public meeting held by the City are not required to register as lobbyists.

For more information about the lobbying ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 94107; telephone (408) 777-3223; email [email protected]; and website: www.cupertino.org/lobbyist.

The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.

Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours; and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.

5 CC 12-20-2022
5 of 114
City Council A genda December 20, 2022
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section

2.08.100 w
ritten communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website.

6 CC 12-20-2022
6 of 114

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11823 Agenda Date:
12/20/2022 Agenda #: 1.

Subject: Consider approval of the November 29 City Council minutes Approve the November 29 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
7 CC 12-20-2022
7 of 114

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 29, 2022

SPECIAL MEETING

At 5:3 0 p.m., Mayor Paul called the Special City Council Meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Kitty Moore, Hung Wei, and Jon Robert Willey

In open session before Council convened in closed session, the Mayor called for any members of the public who were present to provide comment regarding any item on the agenda. No members of the public requested to speak. Mayor Paul then closed the session.

CLOSED SESSION

1. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9: Nadav Samet v. Cupertino Union School District et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 22CV403285

Council conducted the Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9: Nadav Samet v. Cupertino Union School District et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 22CV403285

No reportable action was taken.

OPEN SESSION

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Kitty Moore, Hung Wei, and Jon Robert Willey

8 CC 12-20-2022
8 of 114

November 29, 2022 City Council Minutes

REPORT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Paul conducted the report regarding closed session.

Council recessed from 6:00 p.m. to 6:05 p.m.

COMMISSION INTERVIEWS

2. Subject: Economic Development Committee interviews
Recommended Action: Conduct interviews and make appointments for seven vacancies on the Economic Development Committee:
a. One Sustainability Commissioner;
b. One Technology, Information, and Communications Commissioner; c. One Hospitality/Tourism Sector Representative;
d. One Education Sector Representative;
e. One Retail/Small Business Representative;
f. One Commercial Real Estate Representative;
g. One Technology Sector Business Representative; and
h. Make appointments for any alternates.

Written communications for this item included an updated Attachment A - Interview Schedule and applicant handouts.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Paul moved and Moore seconded to appoint Vignesh Swaminathan of the Sustainability Commission to a one-year term ending January 2024 ; and Mukesh Garg of the Technology, Information, and Communications Commission to a one-year term ending January 2024; and to direct the respective Commissions to designate an appointee within the Commission as Alternate. The motion carried unanimously.

Council took straw polls for their top-ranking candidates in the following Sectors:

Hospitality/Tourism
Willey: Bill Wu as Primary
Moore: Susan Chen as Primary, Bill Wu as Alternate
Wei: did not support either applicant
Chao: Bill Wu as Primary
Paul: did not comment

Education
Willey: Andy Huang, Maria Tzanakova
9 CC 12-20-2022
9 of 114

November 29, 2022 City Council Minutes

Moore: Andy Huang, Aegean Lee
Wei: Andy Huang, Maria Tzanakova
Chao: Andy Huang, Aegean Lee
Paul: Aegean Lee or Maria Tzanakova, Andy Huang as Alternate

Retail/Small Business
Willey: Brion Lau (first), Linda Wells and Helen Yang (second) Moore: Helen Yang, Linda Wells,, Brion Lao, Vinu Krishnamurthy Wei: Helen Yang, Vinu Krishnamurthy, Brion Lau
Chao: Brion Lau, Linda Wells, Vinu Krishnamurthy
Paul: Brion Lau, Linda Wells, Vinu Krishnamurthy, Helen Yang

Commercial Real Estate
Willey: Santosh Rao, Vinu Krishnamurthy
Moore: Susan Chen, Santosh Rao
Wei: Sean Panchal, Susan Chen
Chao: Santosh Rao, Vinu Krishnamurthy, Susan Chen
Paul: Santosh Rao and Sean Panchal, Susan Chen

Technology
Willey: Santosh Rao, Priya Shastri, and Andy Huang
Moore: Santosh Rao and Andy Huang
Wei: Andy Huang
Chao: Santosh Rao and Andy Huang
Paul: Santosh Rao, Kevin Wang, Andy Huang as Alternate

Moore moved and Willey seconded to appoint Susan Chen as the Hospitality/Tourism Sector Representative and Bill Wu as Alternate. Wei made a friendly amendment to make the Economic Development Committee member appointments but pending confirmation by the new Councilmembers. (Moore declined Wei’s friendly amendment and it was not considered).

The motion carried with Wei abstaining.

Chao moved and Willey seconded to appoint Aegean Lee as the Education Sector Representative and Maria Tzankova as Alternate. The motion carried with Wei abstaining.

Willey moved and Chao seconded to appoint Santosh Rao as the Commercial Real Estate Sector Representative. The motion carried with Wei abstaining.

Willey moved and Chao seconded to appoint Andy Huang as the Technology Sector Representative and Kevin Wang as Alternate. The motion carried with Wei abstaining.

Willey moved and Moore seconded to appoint Sean Panchal as Alternate for the Commercial Real Estate Sector Representative. The motion carried with Wei abstaining.

Chao moved to appoint Brion Lau as the Retail/Small Business Sector Representative and Linda Wells as Alternate . (T here was no second and the motion was not considered). Willey moved and Moore seconded to appoint Brion Lau as the Retail/Small Business Sector Representative and Helen Yang as Alternate 1 and Linda Wells as Alternate 2. The motion carried with Wei abstaining.

10 CC 12-20-2022
10 of 114

November 29, 2022 City Council Minutes

Paul moved and Moore seconded to appoint all five terms for two years ending January 2025, with an advisory to appoint the Council Committee Assignments for one year. The motion carried with Wei abstaining.

Motions Summary:

Council conducted interviews and made the following appointments for seven vacancies on the Economic Development Committee:
a. Appointed Sustainability Commissioner Vignesh Swaminathan to a one -year term ending January 2024;
b. Appointed Technology, Information, and Communications Commissioner Mukesh Garg to a one-year term ending January 2024;
c. Appointed Susan Chen as Hospitality/Tourism Sector Representative to a two -year term ending January 2025; and appointed Zhibiao (Bill) Wu as Alternate; d. Appointed Aegean Lee as Education Sector Representative to a two-year term ending January 2025; and appointed Maria Tzankova as Alternate; e. Appointed Brion Lau as Retail/Small Business Representative to a two -year term ending January 2025; and appointed Helen Yang as 1st Alternate and Linda Wells as 2nd Alternate;
f. Appointed Santosh Rao as Commercial Real Estate Representative to a two-year term ending January 2025; and appointed Shyam (Sean) Panchal as Alternate; g. Appointed Andy Huang as Technology Sector Business Representative to a two-year term ending January 2025; and appointed Kevin Wang as Alternate; and h. Council also directed the Sustainability and Technology, Information, and Communications Commissions to designate an Alternate appointee within the respective Commissions; and made a n advisory to appoint the Council Committee Assignment terms for one year.

ADJOURNMENT

At 12:19 a.m. on Wednesday, November 30, 2022 , Mayor Paul adjourned the Special City Council Meeting.

____________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

11 CC 12-20-2022
11 of 114

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11539 Agenda Date:
12/20/2022 Agenda #: 2.

Subject: Consider approval of the December 5 City Council minutes Approve the December 5 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
12 CC 12-20-2022
12 of 114

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, December 5, 2022

SPECIAL MEETING

At 7:3 2 a.m., Mayor Paul called the Special City Council Meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Kitty Moore, Hung Wei, and Jon Robert Willey

In open session before Council convened in closed session, the Mayor called for any members of the public who were present to provide comment regarding any item on the agenda. No members of the public requested to speak. Mayor Paul then closed the session.

CLOSED SESSION

1. Subject: Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov. Code § 54957(b)(1)); Title: City Manager

Council conducted the Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov. Code § 54957(b)(1)); Title: City Manager,

No reportable action was taken.

OPEN SESSION

REPORT REGARDING CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Paul conducted the report regarding closed session.

ADJOURNMENT

At 9:01 a.m., Mayor Paul adjourned the Special City Council Meeting.

13 CC 12-20-2022
13 of 114

December 5, 2022 City Council Minutes

____________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

14 CC 12-20-2022
14 of 114

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-10505 Agenda Date:
12/20/2022 Agenda #: 3.

Subject: Consider approval of the December 6 City Council minutes Approve the December 6 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
15 CC 12-20-2022
15 of 114

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, December 6, 2022

At 6:45 p.m., Mayor Paul called the Regular City Council Meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue and via teleconference.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Kitty Moore, Hung Wei, and Jon Robert Willey.

CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Subject: Consider a certificate of appreciation to Captain Rich Uren a for his years of service to the Cupertino community as West Valley Patrol Captain Recommended Action: Present certificate of appreciation to Captain Rich Urena for his years of service to the Cupertino community as West Valley Patrol Captain

Captain Rich Urena received the certificate of appreciation.

Mayor Paul presented the certificate of appreciation to Captain Rich Urena for his years of service to the Cupertino community as West Valley Patrol Captain.

2. Subject: Consider certificates of appreciation recognizing Rudy Lomas and Kane Wolfe for their years of service to the City of Cupertino upon their retirement Recommended Action: Present certificates of appreciation recognizing Rudy Lomas and Kane Wolfe for their years of service to the City of Cupertino upon their retirement

Written communications for this item included and updated Attachment B – Corrected Certificate of Appreciation.

Rudy Lomas and Kane Wolfe received the certificates of appreciation.

16 CC 12-20-2022
16 of 114
City Council Minutes December 6, 2022

Mayor Paul presented the certificates of appreciation recognizing Rudy Lomas and Kane Wolfe for their years of service to the City of Cupertino upon their retirement.

Council recessed from 6:55 p.m. to 7:13 p.m.

Vice Mayor Chao and Councilmember Wei left the dais and attended the remainder of the meeting via teleconference.

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY
Moore moved and Willey seconded to postpone Item 11 considering the annual and five -year Development Impact Fee report for FY ending June 30, 2022 to the December 20 , 202 2 City Council meeting. The motion carried unanimously.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Call-In-User_1 was concerned about a case with the City requiring demolition of an illegal structure on their property.

Dennis Cunningham supported continuing to hold City Council meetings by teleconference and policies allowing staff to work from home.

Peggy Griffin thanked Mayor Paul and Councilmember Willey for their service and opposed allowing restaurants to exceed a certain percentage of the total square footage at Main Street.

San R thanked Mayor Paul and Councilmember Willey for their service and supported the new Council considering resident needs and prioritizing crime issues. (Submitted written comments).

Felix, Stephanie, Annie , Aspen, and Bruno of First Level League Team Tornado shared their micro hydropower system innovation project to save energy. (Submitted written comments).

Jennifer Griffin thanked Mayor Paul and Councilmember Willey for their service and was concerned about a fire at the Historic Graves House and preserving the Stocklmeir House.

John Kehoe supported Golf Course Feasibility Study Option B to restore nature at Blackberry Farm Golf Course and the associated water savings plan.

Housing Commissioner Connie Cunningham (representing self) supported pr otecting biodiversity and Option B to restore nature at Blackberry Farm. (Submitted written comments).

Rhoda Fry was concerned about Lehigh plant and quarry cement distribution and 17 CC 12-20-2022
17 of 114
City Council Minutes December 6, 2022

manufacturing, off-site air pollution from dust and traffic, and rock plant land-use authority.

Lisa Warren was concerned about changing the square footage limitations in the former Target building at Main Street to allow for restaurant use.

REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF

3. Subject: Brief reports on councilmember activities and brief announcements Recommended Action: Receive brief reports on councilmember activities and brief announcements

Council received brief reports on councilmember activities and brief announcements.

4. Subject: Report on Committee assignments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments

Councilmembers highlighted the activities of their various committees.

5. Subject: Report on Subcommittee assignments
Recommended Action: Report on Subcommittee assignments

Councilmembers reported on Subcommittee assignments.

6. Subject: City Manager update
Recommended Action: Receive City Manager update on City business

Council received the City Manager update on City business.

7. Subject: Department Update - Community Development
Recommended Action: Receive update regarding the Community Development Department

Written communications for this item included a staff presentation.

Acting Community Development Director Luke Connelly gave a presentation.

Council received the update regarding the Community Development Department.

CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 8-12)

Willey moved and Wei seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar, except Item 11 18 CC 12-20-2022
18 of 114
City Council Minutes December 6, 2022

which was continued, and Item 12 which was pulled for discussion. Ayes: Paul, Chao, Moore, Wei, and Willey. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.

8. Subject: Consider approval of the November 15 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the November 15 City Council minutes

9. Subject: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino for the period December 6, 2022 through January 5, 2023 pursuant to the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-142 authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino for the December 6, 2022 through January 5, 2023 pursuant to the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361

Written communications for this item included an updated Attachment B – Adopted Resolution No. 22-133.

10. Subject: Consider the OPEB and Pension Trust Investment Policies Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22-143 accepting the OPEB Policy and adopt Resolution No. 22-144 accepting the Pension Trust Investment Policies

11. Subject: Consider the Mitigation Fee Act - an annual and five -year report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 22 -145 entitled "A Resolution of the City of Cupertino City Council approving the annual and five -year Development Impact Fee report for FY ending June 30, 2022" to:

1. Make the required findings as identified in the Resolution; and

2. Approve the annual and five -year Development Impact Fee report for the FY ending June 30, 2022, as required by Government Code Section 66000 et seq

As noted under Postponements and Orders of the Day , this item was continued to December 20.

12. Subject: Consider authorizing the City Manager to award a construction contract with contingency budget for the Blackberry Farm Pool Improvements Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project
Recommended Action: 1. Authorize the City Manager to award a construction contract in an amount not to exceed 90% of the appropriated project budget limits to the lowest responsive bidder if there are no unresolved bid protests; and

2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to allow a construction contingency budget of 20% of the construction contract amount to address unforeseen conditions 19 CC 12-20-2022
19 of 114
City Council Minutes December 6, 2022

discovered during construction

This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

Written communications for this item included emails to Council.

Mayor Paul opened the public hearing and the following people spoke.

Rhoda Fry was concerned about the project scope and supported public engagement and creating an enterprise fund to monitor spending.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Wei moved and Willey seconded to:

1. Authorize the City Manager to award a construction contract in an amount not to exceed 90% of the appropriated project budget limits to the lowest responsive bidder if there are no unresolved bid protests; and

2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to allow a construction contingency budget of 20% of the construction contract amount to address u nforeseen conditions discovered during construction.

