Written Communications (Updated 11-08-2023) — Cupertino City Council, November 7, 2023

CC 11-7-2023
Written
Communications
Oral Communications
From: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 11:26 AM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Maximize and prioritize dollars for community events leading to best outreach.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,

Would you kindly include my letter below in written communications for 11/7 council meeting. Thank you for the great work that you do.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao

Begin forwarded message:

On Tuesday, November 7, 2023, 11:25 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Honorable Mayor Wei, City Council and Manager Wu,

I would like to recognize the excellent work of parks and rec city staff in the recently conducted Halloween monster mash festival at Quinlan Park.

I have consistently said that Parks and Rec is the face of the city with residents. It is the place where we come together as one. It is the best example of money well spent. Parks and rec dollars spent have the best return for dollars spent on directly benefiting the community and in reaching a maximum number of residents with benefits of the investment made.

Monster Mash 2023 was a shining success story for parks and rec and city staff. Please allow me to give kudos to Mariah Greene, Rachelle Sanders and all the staff that worked on monster mash.

This year Parks and Rec staff raised the maximum limit for kids at monster mash to 200 from 120 last year. Including parents and older or younger siblings an estimated 500 residents attended the event.

The attention to detail by staff was amazing. Opportunities to volunteer for Cupertino teens made for a great learning experience. Staff mentored and trained the teen volunteers who did a great job. Plenty of candy was handed out.

If there might be one complaint, it was that no council members appeared to attend the event.

I urge all council members to make time to attend all parks and rec events. This will ensure you are seeing first hand the effect these events have on community outreach and value of dollars spent.

I hope you will recognize and reward the parks and rec staff that worked on monster mash.

I urge council and city manager to increase budget allocations for parks and rec and add more events to their calendar.

Please cut consultant spend and study projects in favor of parks and rec community events. This is a no brained since the community immediately notices the great work and appreciates the city staff, manager, council and mayor for doing more of these.

This is an opportunity to cut spend on items where you might anticipate public outcry and instead maximize spending on rec events that prioritize outreach, not outcry.

Having council members attend all parks and rec community events also helps in getting you to meet and talk with community members.

When you meet with the community you learn of our desires and interests and have better sense of what the community expects from you.

Thank you to parks and rec and thanks to council and city manager for recognizing parks and rec and the leadership of Rachelle and her team who do this without anyone asking them to.

When we trust each other, when we appreciate each other, when we see the best in each other, great things happen.

Let’s see more of that from city council members, not less.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao

From: Daniel Gutierrez
To: City Clerk
Subject: Sharing documents - 2023 Green Light Flyer
Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 5:40:14 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image004.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello I will attempt to speak via teleconferencing during the open comments portion but I will be alluding to the National Homeless & Runaway Prevention Month – Light the Way Home which is a walk to end homelessness in our County it will take place November 10, 2023 at 5:30pm.

The Rally begins at City Hall Plaza in San Jose, 200 E. Santa Clara Street and will follow with a one mile walk to the Bill Wilson Center Drop In Center at 693 South Second Street in San Jose.

This is in support of homelessness for all our County.

I’m attaching our flyer on here.

Thank you!

Daniel Gutierrez, MBA
Deputy Chief Program Officer
He/Him
Bill Wilson Center
691 S. 2nd Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: (408) 899-9691
www.billwilsoncenter.org
Building Connections!
This constitutes an electronic communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the intended recipient. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential nature or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, contact the sender and delete all copies of this communication.

From: j w <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 11:51 PM
To: Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]> Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: urgent! person to talk to

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

This message was sent to the City of Desert Hot Springs.

Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 3:37 PM

Dear city manager,

We tried to reach the city and outside law firm. Could not reach anyone. Debra tried to set a mtg, didn't go through either. It has been months, please let us know who we could talk to. No one wanted to be associated with the injustice. We wanted to work it out at the earliest. Please let us know earliest time we could talk to you or your assistants. Thank you!

ps: so far all lawyers treat us like big developer, we are just long term resident. we need your immediate meeting with us.
we pray!

long time ingredient
Huang family

2023-11-07 City Council REGULAR MEETING – Oral CommunicaƟon by Peggy Griﬃn

Good Evening Council and Staﬀ,

Regarding ITEM 19-Info on Hybrid OpƟons for Commission MeeƟngs

Although I believe the legislaƟve body should aƩend in person, I also believe that council and commission meeƟngs should be hybrid for the public to encourage more parƟcipaƟon and access and that the recordings be posted.

I am glad that the Governor’s State of Emergency has expired so that members of legislaƟve bodies are required to aƩend meeƟngs in person or comply with the narrow excepƟons authorized under the Brown Act. This provides the public with access and transparency.

I also appreciate City AƩorney Jensen’s AƩachment A that describes the Remote MeeƟng Requirements that must be met in order for a Council member or commissioner to parƟcipate remotely.

In fact, on Tuesday, September 19, 2023 we had a case for the need to parƟcipate remotely under the Brown Act by Vice Mayor Mohan. According to City AƩorney Jensen’s AƩachment A Memo, regardless of the reasons for a Council member’s request, whether it’s just cause or an emergency, several “general requirements apply” as listed in his memo.

At that Council meeƟng, during a break, I quesƟoned City AƩorney Jensen regarding 2 potenƟal Brown Act violaƟons:
1 - the inability of the public to “see Vice Mayor Mohan during the meeƟng” 2 - no public disclosure of whether anyone else was in the room with her.

I was told “everything was okay” but it was NOT according to his own memo!

Vice Mayor Mohan should have disclosed to the public during the meeƟng that no one was in the room with her.

We should have seen Vice Mayor Mohan throughout the meeƟng, not just when she voted.

I’m thankful that this memo and the remote parƟcipaƟon requirements have been published so it’s clear to everyone that Brown Act violaƟons occurred that night. I also am hopeful that next Ɵme the remote parƟcipaƟon excepƟon of the Brown Act is used, that ALL the general requirements will be followed as we will have beneﬁted from experience.

The Brown Act is not just a dumb law. It provides transparency in government which beneﬁts everyone.

Thank you.

REFERENCE (Brown Act secƟon): LegislaƟve body = City Council REFERENCE: AƩachment A – Memo RE Brown Act Teleconference Amendments, Pages 3-4

From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 11/7 City Council regular meeting Oral Communications Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 6:30:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,

I am a 40-year resident and continue to be disappointed by the Council’s actions since the beginning of this year and have a number of concerns.

1. I am very upset that the City Staff engaged in a $170K contract to figure out how developers can build on-top of our fairly new Community Hall, our renovated Sports Center and our City Hall. This is not okay. And it was not the direction that City Council gave back in February. Nevertheless, the City Council directed staff to continue looking at the idea of pimping our City-owned land to developers. This is not okay. And we don’t need a City Hall that is four times the size of our current City Hall to hold about 130 employees. What makes this even more worrisome is that three of our council members have intimate ties to developers. Stop the studies now. Private development does not belong on public property.

2. The City Council has just ratified a new employment contract for the City’s employees and I request that these increases in costs be reflected immediately in the budget. When will we see a revised budget?

3. When will City Staff present a new budget? I am very concerned about our current budget. Why have we budgeted for an 11% increase in headcount since 2019? I picked 2019 because it is pre-COVID. And even more concerning, why are we budgeting for a 30% increase in Employee Compensation? To me, that means that our City is way too top heavy. When I added the budgeted cost of Administration and Administrative services, we’re looking at a 42% increase. Why? Please take a good look at where we need to add people and where we don’t.

2019 BUDGET 2023 BUDGET % Increase
Contract Services $21.6M $24.8 15%
Employee
Compensation
$19M $24.7M 30%
Employee Benefits $8M $11M 38%
Employee Headcount 203 people 225 people 11