Council did not vote on this motion.

Moore moved and Chao seconded a substitute motion to:

1. Authorize the City Manager to award a construction contract in an amount not to exceed 90% of the appropria ted project budget limits to the lowest responsive bidder if there are no unresolved bid protests; and

2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to allow a construction contingency budget of 15% of the construction contract amount to address unforeseen con ditions discovered during construction.

The substitute motion carried with Wei voting no.

Council recessed from 9:17 p.m. to 9:23 p.m.

SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES – None

STUDY SESSION

13. Subject: Consider directing staff to prepare a City Ordinance to govern the permitting of small cellular facilities within the public right of way Recommended Action: Consider directing staff to prepare a City Ordinance for Council approval to govern permitting of small cellular facilities within the public right 20 CC 12-20-2022
20 of 114
City Council Minutes December 6, 2022

of way and provide input on the list of recommended modifications to the regulations listed in the staff report
Presenter: Chad Mosley, Assistant Director of Public Works

Written communications for this item included a staff presentation.

Assistant Director of Public Works Chad Mosley gave a presentation.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and the following people spoke.

Venkat Ranganathan supported the proposed draft ordinance with modifications to the number of towers, setback requirements, and locations.

San R supported providing adequate facilities to address increased consumption from people working from home and lack of signal availability.

Nori supported the maximum notification radius and longest 21-day comment period, providing an activation report, and more locations on the West side of town.

Jennifer Griffin was concerned about a difficult transition from 3G to 5G and the deployment of small cell facilities on poles being disruptive to the public.

Mayor Paul closed the public comment period.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Councilmember comments:

Willey: Provide the basis for what kinds of data can be required for these types of applications.

Wei: Review the Mackenzie & Albritton LLP letter, dated 12/5/2022 , evaluate their recommendations and incorporate appropriate modifications.

Moore: Provide guidelines/design standards for facilities on wooden utility poles and strand mounted equipment.

Paul: Provide a Preference Tier for standalone poles.

Chao: Keep the 21 -day noticing period ; modify the letters from providers so that they don’t look like advertisements; consider having letter look like a City notice; make pole 21 CC 12-20-2022
21 of 114
City Council Minutes December 6, 2022

signs more visible ; look into process to appeal for removal of street light s due to brightness.

Moore moved and Chao seconded to direct staff to make modifications to the proposed Draft Ordinance; and to address the concerns based on the comments heard and that were raised in the Verizon attorney letter from Mackenzie & Albritton LLP letter, dated 12/5/2022.

Moore’s modifications:
 Strike “Main Streets” from Tier 1 Preference, reference General Plan information.  Split Major and Minor Collectors into two separate tiers, reference General Plan information.
 Reference the General Plan Figure M -2 Circulation Network for street t ypes and include the map on the Small Cell webpage and provide this map as an attachment to the staff report when the ordinance returns to City Council.  Increase setback distance to occupied structures from 20’ to 25’.

Chao made a friendly amendment to:
 Consider a larger sign for pole notification – Two 8.5”x11” (11”x17”) and add large text at the top to provide clarity.
 Provide a sample image of the envelopes that will be used for the mailed notifications.
 Look for opportunities to increase the notification radius from 300’ to 500’. (Moore accepted Chao’s friendly amendment).

Willey made a friendly amendment to consider expanding the separation distances from 500’ between facilities from the same provider to a minimum of 1000’ and require carriers to pro vide data justifying any facility closer than 1000’. (Moore and Chao accepted Willey’s friendly amendment).

The amended motion carried unanimously.

Motion Summary:

Moore moved and Chao seconded to direct staff to make modifications to the proposed Draft Ordinance; and to address the concerns based on the comments heard and that were raised in the Verizon attorney letter from Mackenzie & Albritton LLP letter, dated 12/5/2022.

Moore’s modifications:
 Strike “Main Streets” from Tier 1 Preference, reference General Plan information.  Split Major and Minor Collectors into two separate tiers, reference General Plan information.
 Reference the General Plan Figure M -2 Circulation Network for street types and 22 CC 12-20-2022
22 of 114
City Council Minutes December 6, 2022

include the map on the Small Cell webpage and provide this map as an attachment to the staff report when the ordinance returns to City Council.  Increase setback distance to occupied structures from 20’ to 25’.

Council also directed staff to:
 Consider a larger sign for pole notification – Two 8.5”x11” (11”x17”) and add large text at the top to provide clarity.
 Provide a sample image of the envelopes that will be used for the mailed notifications.
 Look for opportunities to increase the notification radius from 300’ to 500’.  Consider expanding the separation distances from 500’ between facilities from the same provider to a minimum of 1000’ and require carriers to provide data justifying any facility closer than 1000’.

The amended motion carried unanimously.

Council recessed from 10:58 p.m. to 11:03 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

14. Subject: Consider approval of a proposed development that will include approximately 41,268 sq. ft. of commercial space and 206 residential condominium units. (Application No(s): DP-2022-001, ASA-2022-002, TR-2022-026, TM-2022-003; Applicant(s): Larry Wang (Tectonic Builders Corp.); Location: 10145 N. De Anza Blvd, 10118 Bandley Dr., APN(s): 326-34-066, 326-34-043.)
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 22 -146 adopting an addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Development Perm it (DP-2022-001) (Attachment A);

2. Adopt Resolution No. 22-147 approving the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2022-002) (Attachment B);

3. Adopt Resolution No. 22 -148 approving the Vesting Tentative Map (TM -2022-003) (Attachment C); and

4. Adopt Resolut ion No. 22 -149 approving the Tree Removal Permit (TR -2022-026) (Attachment D)
Presenter: Gian Martire, Senior Planner

Written communications for this item included staff and applicant presentations and a letter from the applicant.

Senior Planner Gian Martire gave a presentation.

Project Manager Greg Endom of Bay Pacific Properties gave a presentation. 23 CC 12-20-2022
23 of 114
City Council Minutes December 6, 2022

Mayor Paul opened the public hearing and the following people spoke.

Lisa Warren supported the project and owner-occupied units.

Peggy Griffin supported the project and business-ownership units and owner-occupied units.

Jean Bedord supported approval of the application , including the senior housing and other elements.

Housing Commissioner Connie Cunningham (representing self) supp orted the project, including the senior housing and other elements.

Ben Shyy supported the project , including the retail and affordable housing component.

Jennifer Griffin was concerned about losing the large retail grocery store and the designation of school districts and supported public input and limiting heights.

Mayor Paul closed the public hearing.

Applicant representatives responded to public comments.

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Chao moved and Willey seconded to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 22 -146 adopting an addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Development Permit (DP-2022-001);

2. Adopt Resolution No. 22 -147 approving the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2022-002);

3. Adopt Resolution No. 22 -148 approving the Vesting Tentative Map (TM -2022-003); and

4. Adopt Resolution No. 22-149 approving the Tree Removal Permit (TR-2022-026).

The motion carried unanimously.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - CONTINUED (As necessary) – None

COUNCIL AND STAFF COMMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Written communications for this item included a future agenda item request from Mayor 24 CC 12-20-2022
24 of 114
City Council Minutes December 6, 2022

Paul.

Councilmembers requested the following future agenda items:

- Study session on recommendations regarding shelter solutions for the unhoused (Paul and Moore)
- Consideration of an Ordinance amendment regarding the Economic Development Committee composition (Chao and Wei)
- Informational memo regarding the retail square footage analysis for Main Street (Chao and Moore)

ADJOURNMENT

At 12:41 a.m., on Wednesday, December 7, Mayor Paul adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting.

____________________________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

25 CC 12-20-2022
25 of 114

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11824 Agenda Date:
12/20/2022 Agenda #: 4.

Subject: Consider approval of the December 9 City Council minutes Approve the December 9 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
26 CC 12-20-2022
26 of 114

DRAFT MINUTES

CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Friday, December 9, 2022

At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Paul called the Special City Council Meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mayor Darcy Paul, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Kitty Moore, Hung Wei, and Jon Robert Willey.

I. ELECTION RESULTS

A. S
ubject : Statement of results of the General Municipal Election held on November 8, 2022 and declaration of candidates who received the most votes and were elected for the position of City Councilmember.

Recommended A ction: Adopt Resolution 22-150 stating the election results for the General Municipal Election held on November 8, 2022 and declaring the candidates who received the most votes and were elected for the position of City Councilmember

Written communications for this item included an updated Attachment A – Draft Resolution and the Certificate of Election Results from the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed the public comment period.

City Clerk Kirsten Squarcia reported the election results for the General Municipal Election held on November 8, 2022.

Willey moved and Chao seconded to adopt Resolution 22 -150 stating the election results for the General Municipal Election held on November 8, 2022 and declaring the candidates who received the most votes and were elected for the position of City Councilmember. The motion carried unanimously.

27 CC 12-20-2022
27 of 114
City Council Minutes December 9, 2022

II. RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING COUNCILMEMBERS

Written communications for this item included emails to Council.

A. Videos of Outgoing Councilmembers Jon Robert Willey and Darcy Paul

Videos were presented commemorating o utgoing Councilmembers Jon Robert Willey and Darcy Paul years on the City Council.

B. Public Comment for Item II.

Mayor Paul opened the public comment period and the following individuals spoke:

Lydia Kou
Lynette Lee Eng
Lisa Warren
Housing Commissioner Tessa Parish (representing self)
Richard Lowenthal
Planning Commissioner Muni Madhdhipatla (representing self) Susan Moore
Patrick Kwok
Peggy Griffin
San Rao
Alysa Sakkas, representing Cupertino-Toyokawa Sister Cities Mahesh Pakala
Darryl Stow
Danessa Techmanski
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Sashi Begur (representing self) Councilmember-elect J.R. Fruen (representing self)

Mayor Paul closed the public comment period.

C. Recognition of Outgoing Councilmember Jon Robert Willey

City Manager Pamela Wu presented a gift on behalf of staff to Councilmember Willey.

Brian Pascal, representing County Supervisor Joe Simitian, presented a commendation from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to Councilmember Willey.

Councilmembers thanked Councilmember Willey for his years of service on the Council.

28 CC 12-20-2022
28 of 114
City Council Minutes December 9, 2022

Councilmember Willey expressed appreciation and made farewell comments.

Vice Mayor Liang Chao resumed the meeting as Chair.

D. Recognition of Outgoing Councilmember Darcy Paul

City Manager Pamela Wu presented a gift on behalf of staff to Mayor Paul.

Brian Pascal, representing County Supervisor Joe Simitian, presented a c ommendation from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to Mayor Paul.

Councilmembers thanked Mayor Paul for his years of service on the Council.

Mayor Paul expressed appreciation and made farewell comments.

Council recessed from 7:35 p.m. to 7:55 p.m.

III. OATH OF OFFICE OF RECENTLY ELECTED COUNCILMEMBERS

Vice Mayor Chao reordered the agenda to conduct the Oath of Office before Public Comment.

B. Oath of Office of Recently Elected Councilmembers

Newly e lected Councilmember Sheila Mohan received the Oath of O ffice from former Cupertino Mayor Gilbert Wong.

Newly e lected Councilmember Liang Chao received the Oath of Office from former Cupertino Mayor Darcy Paul.

Newly elected Councilmember J.R. Fruen received the Oath of Office from his husband, Dr. Clifton Der Bing.

A. Public Comment for Item III.

Vice Mayor Liang Chao opened the public comment period and the following individuals spoke:

Peggy Griffin
Planning Commissioner Muni Madhdhipatla (representing self) Richard Mehlinger
29 CC 12-20-2022
29 of 114
City Council Minutes December 9, 2022

Mahesh Pakala, representing Cupertino Bhubaneswar Sister Cities Rick Kitson
Anjali Kauser
Darryl Stow
Kathy Stakey
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Minna Xu (representing self) San Rao
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Sashi Begur (representing self) Jennifer and Emma Shearin
Yi Ding
Michael Tsai
Dr. Clifton Der Bing
John ceded their time Dr. Clifton Der Bing
Sandy ceded their time Dr. Clifton Der Bing
Seema Lindskog
Pragna Natarajan, Xinpei Lu, and Henry Widjaja
Gilbert Wong
Yvonne Thorstenson
Anthony Becker
Ian Greensides

IV. ELECTION AND OATH OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR

Councilmember Chao reordered the agenda for Councilmembers to make nominations for Mayor before Public Comment.

Chao moved and Fruen seconded to nominate Hung Wei as Mayor.

Councilmembers made comments.

A. Public Comment for Item IV.

Councilmember Liang Chao opened the public comment period and the following individuals spoke:

Richard Lowenthal
Rick Kitson
Anjali Kauser
Housing Commissioner Connie Cunningham (representing self) Seema Lindskog
Judy Wilson
30 CC 12-20-2022
30 of 114
City Council Minutes December 9, 2022

Yvonne Thorstenson
Barry Chang
Jennifer Griffin
Patrick Ahrens

Councilmember Liang Chao closed the public comment period.

B. Subject: Councilmembers elect Mayor
Recommended Action: Make nominations and elect Mayor

Chao moved and Fruen seconded to nominate Hung Wei as Mayor.

The motion carried with Moore abstaining.

C. Oath of Office for Mayor

Newly elected Mayor Hung Wei received the Oath of Office from Assemblymember Evan Low.

D. Subject: Councilmembers elect Vice Mayor
Recommended Action: Make nominations and elect Vice Mayor

Chao moved to nominate Kitty Moore as Vice Mayor. Moore declined the nomination and there was not a second, and the motion was not considered.

F
ruen moved and Wei seconded to nominate Sheila Mohan as Vice Mayor. The motion carried with Moore abstaining.

E. Oath of Office for Vice Mayor

Newly elected Vice Mayor Sheila Mohan received the Oath of Office from Assemblymember Evan Low.

Mayor Hung Wei reopened the comment period for Councilmembers.

Councilmembers made comments.

ADJOURNMENT

At 9:08 p.m., Mayor Wei adjourned the Special City Council Meeting.

31 CC 12-20-2022
31 of 114
City Council Minutes December 9, 2022

_________________________
Kirsten Squarcia City Clerk

32 CC 12-20-2022
32 of 114

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11296 Agenda Date:
12/20/2022 Agenda #: 5.

Subject: Consider adopting a resolution authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino for the period December 20, 2022 through January 19, 2023 pursuant to the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361
Adopt Resolution No. 22-151 authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino for the period December 20, 2022 through January 19, 2023 pursuant to the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
33 CC 12-20-2022
33 of 114

1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 20, 2022

Subject
Consider adopting a resolution authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino for the period December 20, 2022 through January 19, 2023 pursuant to the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361

Recommended Action
Consider adopting a resolution authorizing continued remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino for the December 20, 2022 through January 19, 2023 pursuant to the Brown Act, as amended by AB 361

Background
On March 2, 202 0, Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency due to the public health threat posed by COVID-19. On March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order No -29-20, which suspended certain elements of the Brown Act and specifically allowed legislative bodies to hold meetings entirely electronically with no physical meeting. In accordance with the Executive Order , the City held its first teleconference meeting on March 24, 2020, to help stop the spread of COVID -19. On June 11, 2021, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order No-08-21, which stated that the provisions in Executive Order No-29-20, suspending certain elements of the Brown Act, would continue to apply through September 30, 2021. On October 17, 2022, Governor Newsom announced that the COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2023.

On September 15, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 361 into law, which allows state and local agencies to continue using teleconferencing during certain state -declared emergencies under modified Bro wn Act requirements. AB 361 became effective immediately after signing due to its emergency clause and is set to sunset on January 1, 2024. Under AB 361, teleconference meetings may be held during a state of emergency if (1) state or local officials have i mposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or (2) a legislative body determines by a majority vote that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (Gov. Code, § 54953(e)(1).)

34 CC 12-20-2022
34 of 114
2 To continue teleconference meetings beyond a 30-day period, AB 361 requires the Council to make a determination that either (i) "[t]he state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person, or (ii) “State or local official s continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.” (Gov. Code, § 54953(e)(3)(B).) That determination must be reviewed each 30 days thereafter to continue teleconference meetings. (Ibid.)

Discussion
AB 361 allows the City Council and other City legislative bodies to continue meeting exclusively via teleconference so long as a state emergency declaration remains in place and the statute’s conditions for permitting remote meetings are met. To continue meeting remotely, the City Council must find that state or local officials have imposed or recommend measures to support social distancing , or that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.

On December 5, 2022, Council adopted Resolution No. 22-142 affirming findings related to AB 361 and authorizing the City Manager and legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino to meet exclusively by teleconference in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act through January 5, 2023 (Attachment B). Council may make either or both of the permitted findings to extend the time to allow teleconference meetings to continue. The Santa Clara County Health Officer continues to recommend that public bodies meet remotely to the extent possible, specifically including use of newly enacted AB 361 to maintain remote meetings under the Ralph M. Brown Act and similar laws (Attachment C). It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the Draft R esolution authorizing continued teleconference meetings for the City of Cupertino’s legislative bodies in order to protect the health and safety of all attendees and participants, particularly those who are unvaccinated (Attachment A).

Sustainability Impact
Conducting meetings remotely has reduced paper consumption by providing electronic access to meeting materials instead of printed materials.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
_____________________________________

Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft Resolution
B – Adopted Resolution No. 22-142
C – Health Officer Recommendation Regarding Public Governmental Meetings

35 CC 12-20-2022
35 of 114
RESOLUTION NO. 22-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

AUTHORIZING CONTINUED REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE

LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 20, 2022 THROUGH JANUARY 19, 2023 PURSUANT TO BROWN ACT

PROVISIONS

WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the City Council, c ommissions, and committees; and

WHEREAS, all meetings of the City of Cupertino’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code sections 54950–54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; and

WHEREAS, the Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and

WHEREAS, a required condition for holding meetings exclusively by teleconference is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and

WHEREAS, Government Code section 54953(e) further require s that in order to authorize meetings exclusively by teleconference, a legislative body must determine that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, November 2, 2021, November 30, 2021, December 21, 2021, January 18, 2022, February 15, 2022, March 15, 2022, April 5, 2022, May 3, 2022, May 19, 2022, June 7, 2022, July 7, 2022, July 19, 2022, August 16, 2022, September 6, 2022, October 4, 2022, November 1, 2022, November 15, 2022, December 5, 2022 the Cupertino City Council made the findings required under Government Code section 54953(e) and resolved that the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino shall conduct their meetings 36 CC 12-20-2022
36 of 114
Resolution No. 22-__

without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3), as authorized by Government Code section 54953(e), and that such legislative bodies should comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in section 54953(e)(2); and

WHEREAS, Government Code section 54593(e)(3) provides that to continue to holding meetings of legislative bodies exclusively by teleconference, the legislative body must reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency every 30 days, and find that either (i) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person, or (ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency that now exists , specifically defined in the County of Santa Clara proclamation of a local emergency beginning February 3, 2020, the City of Cupertino proclamation of a local emergency on March 11, 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclamation of a state of emergency beginning on March 4, 2020, and the national emergency declaration in Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020, beginning March 1, 2020, concerning the COVID-19 pandemic; and

WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara Health Officer's Recommendation Regarding Continued Remote Public Meetings of Governmental Entities dated September 21, 2021 and the California Department of Industrial Relations Revised Emergency Temporary Standards, effect ive May 6 , 2022, continue to require or recommend social distancing in the workplace in certain circumstances; and

WHEREAS, the Health Officer's Recommendations , the Revised Emergency Temporary Standards, and evidence documenting the transmission of COVID -19 in indoor spaces establishes that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person; and

WHEREAS, based on the above findings, the Cupertino City Council hereby determines that the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino shall continue to conduct their meetings without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3), as authorized by Government Code section 54953 (e), and that such legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in section 54953(e)(2); and

WHEREAS, the City has and will continue to provide access for the public to legislative meetings and procedures through video teleconference technologies. 37 CC 12-20-2022
37 of 114
Resolution No. 22-__

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, as follows:

1. Remote Teleconference Meetings. The City Manager and legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino are hereby authorized and directed to meet exclusively by teleconference and to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution , including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

2. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective through January 19, 2023, or such time as the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which th e City Council of the City of Cupertino may continue to teleconference without compliance with Government Code section 54953(b)(3).

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 20th day of December 2022, by the following vote:

Vote
Members of the City Council

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

_______________ ________________
Hung Wei, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

____________________ ___________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date

38 CC 12-20-2022
38 of 114
RESOLUTION N0. 22- 142

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

AUTHORIZING CONTINUED REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE

LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 6, 2022 THROUGH JANUARY 5, 2023 PURSUANT TO BROWN ACT

PROVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in meetings of the City Council, commissions, and committees; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City of Cupertino' s legislative bodies are open and publig as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act ( Government Code sections 54950- 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City' s legislative bodies conduct their business; and
WHEREAS, the Brown Act, Government Code section 54953( e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of ' a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953( b)( 3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, a required condition for holding meetings exclusively by teleconference is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 54953( e) further requires that in order to authorize meetings exclusively by teleconference, a legislative body must determine that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2021, November 2, 2021, November 30, 2021, December 21, 2021, January 18, 2022, February 15, 2022, March 15, 2022, April 5, 2022, May 3, 2022, May 19, 2022, June 7, 2022, July 7, 2022, July 19, 2022, August 16, 2022, September 6, 2022, October 4, 2022, November 1, 2022, and November 15, 2022 the Cupertino City Council made the findings required under Government Code section 54953( e) and resolved that the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino shall conduct their meetings without 39 CC 12-20-2022
39 of 114
Resolution No. 22- M2

compliance with Government Code section 54953( b)( 3), as authorized by Government Code section 54953( e), and that such legislative bodies should comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in section 54953( e)( 2); and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 54593( e)( 3) provides that to continue to holding meetings of legislative bodies exclusively by teleconference, the legislative body must reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency every 30 days, and find that either ( i) the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person, or ( ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency that now exists, specifically defined in the County of Santa Clara proclamation of a local emergency beginning February 3, 2020, the City of Cupertino proclamation of a Iocal emergency on March 11, 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclamation of a state of emergency beginning on March 4, 2020, and the national emergency declaration in Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020, beginning March 1, 2020, concerning the COVID- 19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara Health Officer' s Recornrnendation Regarding Continued Remote Public Meetings of Governmental Entities dated September 21, 2021 and the California Department of Industrial Relations Revised Emergency Temporary Standards, effective May 6, 2022, continue to require or recommend social distancing in the workplace in certain circumstances; and WHEREAS, the Health Officer' s Recommendations, the Revised Emergency Temporary Standards, and evidence documenting the transmission of COVID- 19 in indoor spaces establishes that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the' members to meet safely in person; and
WHEREAS, based on the above findings, the Cupertino City Council hereby determines that the legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino shall continue to conduct their meetings without compliance with Government Code section 54953( b)( 3), as authorized by Government Code section 54953( e), and that such legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in section 54953( e)( 2); and
WHEREAS, the City has and will continue to provide access for the public to legislative meetings and procedures through video teleconference technologies. 40 CC 12-20-2022
40 of 114
Resolution No. 22- 142

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, as follows:

1. Remote Teleconference Meetings. The City Manager and legislative bodies of the City of Cupertino are hereby authorized and directed to meet exclusively by teleconference and to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953( e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

2. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective through January 5, 2023, or such time as the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953( e)( 3) to extend the time during which the City Council of the City of Cupertino may continue to teleconference without compliance with Government Code section 54953( b)( 3).

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of December 2022, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABST AIN:

Paul, Chao, Moore, Wei, Willey
None
None
None
SIGNED:

Z / 9/' 2-?_ "'(
6C1: atrcy0fPCauup? -
Date
ATTEST:
rz,-{ y{z- i
l/
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk Date
41 CC 12-20-2022
41 of 114
County of Santa Clara
Public Health Department

Health Officer
976 Lenzen Avenue, 2nd Floor
San José, CA 95126
408.792.3798

Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith

Recommendation Regarding Continued Remote Public Meetings of Governmental Entities

Issued: September 21, 2021

In light of the continued state of emergency related to COVID-19, the County Public Health Officer continues to recommend that public bodies meet remotely to the extent possible, specifically including use of newly enacted AB 361 to maintain remote meetings under the Ralph M. Brown Act and similar laws.

Among other reasons, this recommendation is made due to the continued threat of COVID-19 to the community, the unique characteristics of public governmental meetings (such as the increased mixing associated with bringing together people from across the community, the need to enable those who are immunocompromised or unvaccinated to be able to safely continue to fully participate in public governmental meetings, and the challenges with fully ascertaining and ensuring compliance with vaccination and other safety recommendations at such meetings), and the continued increased safety protection that social distancing provides as one means by which to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. This recommendation does not apply to those meetings of a quasi-judicial nature that have been already meeting in person prior to September 21, 2021, for example to allow for credibility determinations of witnesses.

The Health Officer will continue to evaluate this recommendation on an ongoing basis and will communicate when there is no longer such a recommendation with respect to meetings for public bodies.

42 CC 12-20-2022
42 of 114

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11645 Agenda Date:
12/20/2022 Agenda #: 6.

Subject: Consider cancellation of the January 3, 2023 City Council meeting Cancel the January 3, 2023 City Council meeting
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
43 CC 12-20-2022
43 of 114

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 20, 2022

Subject
Consider cancellation of the January 3, 2023 City Council meeting.

Recommended Action
Cancel the January 3, 2023 City Council meeting.

Discussion
Regular City Council meetings are scheduled on first and third Tuesdays of each month.

The first meeting in 2023 is scheduled on January 3, 2023. However, City Hall is closed with limited staffing resource from December 23, 2022 through January 2, 2023 w hich does not allow sufficient time to publish the meeting packet Staff recommends the City Council to cancel the January 3, 2023 meeting and to hold the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on January 17, 2023.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

_____________________________________

Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments: None

44 CC 12-20-2022
44 of 114

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11856 Agenda Date:
12/20/2022 Agenda #: 7.

Subject: Consider the Mitigation Fee Act - an annual and five-year report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021- 2022 (Continued from December 6, 2022)
Adopt Resolution No. 22-145 entitled "A Resolution of the City of Cupertino City Council approving the annual and five -year Development Impact Fee report for FY ending June 30, 2022" to:

1. Make the required findings as identified in the Resolution; and

2. Approve the annual and five-year Development Impact Fee report for the FY ending June 30, 2022, as required by Government Code Section 66000 et seq
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
45 CC 12-20-2022
45 of 114

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 20, 2022

Subject
Consider the Mitigation Fee Act – an annual and five-year report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022.

Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 22 -____ entitled “A Resolution of the City of Cupertino City Council approving the annual and five-year Development Impact Fee Report for FY ending June 30, 2022” to:
1) Make the required findings as identified in the Resolution; and 2) Approve the annual and five -year Development Impact Fee report for the FY ending June 30, 2022, as required by Government Code Section 66000 et seq.

Discussion
The Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) requires public agencies to account for and make findings when imposing development impact fees as a condition of development approval. Government Code Section 66006(b) also requires that public agencies annually review and make available to the public a report accounting for development impact fees held by the agency. Additional reporting is required at least every five years pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(d).

There are several impact fees that the City of Cupertino has required as a condition of development approval in lieu of requiring construction of certain public improvements.

These fees are subject to annual and five-year reporting requirements. Most of these fees were imposed to mitigate development impacts and were based on the development’s fair share of a larger public improvement project.

Pursuant to Section 66006(b), the City is required to make available to the public the following information concerning development impact fees each fiscal year:

 A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.  Amount of the fee.
 Beginning and ending balances of the account or fund.  The amount of fees collected, and interest earned.
46 CC 12-20-2022
46 of 114

 Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with in‐lieu fees.  Identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence, if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete the public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
 A description of each inter-fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended. In the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan.  The amount of any refunds made pursuant to Government Code section 66001(e) and any allocations made pursuant to Government Code section 66001(f).

Under Section 66001(d), the City also must make certain findings regarding unfinished improvements every five years following the first deposit of impact fees into a fund. The agency must identify the purpose for which the fee was expended and demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was used. The agency also must identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of incomplete improvements and to designate approximate dates when this funding is expected to be deposited into the account. Fees received through a development agreement are exempt from the five-year report.

The attached report includes the annual report for the fiscal year ending June 30 and a five-year report for all fees. All construction projects listed have or will commence within the next five years, as shown in the report. Since the City provided a five-year report last fiscal year, a new five-year report is not required. However, the five-year report provides additional detail, so the City voluntarily provides such data to better inform the public.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
The subject fees were collected for specific purposes of design and construction of certain public improvements. Accepting these Annual and Five -Year Reports will program the fees and ensure they are retained by the City until used . Budgeted fees and actual fees collected can be found in the following revenue accounts, Housing Mitigation 40 6-404, Parkland Fees 406-409 and Traffic Impact Fees 450-402.

_____________________________________

Prepared by: Jennifer Chu, Senior Civil Engineer
Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Assistant Director of Public Works 47 CC 12-20-2022
47 of 114

Reviewed by: Matt Morley, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Annual and Five-Year Report
B – Draft Resolution

48 CC 12-20-2022
48 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 1
394\01\1992522.1
City of Cupertino
AB 1600 ‐ Mitigation Fee Act
Annual & Five Year Report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022

Dept.: Community Development
Project: Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Mitigation Fee

Local Authority:

Information on the City’s BMR Housing Mitigation Fee is provided as a courtesy. The City of Cupertino has collected BMR mitigation fees from commercial and residential developments since 1992 based on nexus studies conducted at that time. On May 5, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 15-036, accepting three reports from Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) – Summary and Recommendations BMR Housing Mitigation Program, Non-Residential Jobs- Housing Nexus Analysis, and Residential BMR Housing Nexus Analysis – which collectively form the City’s Nexus Study justifying the current residential and non-residential Housing Mitigation Fees. Per Resolution 17-052, the City Council adopted the updated BMR residential and non-residential (office, research and development, industrial, hotel, retail and commercial) Housing Mitigation Fees. On May 19, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 20-056, which increased the Housing Mitigation Fees for hotels and for offices to levels lower than the maximum amount needed to fully mitigate the burdens created by new development on the need for affordable housing as determined in the KMA Reports, based in part on an Economic Feasibility Analysis prepared by Strategic Economics concluding that increased fees would be feasible. On April 21, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 20-037, amending the BMR Housing Mitigation Fees to adopt fee categories and amounts for self-storage and warehouse uses based in part on a report from KMA dated January 2020 and entitled “Supplement to the Non- Residential Jobs-Housing Nexus Study” evaluating the impact of self-storage and warehouse land uses on demand for affordable housing in the City and determining the maximum amount of a fee needed to fully mitigate the burdens on affordable housing created by these types of development.

The fiscal year 2021-22 BMR Housing Mitigation Fee amounts are being reported below.

Voluntary Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement:

1. The purpose of the BMR Housing Mitigation Fee is to help mitigate the need for affordable housing as a result of new residential and non-residential development within the City of Cupertino. The requirements for applicability to the BMR Housing Mitigation Fees are set forth in the City’s adopted BMR Housing Mitigation Program Procedural Manual. The BMR Housing Mitigation Fee schedule is as follows:

Residential (per sq. ft.) -
Detached Single Family Residence $19.28
Small Lot Single Family Residence or Townhome $21.21
Multi-Family Attached Townhome or Condo $25.71
Multi-Family Rental Apartment (1 to 35 du/ac) $25.71
Multi-Family Rental Apartment (over 35 du/ac) $32.14
Non-Residential (Per sq.ft.) –
Office, Research & Development, or Industrial $30.47
49 CC 12-20-2022
49 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 2
Hotel $15.24
Self-Storage, employee unit provided $0.57
Self-Storage, employee unit not provided $1.20
Warehouse $42.32
Commercial or Retail $12.85

BMR Housing Mitigation Fees were used to fund staff and administrative time, legal and professional services, BMR housing placement services, rental mediation, contract services, housing and homelessness strategies, and Habitat for Humanity.

The fees in the BMR Fund include funds paid to the City as conditions of development agreements. When applicable, these fees are included in the tables below; however, there is no requirement to prepare a five-year report regarding fees obtained through a development agreement.

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the BMR Housing Mitigation Fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged. The need for the BMR Housing Mitigation fees, as they were identified when the fee was enacted, remains. See, Strategic Economics December 16, 2019 Economic Feasibility Study of Inclusionary Requirements.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost*

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Below
Market Rate
Housing
Mitigation
fee
$160,300,000 $5,462,532 100% Additional
Developer
Contributions
State and
Federal tax
credits, loans
and grants
As projects
develop/
redevelop
Ongoing Ongoing

* Based on RHNA allocation and affordability gaps estimated in the nexus study: Very -low income units (356) x $241,000/unit = $87.8 million. Low income units (207) x $213,000/unit = $44.1 million. Moderate income units (231) x $123,000/unit = $28.4 million. Total = $160.3 million.

50 CC 12-20-2022
50 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 3
394\01\1992522.1

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Based on adopted Fee Schedule

FY2021-22
Trust
Fund
Activity

Fiscal Year

Purpose of Expenditure

Balance at
7/1/2021
$6,111,827
Fees
Collected
$39,211
*

Interest $70,915

Expended

Subtotal
($329,346)
($29,367)
($264,296)
($50,000)
($7,145)
($71,224)
($8,043)

($759,421)
Staff and administration
Legal and professional services
Housing placement services
Rental mediation services/contract services
Housing Strategies
Homelessness
Habitat for Humanity

Refunded 0
Unrestricted
balance at
6/30/2022
$5,462,532
*- Includes funds collected by Development Agreement

51 CC 12-20-2022
51 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 4
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Park Dedication In-Lieu Fee

Local Authority:

City of Cupertino: Municipal Code, Chapter 13.08

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement:

1. The purpose of the Park Dedication Fee is to help mitigate the need for additional outdoor recreational area for new residential development within the City of Cupertino. The requirements for applicability to the Park Dedication Fees are set forth in the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter

13.08, and the fee was adopted under the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. The Parkland Dedication Fee is based on the fair market value of land within the City of Cupertino. Land values are appraised bi-annually, and the Park Dedication Fees are updated accordingly. Park Dedication Fees are used to fund parkland acquisitions and improvements to park and recreational facilities.

The fees in the Park Dedication table below include funds paid to the City as a condition of development agreements. Although these fees are included in the tables below, there is no requirement to prepare a five-year report regarding fees obtained through a development agreement. In addition, this table includes adopted fees imposed as a condition of development.

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the Park Dedication Fee and the purpose for which the fee is charged, as additional parkland and facilities are needed to offset the increase in population that additional residential units impacts. The need for the Park Dedication fees, as they were identified when the fee was enacted, remains, as the City’s current park area per resident does not yet meet the park acreage standard in the Park Dedication Fee ordinance and as development continues to occur.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of the Park Dedication are identified below:

 Developer Fair-Share Contributions from all projects that add residences.

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the needed park acquisition and improvements is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified in the Five-Year Report on the next page.

52 CC 12-20-2022
52 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 5
394\01\1992522.1
Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be
Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Lawrence-
Mitty Park
$8,270,994 $5,401,272 100% Project is
fully funded
Winter 2020 Spring
2015
Summer 2023

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Based on Fair-Market Value of land, through land appraisal

FY2021-22
Trust
Fund
Activity

Fiscal Year

Purpose of Expenditure

Balance at
7/1/2021
$9,051,726
Fees
Collected
$9,045,000
*

Interest $225,540
Expended

see
reservations
below

Refunded 0
Reserved** ($8,270,994)

($3,000,000)
($1,150,000)
($500,000)
Reserved for purchase and construction of
Lawrence-Mitty Park
Reserved for Memorial Park Pond Repurposing
Reserved for Memorial Park Amphitheater
Reserved for Memorial Park Specific Plan

Balance at
6/30/2022
$5,401,272
*- Includes funds collected by Development Agreement and other developments **- Unused project funds will be returned to parkland in-lieu fee account

53 CC 12-20-2022
53 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 6
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Transportation Impact Fee

Local Authority:

City of Cupertino: Municipal Code, Chapter 14.02

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement:

1. The purpose of the Transportation Impact Fee is to help mitigate the impact to the City’s existing transportation infrastructure due to new development, additions to existing structures or changes in use within the City of Cupertino. The requirements for applicability to the Transportation Impacts Fees are set forth in the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 14.02, and the fee was adopted under the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. The Transportation Impact Fee is based on the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study. Transportation Impact Fees are used to fund capital improvements to the City’s transportation infrastructure.

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the Transportation Impact Fee and the purpose for which the fee is charged, as additional transportation infrastructure is needed to offset the increased demand that new development, additions to existing structures and changes in use create on the roadway network. The need for the Traffic Impact fees, as identified in the Nexus Study remain, as the infrastructure improvements have not yet been constructed.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of the Transportation Impact Fee are identified below:

 Developer Fair-Share Contributions from all projects that create new vehicle trips.

4. The approximate dates, on which the funding for the needed transportation impact improvements is expected to be deposited, are identified in the Five-Year Report on the next page.

54 CC 12-20-2022
54 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 7
394\01\1992522.1
Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expecte
d to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated to
Complete the
Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be
Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Projects in the
Transportation
Impact Fee
Nexus Study
$59,780,125 $752,839 100% Additional
Developer
Contributions,
State and
Federal grants,
General Fund
Fall 2024 Winter
2019
Summer 2025

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Based on Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study

FY2021-22
Trust
Fund
Activity

Fiscal Year

Purpose of Expenditure

Balance at
7/1/2021
$468,998
Fees
Collected
$275,838

Interest $8,003
Expended

Subtotal
0 0

Refunded 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$752,839

55 CC 12-20-2022
55 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 8
Dept.: Public Works
Project: N. Stelling/I-280 Bridge Pedestrian Lighting & Upgrades

Local Authority:

EXC-2007-06: Condition of Approval No. 21
TM-2007-02: Condition of Approval No. 24

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement:

1. The purpose of the N. Stelling/I-280 Bridge Pedestrian Lighting & Upgrades fee is to enhance the pedestrian walkway along the east and west side of the North Stelling Road bridge that crosses over Interstate 280. Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Villa Serra Apartments: ASA-2007-03: Condition of Approval No. 21, dated July 13, 2007 for Architectural Site Approval ($25,000 collected) b. Las Palmas Subdivision: TM-2007-02: Condition of Approval No. 24, dated July 18, 2007 for Tentative Map Application ($25,000 collected)

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the North Stelling fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged in that new development in the vicinity of the bridge increases pedestrian traffic across the bridge. The need for improvements to the bridge, that were identified during the review of the two projects, remains, as the bridge experiences increased pedestrian traffic due to the two projects.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of the bridge improvements are identified below:

 It is anticipated that the City of Cupertino General Fund will be used to supplement revenue from fees.

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the bridge improvements is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified in the Five-Year Report below.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Pedestrian
Lighting &
Upgrades –
N. Stelling/
I280 Bridge
$100,000 $52,744 50% Anticipated
that City will
fund the
remaining
cost of the
project
Spring/2025 Summer/2025 Fall/2025

56 CC 12-20-2022
56 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 9
394\01\1992522.1
Annual Report

Amount of Fee: 25% Contribution to the total cost, based on estimated four projects contributing to improvement.

FY 2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$ 52,222 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 50,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $522 $6,294
Expended 0 ($3,550)
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$ 52,744 $ 52,744

57 CC 12-20-2022
57 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 10
Dept.: Public Works
Project: De Anza/McClellan/Pacifica signal modification

Local Authority:

TM-2002-02: Condition of Approval No. 23

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement:

1. The purpose of the De Anza/McClellan/Pacifica signal modification is to study and redesign the traffic signal to improve the efficiency of the intersection. Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Cupertino Town Square: TM-2002-02: Condition of Approval No. 2, dated July 15, 2003 for Tentative Map application ($145,700 collected)

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the De Anza/McClellan/Pacifica signal modification contribution and the purpose for which the fee was charged, in that the new development introduces additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the intersection. The need for improvements to the intersection and the traffic signal, as they were identified during the review of the project, remains. The intersection continues to run less efficiently than other intersections in the area.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of the intersection improvements are identified below:

 Developer Fair-Share Contributions from other projects that contribute traffic to the intersection.
 It is anticipated that the City of Cupertino General Fund will be used to supplement revenue from fees.
 Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) Grant funding.

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the bridge improvements is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified below.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated to
Complete the
Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be
Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Traffic Signal
& Intersection
Improvements
De Anza Blvd/
McClellan Rd/
Pacifica Ave
$1,200,000 $62,841 14% Developer
Contributions,
General Fund,
and VERBS
Grants
Funding
has been
provided.

Summer/
2019
Spring
2021
Fall 2023

58 CC 12-20-2022
58 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 11
394\01\1992522.1
Annual Report

Amount of Fee: 12.5% Contribution to the total cost based on estimated contribution of four projects.

FY2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$167,278 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 145,700 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $1,673 $23,251
Expended ($106,110) Design
Services
($106,110)
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$62,841 $62,841

59 CC 12-20-2022
59 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 12
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bandley Drive Signal Improvements

Local Authority:

ASA-2011-12: Condition of Approval No. 43

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement:

1. The purpose of the Stevens Creek Blvd and Bandley Drive Traffic Signal Improvement fee is to partially fund upgrades to the traffic signal in order to improve the efficiency of the intersection.

Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Cupertino Crossroads: ASA-2011-12: Condition of Approval No. 43 dated November 17, 2011 for Architectural Site Approval ($25,000 collected)

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Bandley Drive Signal Improvements fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged, in that the new development has a driveway that connects directly to the signalized intersection and the development will introduce additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the intersection. The need for the improvements to the intersection, which were identified during the review of the project, remains.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of the signal upgrades improvements are identified below:

 Developer Fair-Share Contributions from other projects in the vicinity of the intersection.  It is anticipated that the City of Cupertino General Fund will be used to supplement revenue from fees.

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the signal improvements is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified below.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding
to be
Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Stevens Creek
Blvd and
Bandley
Drive Signal
Improvements
$185,000 $13,701 5% Developer
Contributions,
and General
Fund.

Funding
has been
provided.

Summer/
2019
Spring/2020 Summer/2023

60 CC 12-20-2022
60 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 13

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Contribution from expected nearby developments, based on estimated addition of traffic to intersection.

FY2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$13,565 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 25,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $136 $1,827
Expended 0 Kimley Horn
Contract
($13,126)
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$13,701 $ 13,701

61 CC 12-20-2022
61 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 14
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Traffic Mitigation at Homestead Rd and Lawrence Expressway

Local Authority:

TM-2012-04: Condition of Approval No. 87

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement: Provided for information only. Five years have not elapsed since initial deposit.

1. The purpose of the Traffic Mitigation at Homestead Rd and Lawrence Expressway fee is to fund improvements to the intersection in order to address traffic impacts from the project. Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Main Street Cupertino: TM-2012-04: Condition of Approval No. 87, dated September 20, 2012 for Tentative Map application ($400,000 collected)

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the Traffic Mitigation at Homestead Rd and Lawrence Expressway fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged, in that the development, in the vicinity of the intersection, introduces additional traffic to the intersection. The County of Santa Clara has estimated a cost to upgrade the intersection, and the Environmental Impact Report assessed a fair share contribution from the project to address its portion of the impact. The need for improvements to the intersection, as they were identified during the review of the project, remains.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of the intersection improvements are to be identified by the County of Santa Clara.

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the intersection improvements is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified below.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expecte
d to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be
Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Traffic
Mitigation at
Homestead
Rd and
Lawrence
Expressway
Bridge
$4,000,000 $435,169 100% To be
determined
by the
County of
Santa Clara
When
adequate
funds have
been
acquired by
the County
to begin the
project.

Anticipated
Summer/
2025
Fall/2026 Summer/2027

62 CC 12-20-2022
62 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 15
Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Based on Fair-Share Contribution assessed by Environmental Impact Report

FY2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$430,861 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $400,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $4,308 $35,169
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$435,169 $435,169

63 CC 12-20-2022
63 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 16
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Traffic Calming to Mitigate Impacts from Main Street Cupertino

Local Authority:

TM-2012-04: Condition of Approval No. 93

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement: Provided for information only. Five years have not elapsed since initial deposit.

1. The purpose of the Traffic Calming to Mitigate Impacts from Main Street Cupertino fee is to help mitigate traffic impacts in the adjacent neighborhoods resulting from the project, for a period of 5 years following project occupancy. Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Main Street Cupertino TM-2012-04: Condition of Approval No. 93 dated 9/20/2012 for Tentative Map application ($100,000 collected).

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the Traffic Calming fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged, in that the development introduces additional traffic to the surrounding neighborhoods. The City will utilize the funds as needed to address traffic impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, for a period of 5-years after occupancy.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of the traffic calming mitigations were collected with the project ($100,000).

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the improvements is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified below.

5. The initial deposit was collected upon project occupancy in June 2018 and is expected to be refunded to the payor before June 2023, unless the City finds need to implement traffic calming mitigations by said date.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Traffic
Calming
along
Rodrigues
Ave. and
Pacifica Dr.
$100,000 $108,793 100% Project fully
funded
Fees have
been
collected.

Development
Project
completed
June 2018
Fall/2021 June 2023

64 CC 12-20-2022
64 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 17

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Estimated Full Cost of the Study and potential improvements.

FY2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$107,715 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $100,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $1,078 $8,793
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$108,793 $108,793

65 CC 12-20-2022
65 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 18
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Creek Trail Improvements along Calabazas Creek

Local Authority:

TM-2012-04: Condition of Approval No. 47

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement: Provided for information only. Five years have not elapsed since initial deposit.

1. The purpose of the Creek Trail Improvements along Calabazas Creek contribution is to administer a creek trail plan, the necessary approvals and improvements for a new trail along Calabazas Creek from Vallco Parkway to Interstate 280. Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Main Street Cupertino: TM-2012-04: Condition of Approval No. 47 dated September 20, 2012 for Tentative Map application ($65,000 collected)

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the Creek Trail Improvements along Calabazas Creek Fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged in that development in the vicinity of the proposed creek trail introduces additional pedestrian traffic to the area, causing the need to provide additional and alternative means of pedestrian access and recreation to new residents and visitors to the development. The need for a new creek trail, as it was identified during the review of the project, remains.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of the project are identified below:

 Developer Fair-Share Contributions from other projects in the vicinity of the proposed creek trail location

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the trail improvements is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified in the Five-Year Report on the next page.

66 CC 12-20-2022
66 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 19
Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Creek Trail
Improvements
along
Calabazas
Creek
$195,000 $70,716 100% Additional
Developer
Contributions
are needed to
complete the
project
Developer
contributions
obtained
when
adjacent
properties
redevelop.

Anticipated
Summer/2022
Spring/2023 Spring/2024
Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Contribution equivalent to 1/3 of the estimated cost of creek trail plan

FY2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$ 70,016 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 65,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $700 $5,716
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$70,716 $70,716

67 CC 12-20-2022
67 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 20
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Parking Conversion Fund along Vallco Parkway

Local Authority:

TM-2012-04: Condition of Approval No. 67

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement:

1. The purpose of the Parking Conversion Fund along Vallco Parkway is to enable the City to convert the angled parking spaces along the south side of Vallco Parkway to parallel parking spaces and an additional east-bound traffic lane. Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Main Street Cupertino: TM-2012-04: Condition of Approval No. 67 dated 9/20/2012 for Tentative Map application ($450,000 collected)

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the Parking Conversion Fund along Vallco Parkway and the purpose for which the fund was collected in that new development is adjacent to this section of Vallco Parkway, and the development reduced the number of east-bound lanes a part of their project. The Fund will permit the City to reestablish the east-bound lane that was lost, due to the development, should it be found that the additional lane is necessary to serve the public. The fund is based on the estimated cost to perform the work. The need for the funds, that were identified when the funds was imposed, remain, as the development project has not yet been completed, and the full impact of traffic to this portion of road has not yet materialized.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of the conversion were collected with the project ($450,000).

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the conversion is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified below.

5. The initial deposit was collected upon project occupancy in June 2018 and is expected to be refunded to the payor before June 2023, unless the City finds need to convert the parking by said date.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expect
ed to
be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Parking
Conversion
Fund along
Vallco
Parkway
$450,000 $489,566 100% No
additional
funds
needed at
this time.

Fees have
been collected.

Development
Project
completed
June 2018
June 2018 June 2023

68 CC 12-20-2022
68 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 21

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Estimated Full Cost of the potential improvements.

FY2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$484,719 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $450,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $4,847 $39,566
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$489,566 $489,566

69 CC 12-20-2022
69 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 22
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Funding of Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic and Parking Intrusion Monitoring

Local Authority:

TM-2011-03: Condition of Approval No. 49

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement: Provided for information only. Five years have not elapsed since initial deposit.

1. The purpose of the Funding of Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic and Parking Intrusion Monitoring Fee is to monitor and address traffic and parking intrusion, in neighborhoods adjacent to the project site, due to the practices of employees who will work at the project site. Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Apple Campus 2: Ordinance 13-2114: Resolution Approving Apple Campus 2 Development Agreement – Section 3.13 and TM 2011-03: Condition of Approval No. 49 dated 10/15/2013 for Tentative Map Application ($850,000 collected)

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the Funding of Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic and Parking Intrusion Monitoring fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged in that the traffic from the development, for which the fee is to be used to monitor, has not yet materialized because the development has not been fully constructed or occupied. The City will begin monitoring activities in the fall of 2017. The $850,000 fee was based on an estimate of the cost to perform the monitoring and make minor modifications to address traffic and parking intrusion concerns.

The need for traffic and parking intrusion monitoring, as it was identified during the review of the project, remains. The traffic, for which the fees are to be used to monitor, has not yet materialized.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete monitoring and improvements were collected with the project ($850,000).

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the monitoring is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified below.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated to
Complete the
Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be
Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Funding of
Neighborhood
Cut-through
Traffic and
Parking
Intrusion
Monitoring
$869,223 $881,397 100% No additional
funds needed
at this time.

Fall/ 2017 Summer/2017 Winter/2026

70 CC 12-20-2022
70 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 23
Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Estimated Full Cost of the Study and potential improvements.

FY2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$872,670 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $850,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $8,727 $72,875
Expended 0 IDAX &
Stantec
Consulting
Contracts
($41,478)
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$881,397 $881,397

71 CC 12-20-2022
71 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 24
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Implement a Traffic-Adaptive Traffic Signal System along De Anza Blvd

Local Authority:

TM-2011-03: MitigationTRANS-13c

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement: Provided for information only. Five years have not elapsed since initial deposit.

1. The purpose of the Traffic-Adaptive Traffic Signal System along De Anza Blvd fee is to implement traffic-adaptive technology to the traffic signals along De Anza Blvd within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino. Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Apple Campus 2: Ordinance 13-2114: Resolution Approving Apple Campus 2 Development Agreement – Section 3.13 and TM-2011-03: Mitigation TRANS-13c, dated 10/15/2013 for Tentative Map application ($50,000 collected)

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the traffic-adaptive traffic signal system along De Anza Blvd fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged in that new development will introduce additional traffic to De Anza Boulevard, and more efficient traffic signal timing will be needed to address the additional traffic. The fee was based on a fair-share contribution of the estimated total cost to install the traffic-adaptive technology. The need for traffic-adaptive technology, as it was identified during the review of the project, remains.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the traffic-adaptive technology upgrades will be provided through fair-share contributions from other developers that impact the corridor.

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the traffic adaptive technology is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified below.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Traffic-
Adaptive
Traffic Signal
System along
De Anza Blvd
$250,000 $54,396 100% Fair share
contributions
from other
developers
that impact
the corridor
Developer
contributions
obtained
when
adjacent
properties
redevelop.

Anticipated
Summer/2020
Fall/2019 Summer
2025

72 CC 12-20-2022
72 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 25

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Based on Fair-Share Contribution assessed by engineer’s cost estimate

FY2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$ 53,858 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 50,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $538 $4,396
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$54,396 $54,396

73 CC 12-20-2022
73 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 26
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Interstate 280/Junipero Serra Channel Trail Improvements

Local Authority:

TM-2011-03: Mitigation PLAN-3

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement: Provided for information only. Five years have not elapsed since initial deposit.

1. The purpose of the Interstate 280/Junipero Serra Channel Trail Improvements fee is to partially fund a feasibility study for a new trail along I-280/Junipero Serra Channel from N. De Anza Blvd to Calabazas Creek. Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Apple Campus 2: Ordinance 13-2114: Resolution Approving Apple Campus 2 Development Agreement – Section 3.13 and TM-2011-03: Mitigation PLAN-3, dated 10/15/2013 for Tentative Map application ($250,000 collected) b. Cupertino Property Development – Hyatt House – 10380 Perimeter Rd: DP-2014-04:

Condition of Approval No. 21, dated October 21, 2014, for Development Permit application ($66,000 collected).

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the I-280/Junipero Serra Channel Trail Improvements fee, and the purpose for which the fee was charged, in that the development in the vicinity of the proposed trail will introduce additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic between the new campus and the existing campus, causing the need to provide additional and alternative routes between the developments. The need for a new trail study, as it was identified during the review of the project, remains, as the study has not yet completed.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of the study are identified below:

 Developer Fair-Share Contributions from other projects in the vicinity of the proposed trail location.

4. The approximate dates on which the funding for the bridge improvements is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified on the next page.

74 CC 12-20-2022
74 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 27

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding to
be Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Interstate
280/Junipero
Serra Channel
Trail
Improvements
$500,000 $67,301 100% Additional
Developer
Contributions
are needed to
complete the
project
Developer
contributions
obtained
when
adjacent
properties
redevelop.

Ongoing.

Fall/2017 Spring/2024

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Contribution equivalent to approximately 60% of the estimated cost of implementation

FY2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$66,634 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 316,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $667 $15,626
Expended 0 Callander
Assoc.

Contract
($264,325)
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$67,301 $67,301

75 CC 12-20-2022
75 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 28
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Contribution towards Stevens Creek Blvd. Bicycle Lane Improvements

Local Authority:

ASA-2018-01: Condition of Approval No. 43

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement:

5. The purpose of the Stevens Creek Blvd. Bicycle Lane Improvement fee is to partially fund upgrades to the bicycle lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd in order to improve the enhance the safety of the bicycle lanes. Public facilities to be funded with the fees were described in:
a. Target Improvements: ASA-2018-01: Condition of Approval No. 22 dated August 14, 2018 for Architectural Site Approval ($75,000 collected)

6. A reasonable relationship exists between the Stevens Creek Blvd. Bicycle Lane Improvements fee and the purpose for which the fee was charged, in that the new development abuts Stevens Creek Blvd., and will introduce additional traffic to the area. The need for the improvements to the bicycle lanes, which were identified during the review of the project, remains.

7. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of the signal upgrades improvements are identified below:

 Developer Fair-Share Contributions from other projects along Stevens Creek Blvd.  It is anticipated that the City of Cupertino General Fund will be used to supplement revenue from fees.

8. The approximate dates on which the funding for the signal improvements is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account are identified below.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2022

%
Expected
to be
Funded
by Fees
Sources and
Amounts of
Funding
Anticipated
to Complete
the Project
Estimated
Date for
Funding
to be
Deposited
in Fund

Estimated
Beginning
Date

Estimated
Completion
Date
Stevens Creek
Bicycle Lane
Improvements
(Wolfe Rd to
Hwy 85)
$2,800,000 $78,921 3% Developer
Contributions,
and General
Fund.

Winter/
2021
Spring/2021 Summer/2024

76 CC 12-20-2022
76 of 114
Attachment A

Page | 29

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Contribution from developments, based on estimated costs to construct facilities along property frontages.

FY2021-22

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2021
$78,140 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 75,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $781 $3,921
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2022
$78,921 $ 78,921

77 CC 12-20-2022
77 of 114
Attachment B
RESOLUTION NO. 22-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING THE ANNUAL & FIVE-YEAR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT FOR FY ENDING JUNE 30, 2022 AND MAKING REQUIRED

FINDINGS

WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) requires that an annual report regarding development impact fees be submitted to the City Council at a regularly scheduled public meeting pursuant to Section 66006; and

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66001(d) further provides that the City must, on a five-year basis, make certain findings with respect to unexpended development impact fees; and

WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino - AB 1600 ‐ Mitigation Fee Act Annual & Five-Year Report for the fiscal year that end ing June 30, 20 22 (the “Annual and Five-Year Report”), comprises the annual report required under Government Code Section 66006(b) and five -year report required under Government Code Section 66001(d) of the Mitigation Fee Ac t. Said report is included as Attachment A and incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby:

1. Acknowledge the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated into this resolution by this reference.

2. Approves the Annual and Five -Year Report for FY ending June 30, 20 22 in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act and incorporates by reference said Report (Attachment A).

3. Adopts the findings required by Government Code 66001(d) as stated in the Five-Year Reporting and Findings Requirement section of the Annual and Five-Year Report (Attachment A), which demonstrate that, for each account or fund:

78 CC 12-20-2022
78 of 114
Resolution No. 22-____

a. The purpose of each fund is described in the Annual and Five -Year Report.
b. A reasonable relationship exists between the fee charged to development projects and the purpose for which it is charged, based on the substantial evidence contained in the Annual and Five -Year Report.
c. For each fund, the Annual and Five-Year Report identifies all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of incomplete improvements.
d. For each fund, the Annual and Five -Year Report designates the approximate date on which the funding needed is expected to be deposited into the fund.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this Resolution is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action a pproved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in que stion may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, approving the report would have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 20th day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

79 CC 12-20-2022
79 of 114
Resolution No. 22-____

SIGNED:

________
Hung Wei, Mayor
City of Cupertino

________________________
Date
ATTEST:

________
Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk

________________________
Date

80 CC 12-20-2022
80 of 114

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11796 Agenda Date:
12/20/2022 Agenda #: 8.

Subject: Consider approval of response to 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report Entitled, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped”
Approve the response to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report Entitled, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped”
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
81 CC 12-20-2022
81 of 114

1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: December 20, 2022

Subject
Consider approval of response to 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report Entitled, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped”

Recommended Action
Approve the response to the 2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report Entitled, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped”

Background
On October 7, 2022, the 2021-2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report on the clarity of ballot measure questions. The Grand Jury Report proposes that an oversight person or body be empowered to review and reject the wording of ballot questions if deemed to be false, misleading, or partial to one side. Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requested a response from the City of Cupertino and other jurisdictions that may place measures on the ballot. Specifically, the City of Cupertino and 22 other governing bodies were asked to respond to finding #1 of the report and report recommendations 1b, 1c , and 1e. Penal Code section 933(c) requires the City Council to provide a response within 90 days, by no later than January 5, 2023.

The Grand Jury final report is included as Exhibit A.

Discussion
The Grand Jury investigated how ballot measures are summarized to voters an d includes one finding and six recommendations:

Finding #1:

The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.

82 CC 12-20-2022
82 of 114

2 Recommendation 1a:

The Board of Supervisors should ask the County Counsel to review all ballot questions submitted to it pursuant to Recommendation 1b.

Recommendation 1b:

Governing entities within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.

Recommendation 1c:

Governing entities within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.

Recommendation 1d:

The County should create an independent, citizen-led oversight commission like the recommended Good Governance in Ballots Commission as described in the “Solutions” section of this report. The Commission should be implemented by August 1, 2024.

Recommendation 1e:

Governing entities within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.

Recommendation 1f:

The County should, by March 31, 2023, take appropriate action to request that the state legislature consider amending current law to require the County Counsel to review and approve local ballot measure questions before they are voted on.

The Grand Jury Report requests that the City of Cupertino respond to Recommendations 1b, 1c, and 1e only. A draft response letter for the City Council to consider is included as Attachment B.

The proposed response disagrees with Recommendations 1b and 1c because the recommendations appear to misunderstand the relationship between the City and the County Counsel’s Office. In addition, as indicated in the proposed response, Recommendation 1e is not applicable because it would require changes in state law that are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino.

If approved by the City Council, the response letter will be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court before the response deadline.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

83 CC 12-20-2022
83 of 114

3 Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

_____________________________________

Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, City Clerk
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:

A - Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report
B – Draft Response Letter to Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County

84 CC 12-20-2022
84 of 114

Release date here Page 0 of 23

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT,
YOU’RE BEING DUPED
2022 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
October 7, 2022
85 CC 12-20-2022
85 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................2 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................4 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................5 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................6 INVESTIGATION ...........................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................17 REQUIRED RESPONSES ............................................................................................................19 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................21

86 CC 12-20-2022
86 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Attorney General The chief law officer who represents a state in legal proceedings.

Ballot Card The printed ballot, usually on high-grade paper, consisting of the ballot questions and names of individuals running for elected office.

Ballot Measure Ballot measures are proposals, usually at a county or local level, to enact new laws or repeal existing laws, which are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the
electorate.

Ballot Proposition

Ballot propositions are proposals, usually at the state level, to enact new laws or constitutional amendments or repeal existing laws or constitutional amendments, which are
placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the
electorate.

Ballot Question or Ballot
Label

Boards and Commissions

For purposes of this report, Ballot Question or Ballot
Label means the 75- word or less statement of a measure that precedes “Yes” or “No” on the ballot card.

Boards and Commissions are made up of residents who
volunteer their time and expertise to assist and advi se governing bodies in the chosen capacity.

Caselaw

Law or legal precedent established by the outcome of
court cases.

County Counsel or Office of
the County Counsel

The County Counsel is the chief legal advisor and
representative for the county, including the county board of supervisors and all county agencies and departments.

Elections Code

A collection of California laws related to public elections.

87 CC 12-20-2022
87 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Governing Entity

A jurisdiction such as a city, county, school district, special district, or political subdivision.

Home Rule

The right of self -government that is granted by state
constitution or statute to give autonomy to a local
government. Home Rule implies that each level of
government has a separate realm of authority.

Public Opinion Pollsters

Registrar of Voters

Opinion polls are designed to represent the opinions o f a population by conducting a series of questions and then extrapolating generalities in ratio or within confidence intervals. A person who conducts polls is referred to as a pollster.

The department responsible for the operation,
administration, and direction of the elections department, with primary responsibility for the registration of voters, the holding of elections ,
and all matters pertaining to
elections.

Single Subject Rule

Per Article II, Section 8(d) of the California Constitution, “An initiative measure embracing more than one subject
may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.” Essentially, the rule stands for the notion that where an initiative embraces more than one subject, it can neither be submitted to, nor enacted by, the voters.

Term Limits

A specified number of terms (in years) that a person in office is allowed to serve.

Writ of Mandate

In California, writs of mandate are used by superior courts, courts of appeal , and the Supreme Court to command
lower bodies, including both courts and government
agencies, to do or not to do certain things.

88 CC 12-20-2022
88 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

SUMMARY

It is not uncommon for the public to be confronted daily with news and information through multiple sources —tradi tional television programming, 24/7 cable news, satellite radio, social media, and phone alerts. In the context of elections, voters’ busy lives can be overwhelmed with many different voices. County and state voter information guides are required by law to be mailed to every registered voter, but voters today do not have a lot of time to read these resources. As a result, the ballot measure question printed on the ballot itself becomes a key factor in the outcome of an election.

There is an expectation in California law that ballot questions be drafted in a manner that is not false, misleading, or partial to one side.
1 But there are ways to work around it. Among the fifty or so jurisdictions in Santa Clara County that are eligible to put forth a ballot measure, the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) has seen ballot question language that is confusing, advocacy-oriented, or simply dishonest. Yes, sometimes voters are being deceived.

Many voters cannot comprehend the complicated language or the implications of that "yes” or "no” vote. In a perfect world, voters would have the luxury of time to research these issues. In reality, however, voters almost always rely on the language of the ballot measure question itself.

What can be done about this? The Civil Grand Jury proposes an oversight person or body, one who has taken an oath to act with integrity, is well versed in the requirements of the law, and is empowered to review and to reject ballot question wording that is false, misleading, or partial to one side. Santa Clara County should have a climate whereby governing entities in Santa Clara County are discouraged from using dishonest or deceitful wording in a ballot question, especially when they know it will be reviewed and could be rejected. In so doing, due process will be strengthened. With clearer writing, ballot measure questions will be more transparent and straightforward, which will lead to a better perception of government by the voters. It is time to remove impediments to good governance.

1 California Elections Code section 10403 requires a ballot question to “conform to this code governing the wording of propositions submitted to the voters at a statewide election.” The California Elections Code contains Section 9051, which provides that in a statewide election the ballot title and summary of an initiative or referendum must be a “true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.” (Elec. C. §9051(c); see also, McDonough v. Superior Ct. (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 1169, 1172.) 89 CC 12-20-2022
89 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

BACKGROUND

Ballot measures or ballot propositions are proposals to enact new laws or constitutional amendments or to repeal existing laws or constitutional amendments. They are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the voting public. The words “ballot measures ” are often used by county, city, and local governing entities, whereas at the state level, the California State Legislature uses the term “ballot propositions ” to refer to the same concept. The ballot measure question, which is the subject of this report, refers to the maximum 75-word text that precedes the “Yes” or “No” selection on the ballot card itself. Because most voters never read beyond what is printed on the ballot card, it is of critical importance that ballot measure questions be concise, a ccurate, and impartial.

Recently, two local newspaper articles highlighted the tactics that governing entities have used to manipulate voters:
• Borenstein, Daniel, Tricks California Local Officials Use To Trick Voters, Bay Area News Group, January 21, 2022.
• Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards, Stop Deceiving Bay Area Voters on Local Tax Measure Costs, June 26, 2020, updated September 5, 2020.

As part of its charge, the Civil Grand Jury is responsible for identifying areas within local government that lack good governance or practices. This Civil Grand Jury identified as a problem the choice of wording used in local ballot measure questions. Specifically, the C ivil Grand Jury discovered that some local governing entities presenting measures for a public vote create ballot questions that are purposefully misleading so they may obtain their desired result. In particular, it was noted that the wording of a ballot question from the June 2022 election, although representing a relatively simple issue, created confusion among the public. When voters found out what the text of the measure actually meant, they felt deceived by the wording of the ballot question. Deception in ballot questions is worth the attention of the Civil Grand Jury. This problem must be remediated to reinstate good governance in the election process.

90 CC 12-20-2022
90 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

METHODOLOGY

The Civil Grand Jury used the following investigative methods:
• Interviews with ten individuals who are well versed in the intricacies of the election process and experts in political science and local governments
• Three published Civil Grand Jury reports: 2021-22 Alameda County, 2021-22 Santa Cruz County, 2021 Santa Clara County
• Editorials from local and regional newspapers: Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle
• Close reviews of ballot measures, past and upcoming, from the counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and the City and County of San Francisco • Legal research of court challenges involving ballot questions

INVESTIGATION

Throughout this report, the Civil Grand Jury wa s interested only in the process of ballot measure question drafting, not the substance of the underlying ballot measure itself. In its research and analysis, the Civil Grand Jury does not examine the merits of the measure, but rather whether the question as drafted is truthful, impartial, and fair . B allot questions must conform to statutory requirements and should provide voters with sufficient information and transparency to make informed decisions.

A straightforward ballot question can be summarized this way: A vote for “Yes” means yes and a vote for “No” means no. Unfortunately, it is common for ballot questions to be presented whereby a vote for “Yes” actually means no, and vice versa. This wording is arguably confusing. Inching farther away from confusing questions, the research performed by the Civil Grand Jury found ballot questions that are even worse—they are misleading.

Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Measure A

During the last election in June 2022, the question for Measure A put forth by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Water District) employed such a tactic:

Shall the measure amending the Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 11- 01 to limit Board members to four successive four-year terms be adopted?

The Water District had term limits already in place for board members to serve three four -year terms, or 12 years at most. Measure A sought to increase term limits to four four-year terms, or 16 years at most. However, the ballot question hid the fact that a term limit was already in place; it 91 CC 12-20-2022
91 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

asked voters whether a term limit of four terms should be adopted, thereby couching the question as a measure to adopt term limits generally, which one political science expert described to the Civil Grand Jury as a concept widely favorable to the voting public. The ballot question did not reflect what the Water District wanted to do. The Water District wanted to extend term limits, but it wrote the ballot question without using the words “extend,” “change,” or “increase.” Instead, the Water District characterized the ballot measure as setting term limits, which is a mischaracterization of what Measure A was actually about.

Further, it is notable that in November 1998, the County of Santa Clara placed a substantially similar measure on the ballot using the same tactic. Measure E asked:

Shall the County of Santa Clara amend section 202 to limit the number of terms a member of the Board of Supervisors may serve to three terms, consisting of four years each?

Again, the ballot question failed to inform the reader that each member of the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors was already limited to two terms and that the ballot measure proposed to extend years served, not “limit” them. By not being transparent, this tactic of ballot question drafting is tantamount to a lie by omission; it borders on deceiving the public. From Measure E in 1998 to Measure A this year, 24 years later, the climate has not changed.

Regulations that Govern Ballot Questions

Sections 9100-9190 of the California Elections Code specifically address county- level elections.

Other sections of the Elections Code, while they do not specifically address county-level elections, have import and therefore apply as well. The County of Santa Clara has not enacted local ordinance code provisions regarding ballot question language.

Under the Elections Code, the wording of a ballot measure must state the ballot question, or what the Elections Code calls the “label,” in 75 words or less (Elec. C. §9051(b), §10403, §13247). The ballot question must state “the nature” of the measure (Elec. C. §13120). The official who drafts the ballot question “shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)). In other words, ballot measure questions shall not be false, misleading, or partial to one side.

Who is Responsible for Writing Ballot Questions?

Today, ballot questions are rarely written “from scratch.” Residing in the public domain are hundreds, if not thousands, of boilerplate questions spanning the universe of issues typically faced by government and public agencies. Putting a measure on the ba llot usually starts with selecting 92 CC 12-20-2022
92 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

an existing template, preferably one that had been used successfully within a reasonable timeframe and geographic proximity to the one at hand. Tweaks are then made to the chosen template to fit the measure being proposed.

Governing entities are ultimately responsible for approving the final text of the ballot question, but the actual selection of words is often the calculated and carefully calibrated work product of hired election experts, consultants, and attorneys. These outside consultants often rely on public opinion pollsters to determine the type of proposal and wording to put before voters that would achieve the desired outcome. Often, this includes using “feel good” wording that is shown to resonate with voters: “reduce crime;” “funds spent locally;” “all money locally controlled;” and “with citizen oversight.” Results from public opinion polls often dictate the structure and selection of words used within the ballot question, which is then voted on and, if successful, adopted by the governing body such as a city council, a county board of supervisors, the board members of a school district, or any governing body of a government entity operating within the county. During the course of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury learned that local measures on the ballot that governing entities choose wording likely to be most successful at the ballot box over clarity of language to the voter.

For purposes of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury focused on ballot questions relating to local ballot measures, not state propositions, because according to the California Elections Code, the state attorney general is responsible for providing ballot questions for state propositions. In contrast, there is no similar requirement that a certain officer provide the ballot question for local elections, so it is instead drafted by the proponent of the measure at the local level.

Advocacy and Tactical Wordplay Result in Poorly Drafted Ballot Questions

It has been widely observed today that the 75- word ballot questions are being used as advocacy pieces, at the expense of fairness and impartiality. In an aptly titled report published in June of last
year, the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury advocated for “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions.” The jury explained how and why the desire to achieve a certain outcome has tainted the process to produce ballot measure questions that are not accurate and impartial:

In general, we found ballot questions suffer from a “proponent’s bias” that is a natural outgrowth of the typical process through which questions are selected, drafted, and proposed. … In general, we found that ballot questions too often fall short of what voters have a right to expect in terms of transparency and impartiality, even when satisfying minimum legal standards.

93 CC 12-20-2022
93 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

The jury in Alameda reviewed and provided an in- depth analysis of six ballot questions to reach their conclusion. In so doing, they exposed the “tricks of the trade”—wording chosen for the sole purpose of increasing the odds of success at the polls. Adopting the same methodology as the Alameda report, the Civil Grand Jury reviewed past and upcoming ballot measure questions from local jurisdictions within Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury observed the same tricks and tactics used by governing bodies to deceive voters:

(1) Using “feel-good" words to garner voter approval. Measure F, November 2020, said “all funds spent locally,” which is meaningless when one pauses to think about it. (2) Adding favorable language even where it plainly does not apply. Measure F, November 2020, said “independent audits, citizens’ oversight” where the underlying ordinance implementing the measure makes no mention whatsoever of audit and oversight requirements.
(3) Adding misleading words to lead voters astray. Measure S, November 2020, said “until ended by voters,” falsely implying that the measure itself provided for repeal or that voters would have an opportunity to repeal the tax when they did not; Measure L, November 2020, conveyed the same with “can be ended by voters.” Measure A, March 2017, said “[funds] cannot be taken away by the State,” falsely implying that the state may access local funds when it may not.
(4) Manipulating words to divert voters from what is actually at issue. Upcoming Measure N, November 2022, which seeks authorization of $572 million in school bonds costing approximately 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, states “no increase in tax rates.” (5) Omitting relevant information necessary for voters to make informed decisions. Measure AA, November 2016, and Measure H, November 2014, made no mention of the tax increase that would be required to fund the school bonds that were at issue. (6) Putting multiple issues on a single measure, ostensibly violating the single subject rule.

Measure H, November 2020, sought to increase card room tax and the number of card tables allowed in gambling facilities.

At the writing of this report, the following measures slated for the upcoming November 2022 election also rely on at least one of the tactics described:

E “all funds spent locally with no money taken by the State and spent elsewhere” - see (1) and (3) above.

G, H, J, L “until ended by voters” - see (3) above.

I “Shall the City Charter be amended to add the City's ethics and elections commission (Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices) to the Charter; remove requirements that members of the Planning, Civil Service, and Salary Setting Commissions be electors and/or citizens; remove gender-specific language; and require the City Council to adopt equity values, standards, and assessments in making certain decisions?” - see (6) above.

O “all money staying local” - see (1) above.
94 CC 12-20-2022
94 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Along the same lines, it is worth noting that in June 2022, the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury released its report , “Words Matter: Did Measure G Deceive Voters?” The question confronting the jury was whether the County of Santa Cruz was honoring the provisions in the ballot measure following its passage. The jury concluded that the ballot question behind the November 2018 Measure G was misleading after its investigation and research revealed no basis whatsoever for including the words “annual audits and independent citizens oversight” within the ballot question.

Arguably, these words were used for no purpose other than to elicit good feelings in the voter.

The Elephant in the Room: Big Money

Elections cost money—lots of money. In an article published June 30, 2002, updated June 22, 2022, CalMatters put it succinctly: “Ballot measures are big business.” The Civil Grand Jury learned that cost is a major factor in the decision to g et to the ballot. San Jose’s Mercury News reported that the Water District’s Measure A from the June 2022 election cost taxpayers $3.2 million.

Once the decision is made by the government entity to spend the money to go to ballot, a lot of pressure is put on the entity to do whatever it takes to secure a win. For this reason, proponents of ballot measures stay focused on the result, hiri ng high-priced election consultants, attorneys, and opinion pollsters to carefully frame the ballot question to achieve the desired outcome. Successful elections will reward those that are behind them. It does not take much imagination to understand how this practice has evolved to become “high stakes.” For example, a school district superintendent who has successfully secured funding through school bond measures may parlay these wins to rally support for a more prestigious role or a position at a larger public institution.

On the other hand, if a measure fails, individuals’ livelihoods are at stake because someone will likely have to take the blame for it —usually either someone on staff or the board proponents of the governing body. This is why proponents advocate so strongly, often—as exemplified above — sacrificing context, clarity, truthfulness, and transparency in ballot question wording in favor of pure advocacy. The Civil Grand Jury learned from those in the ballot question business that it is understood that the drafter will make sure the statement is “lawful,” but it is also understood that it will not necessarily provide full disclosure.

Eroding the Public’s Trust

Many voters in Santa Clara County felt that they were tricked by the Water District based on how Measure A was worded. The Civil Grand Jury compiled the following descriptors of Measure A from local news sources and through its interviews: “deceitful,” “deceptive ballot language,” “designed to confuse voters,” “dishonest,” “false,” “hiding the ball,” “lacks integrity,” “lie by omission,” “misleading,” “not ethical,” “not transparent,” “not clear,” “violates the norm,” 95 CC 12-20-2022
95 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

“violates standards of good governance,” “board must be held accountable,” “board should resign,” “board violated its fiduciary duty,” “board violated the trust of the people,” “board wasting money,” “failure of character,” “failure to represent its constituents,” “fraudulent misappropriation of public funds,” “misled the public for political gain,” “self -serving hoodwinking of the electorate,” “self-serving dishonesty,” “unacceptable in a democracy.”

Public opinion made it clear that where a ballot question fails to provide voters with sufficient information to make an informed decision, it does so at the expense of public trust. Forming distrust between government and its citizenry hurts. What the Water District did through Measure A has severe ramifications because it creates distrust between the government agency and the people the agency is supposed to serve and protect. Going forward, Santa Clara County residents will likely question the integrity and ethical behavior of the Water District. Once the bonds of trust have been weakened, citizens are less inclined to trust the actions and decisions of this agency and more inclined to ask, “If the Water District cannot be trusted to be truthful on the ballot, how can we know them to be truthful in other matters?”

With the passage of Measure A, many residents lost confidence in the Water District. It may take a long time to regain trust from the community. While the Civil Grand Jury appreciates the desire of a government entity to advocate for itself when putting ballot measures up for a public vote, ballot questions cannot be false, misleading, or partial to one side. Based on Civil Grand Jury research and reports, too many local measures fail to meet this standard in favor of advocacy and “proponent’s bias.”

Lack of Oversight Results in Poorly Drafted Ballot Questions

Despite the number of hands that touch a proposal from inception to ballot card, the Civil Grand Jury was surprised to discover that there is no filter or oversight by an appropriate official prior to the adoption of ballot question wording. At the state level, the “Attorney General gives a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title [e.g., the ballot question] and summary shall neither be an argument, nor likely to create prejudice, for or against the p roposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)) . But the Attorney General does not have jurisdiction over local measures and thus does not provide the ballot question. When it comes to local measures, the Civil Grand Jury learned that there is not a similar role performed by an official, like the Attorney General, that can provide the wording for ballot questions. Rather, when the ballot question is submitted to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, their review is narrowly limited to enforcement of the 75 -word limit. Staff at the County Registrar of Voters manually count the number of words to ensure that the word cap has not been stretched. They do not monitor the content of the ballot question.

96 CC 12-20-2022
96 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

At the local level, the County of Santa Clara Office of the County Counsel performs legal services that are most analogous to the Attorney General’s role at the state level with respect to elections.

Further, County Counsel has expertise in election law and advises the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters. The County Counsel does not, however, have authority over cities and political subdivisions within the boundaries of the county. Therefore, when a city, school district, or special district places a local measure on the ballot, they are permitted under curren t law to draft the language themselves. They have every incentive to adopt wording proposed by their polling consultants, who will give weight to “feel good” words over simplicity, transparency, and impartiality. Fundamentally, the government entity’s self-interest dictates the ballot question wording.

The Current Sole Remedy—I nitiating a Court Challenge—F alls Short

Under current legislation, there is no realistically expedient method to challenge problematic ballot questions. When a measure is to be placed on the ballot for an upcoming election, it is subject to a 10-day public examination period during which any voter in the jurisdiction may file a lawsuit to amend the language of the measure. California Elections Code section 9295 sets forth the procedure:

During the 10-calendar-day public examination period provided by this section, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, himself or herself, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period.

A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

There are several reasons why the 10-calendar-day public examination period to object in a formal court setting does not work well:

(1) The public tends not to hear about ballot measures until it is too late. This is due in part to a dearth of media coverage of local news, a result of the consolidation of local news outlets by media conglomerates. It is no secret that in today’s news environment, local news coverage has been reduced significantly. Furthermore, ten days is a very short window to react, let alone mount a court challenge to remediate.
97 CC 12-20-2022
97 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

(2) Ten days is much too short a time to locate an attorney well versed in the laws and processes of elections to file a lawsuit in this specialized field. (3) Even if an attorney can be available within the 10 -day window, it is not within the means of the average person to afford the attorney fees necessary to pursue a remedy. (4) Voters challenging the wording in a ballot question face an uphill battle because the courts give deference and considerable latitude to the original author. Further, courts uphold the ballot measure question if it substantially complies with the requirement not to be “false, misleading, or partial to one side.” (See Bibliography, Amador and McDonough decisions.) (5) There is practically no recourse to fix non- conforming ballot questions after the 10- calendar day public examination period has passed. (See Bibliography, Denny decision.) (6) Even the single subject rule —a state constitutional doctrine—has been watered down by case law; hence it is no longer vigorously enforced. (See Bibliography, Amador and Harbor decisions.)
When confronted with challenges to ballot measures, the courts have stated:

• Relief under a writ of mandate may be granted "only upon clear and convincing evidence" that the challenged election material is "false or misleading or otherwise inconsistent with the provisions." (See Bibliography, McDonough decision.) • The test is not whether the ballot question could be more complete . (See Bibliography, Martinez decision.)
• The ballot title need not be the “most accurate,” “most comprehensive,” or “fairest” that a skilled wordsmith might imagine. (See Bibliography, Yes on 25, Citizens for an On- Time Budget decision.)
• The courts are not free to change an accurate statement to reflect their interpretation of the common sense understanding of the language . (See Bibliography, Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget decision.)
• The courts are not free to wordsmith the ballot question and change it just because they believe it could be better. (See Bibliography, Martinez decision.) • The courts must give deference to the official who drafts the ballot question; “all legitimate presumptions should be indulged in favor of the propriety” of the drafter’s actions. (See Bibliography, Becerra decision.)
Solutions

The Civil Grand Jury has learned that the sole legal remedy currently available to right a wrong when it comes to ballot measure questions is insurmountable for the average citizen. Nonetheless, the Civil Grand Jury notes that there could be two potential mechanisms to improve the current process.

98 CC 12-20-2022
98 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

1. Task an appropriate official to review ballot measure questions

Current law requires that t he individual who drafts the ballot question do so in a way that is not false, misleading, or partial to one side. In order to meet this requirement, an objective, neutral third party is needed to speak on behalf of the voting public, ideally someone who is well versed in the law, has a fiduciary duty to uphold the law, and has taken an oath to act with integrity. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that County Counsel perform this task. Further, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors should endorse the County Counsel to act in a role, like that of the Attorney General, to provide for ballot question wording for all local measures.

What this might look like: After the governing entity ratifies the concept behind the proposed measure, as is the practice today, the entity’s lawyer, whether a city attorney, school district attorney, or special district attorney, would draft a ballot question that is impartial, unbiased, and non-argumentative. The proposed ballot question would then be submitted to the County Counsel, who would be charged with overseeing the narrow task of ensuring that the wording of the question is not false, misleading, or biased in favor of one view. Most importantly, County Counsel would also be authorized to reject non- conforming or deficient wording and to compel revisions. Only when the ballot question at issue conforms to statutory requirements would County Counsel approve it for use.

2. Create an independent oversight commission to review ballot questions

It is not unusual for jurisdictions to convene independent advisory commissions to assist in county governance. The County of Santa Clara alone boasts over 75 boards and commissions, ranging from an Advisory Commission on Consumer Affairs to a Youth Task Force.

For purposes of overseeing conformity of ballot measure questions, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County form a Good Governance in Ballots Commission (Good Governance Commission). Th is advisory commi ssion should act quickly to review and comment on ballot questions or provide recommendations to remediate questions that that are false, misleading, or partial to one side. The composition of the Good Governance Commission should, at a minimum, include an attorney member of the California S tate Bar, either to participate as a full member or act as an ex officio member without voting privileges. Because County Counsel is the attorney to most Santa Clara County advisory boards and commission s, it could therefore be tasked to help members of this commission navigate the intricacies of California’s statutory requirements.

Apart from the obvious benefits—non- partisanship and public representation—another advantage of having a single commission perform the task of reviewing ballot questions would be to maintain consistency across all governing entities. Regardless of whether a city, county, school district, or 99 CC 12-20-2022
99 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

other jurisdiction puts forth the measure, the output from a neutral, uninterested third party would probably help eliminate the rhetoric and advocacy inherent in the current practice.

To be successful, the Good Governance Commission should ideally have the ability to review and to reject language that is biased and partial. The power of rejection is crucial because it would also likely have the effect of encouraging the gover ning entity to self-police. It must not be merely optional for governing entities to submit their ballot questions for review. If the commission were granted mere advisory powers, then it would have very limited impact; it is reasonable to surmise that most, if not all, governing entities would choose to decline to submit their ballot questions for consideration in the interest of the time required to add a layer of review.

Unfortunately, adoption of a Good Governance Commission that has the power to reject language would require passage of a state law that would enable the County of Santa Clara to have an express grant of power to impose a requirement on other entities. This is because “[t]he board of supervisors has no inherent powers; the counties are legal subdivisions of the state, and the county board of supervisors can exercise only those powers expressly granted it by Constitution or statutes and those necessarily implied therefrom” (Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d 228, 242). In general, absent other express authorization, one governmental entity cannot regulate another.

Put another way, charter cities operate under home rule, which means that they do not answer to the county the city is located in. For example, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors does not have jurisdiction to compel the City of Gilroy, a charter city, to abide by a county ordinance. Absent some legislative authorization, the County of Santa Clara cannot impose a mandatory review process for ballot questions on other entities. For this reason, the Civil Grand Jury urges the County to pursue legislative solutions to facilitate a process by which the County Counsel would be required to review and approve local measure ballot questions before they are voted on.

Formation of a Good Governance in Ballots Commission

The Civil Grand Jury believes that having an independent oversight commi ssion with advisory powers will improve the local electoral process. It puts pressure on governing bodies, sending the message that their ballot questions are being monitored for clarity, truthfulness, fairness, and impartiality.

The Alameda Civil Grand Jury report provides detailed instructions around the formation, structure, and operation of an oversight committee. This can be found in Appendix B of their June 2021 report. Last, but not least, another possibility is to lean on an existing Santa Clara County advisory body, the Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Elections, to create a subcommittee focused
100
CC 12-20-2022
100 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

on ballot question integrity and good governance. Because time is of the essence when it comes to the elections process, the subcommittee must act within the short turnaround timeframe established by state statutes and county ordinances.

There do not appear to be any advocates for transparent and neutral language. Action must be taken. Having the Office of the County Counsel review and approve ballot questions to ensure conformity to statutory requirements would be a good start. Convening a citizen-led, independent oversight Good Governance Commission is another solution.

CONCLUSION

Civil Grand Juries are charged to help government develop practical solutions to improve government operations. Poorly worded ballot questions may not be illegal, but if they withhold information to shield what is really at issue, they are unethical. There are insufficient workable checks and balances to prevent this ongoing issue from being curtailed. Not doing anything about this only adds to the distrust of government. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that elected officials be held accountable—ballot questions must be transparent and clear in order to enable today’s voters to make informed decisions. The Civil Grand Jury wants governing entities to know that the public is paying attention and will not tolerate questions that are anything less than truthful, impartial, and fair. Further, ballot measure questions need to be straightforward, understandable, transparent, and honest.

101
CC 12-20-2022
101 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Finding 1

The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.

Recommendation 1a

The Board of Supervisors should ask the County Counsel to review all ballot questions submitted to it pursuant to Recommendation 1b.

Recommendation 1b

Governing entities2 within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.

Recommendation 1c

Governing entities3 within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation s 1d and 1e are implemented.

Recommendation 1d

The County should create an independent, citizen-led oversight commission like the recommended Good Governance in Ballots Commi ssion as described in the “Solutions” section of this report.

The Commission should be implemented by August 1, 2024.

2 There are approximately 50 governing entities within Santa Clara County. The Civil Grand Jury has elected to address these recommendations to the County, cities, and a select number of special districts and school districts that have historically the most measures on the ballot for response. The Civil Grand Jury encourages all governing entities to adopt these recommendations.
3 Id.
102
CC 12-20-2022
102 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Recommendation 1e

Governing entities4 within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.

Recommendation 1f

The County should, by March 31, 2023, take appropriate action to request that the state legislature consider amending current law to require the County Counsel to review and approve local ballot measure questions before they are voted on.

4 Id.
103
CC 12-20-2022
103 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

REQUIRED RESPONSES

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code § 933.05, the County of Santa Clara 2022 Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors 1 1a, 1b, 1d, 1f City of Campbell 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Cupertino 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Gilroy 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Los Altos 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Town of Los Altos Hills 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Town of Los Gatos 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Milpitas 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Monte Sereno 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Morgan Hill 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Mountain View 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Palo Alto 1 1b, 1c, 1e
104
CC 12-20-2022
104 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of San Jose 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Santa Clara 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Saratoga 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City Sunnyvale 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Santa Clara Valley Water District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Valley Transportation Authority 1 1b, 1c, 1e
El Camino Healthcare 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District 1 1b, 1c, 1e San Jose Unified School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
East Side Union High School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Cupertino Union School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e

105
CC 12-20-2022
105 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

REFERENCES

Bibliography:

Alameda County 2020-2021 Grand Jury, Final Report, “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions,” June 2022.

Ballotpedia.org, https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_County,_California, Measure A (June 2022); Measures F, G, H, L, and S (November 2020); Measure AA (November 2016); Measure H (November 2014); Measure E (November 1998) (accessed September 22, 2022).

Borenstein, Daniel, “Tricks California Local Officials Use To Trick Voters,” The Bay Area News Group, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/borenstein-tricks-california-local-officials- use-to-deceive-voters/ January 21, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

California Elections Code sections 303, 9051, 9100-9190, 9295, 13120, and 133247.

Christopher, Ben; Kamal, Sameea, “California Ballot Measures: What You Need to Know,” https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-ballot-measures-2022/ June 30, 2022, updated July 1, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

City and County of San Francisco Department of Elections, https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures (accessed August 2, 2022).

County of Santa Clara 2020-21 Grand Jury, Final Report, “Gavilan College Measure X Bond Program: Oversight Shortchanged.” June 2022.

County of Santa Clara, Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, List of Boards and Commissions, https://stenttssaim2publicportal.blob.core.windows.net/bc- entcabodocs/MaddyReport.pdf (accessed August 24, 2022).

County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters, Ballot Measures proposed for the upcoming November 2022 election, https://sccvote.sccgov.org/candidates-measures/november-8-2022- general-election-list-local-measures (accessed Aug 20, 2022).

Editorial, Mercury News and East Bay Times, “Stop Deceiving Bay Area Voters On Local Tax Measure Costs,” MercuryNews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/26/editorial-stop- deceiving-voters-on-local-tax-measure-costs/ June 26, 2020 (accessed August 23, 2022).

Kumar, Rishi, “Opinion: Why 4 Valley Water board members should resign,” MercuryNews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/11/opinion-why-4-valley-water- board-members-should-resign/ May 11, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022). 106
CC 12-20-2022
106 of 114

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Rogers, Paul, “Self-Serving Dishonesty: Liccardo Blasts Santa Clara Valley Water District Measure To Extend Term Limits, Even After Polling Shows Voters Oppose,” Mercury News, March 30, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

Santa Cruz County 2020-2021 Grand Jury, Final Report, “Words Matter: Did Measure G Deceive Voters?” June 2022.

Caselaw:

Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d. 208 (1978).

Becerra v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.5th 967 (2017).

Denny v. Arntz, 55 Cal.App.5th 914 (2020).

Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal.3d 1078 (1987).

Hicks v. Bd. of Supervisors, 69 Cal. App. 3d 228 (1977).

Home Gardens Sanitary Dist. v. City of Corona, 96 Cal. App. 4th 87 (2002).

Martinez v. Superior Court, 142 Cal.App.4th 1245 (2006).

McDonough v. Superior Court of Santa Clara, 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (2012).

People v. Langdon, 54 Cal. App.3d 384 (1976).

Rodeo Sanitary Dist. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 71 Cal. App.4th 1443 (1999).

Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.4th 1445 (2010).

Interviews:

The Civil Grand Jury conducted interviews with ten individuals between June 28, 2022, and August 22, 2022.

107
CC 12-20-2022
107 of 114

Pag e 23 of 23
IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPEDIF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

This report was ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County 2022 Civil Grand Jury on this
7th day of October, 2022.
______________________________
Mr
. James Renalds
Foreperson
108
CC 12-20-2022
108 of 114

December 21, 2022

Honorable Beth McGowen
Presiding Judge (2023)
Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San José, CA 95113
RE: Civil Grand Jury Report
Dear Judge McGown:

Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933 et seq., please find enclosed the City of Cupertino’s response to the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.” The City Council approved the City’s response to the Grand Jury Report on December 6, 2022. The approved City response is enclosed for your review. Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely,

Pamela Wu
City Manager

Enclosure
109
CC 12-20-2022
109 of 114

CITY OF CUPERTINO RESPONSE TO THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 2022 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT, “IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED”

Recommendation 1b
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.

City Response – Disagree. The County Counsel does not represent or provide legal advice to the City. Ballot measures are reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office for compliance with state law, including Election Code section 9051.

Where appropriate, existing legal remedies can be pursued by the City Attorney’s Office.

Recommendation 1c
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.

City Response – Disagree. Please see the response to Recommendation 1b, above.

Recommendation 1e
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.

City Response – Not Applicable. As noted in the Grand Jury Report, Recommendation 1d is inconsistent with state law. The City of Cupertino has no ability to implement Recommendation 1e absent a change in state law. 110
CC 12-20-2022
110 of 114

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
22-11414 Agenda Date:
12/20/2022 Agenda #: 9.

Subject: Consider appointment of 2023 Councilmember Committee Assignments Approve 2023 Councilmember Committee Assignments
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 12/14/2022Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
111
CC 12-20-2022
111 of 114
2023 Council Committees
Council Committees 2023 Representative 2022 Representative Meetings* Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) JR Fruen Jon Annually in April or May Sheila Mohan - Alt Alternate - Darcy Bay Area Metro Center Yerba Buena Conference Room
375 Beale Street
San Francisco, California
JR Fruen Alternate - Lian
g
Liang Chao - Alt Jon 3-4 times a year
Alternate - Darcy
Sounty of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors’
Chambers, County Government Center – 70 West
Hedding Street, 1st Floor, San Jose, CA 95110
6:15pm
League of California Cities - Peninsula Division All All 2-3 times a year Dinner meetings
Location is TBD
League of California Cities - Annual Conference Voting
Delegates Mayor Darcy Annual Conference usually held in September Vice Ma
yor - Alt Alternate - Liang
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority
(SVRIA) Kitty Moore Hung Every two months on the 4th Wednesday of the month Liang Chao - Alt Alternate - Jon Santa Clara PD
601 El Camino, Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Cities Association - Board of
Directors Mayor Darcy Monthly on the 2nd Thursday of the Month Vice Mayor- Alt Alternate - Liang 7pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room 456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Santa Clara County Cities Association - City Selection
Committee Mayor Darcy As needed and will be held before Board Meeting on 2nd Thursday of the Month
Vice Mayor - Alt Alternate - Liang 6pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room 456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Santa Clara County Cities Association - Legislative
Committee Hung Wei Darcy As needed
JR Fruen - Alt Alternate - Liang 6pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room 456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
County of Santa Clara Housing and Community
Develo
pment Advisory Committee
112
CC 12-20-2022
112 of 114
2023 Council Committees
Council Committees 2023 Representative 2022 Representative Meetings* Santa Clara County Unhoused Task Force
Completed in 2022
Darcy and Liang
(CORRECTION: It was
Darcy and Kitty)
Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers
Authority - Board of Directors
Liang Chao Liang Quarterly
Sheila Mohan - Alt Alternate - Hung 1:30pm at Library Services & Support Center 1370 Dell Ave., Campbell, CA 95008
Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Kitty Moore Hung Quarterly on the 4th Wednesday of the Month Liang Chao - Alt Alternate - Jon Times and locations vary each month Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (PAC) JR Fruen Kitty Monthly on the 2nd Thursday of the Month Policy Advisory Committee Kitty Moore - Alt Alternate - Jon 4pm at VTA River Oaks Campus 3331 North First Street, Conference Room B-106
School Partnership and School Liaison Liang Chao Liang Quarterly (CUSD, FUHSD, De-Anza CC) JR Fruen- Alt Alternate/Second - Jon Quinlan Community Center (In 2022, includes CUSD 2x2 with primary and alternate
West Valley Mayors and City Managers Mayor Darcy Monthly on the 4th Wednesday of the Month Vice Mayor - Alt Alternate - Liang 12pm
Location changes monthly
State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Hung Wei Jon Quarterly on a Monday of the month selected JR Fruen - Alt Alternate - Hung 10am
Location changes each quarter
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority (SVCEA) JPA Sheila Mohan Jon Monthly on the 2nd Wednesday of the month Hung Wei - Alt Alternate - Hung 7pm
Cupertino Community Hall
Stevens Creek Corridor Transit Streering Committee Hung Wei Darcy JR Fruen - Alt
113
CC 12-20-2022
113 of 114
2023 Council Committees
Council Committees 2023 Representative 2022 Representative Meetings* Audit Committee (City of Cupertino) Sheila Mohan and JR Fruen Darcy and Kitty Meets monthly, usually 4th Monday of month City Hall
4pm-6pm in Conference Room A
Disaster Council (Cupertino) Liang Chao Liang Quarterly on 3rd Thursday of the Month Kitty Moore Alt Alternate - Darcy City Hall
2pm in EOC
Sister City Committees Kitty Moore and Sheila
Mohan Kitty and Liang As needed
City Hall
Community Engagement Plan (CEP) - Strategic Advisory
Committee
Liang Chao and Sheila
Mohan Kitty and Liang As needed
Economic Development Committee No appointment DO NOT VOTE: Quarterly on the 2nd Wednesday of the Month
On hold for now pending
upcoming Council
direction
City Hall
10am in Conference Room A
Environmental Review Committee No appointment Kitty Monthly on the 1st and 3rd Thursday of the Month
Alternate - Darcy City Hall
9:30am in Conference Room C
Fiscal Strategic Planning Committee No appointment DO NOT VOTE: Annually in April On hold for now pending
upcoming Council
direction
City Hall
Legislative Review Committee No appointment Kitty and Liang As needed *Mayor Recommended to serve for efficiency * City Hall
* When in-person, otherwise by videoconference.
114
CC 12-20-2022
114 of 114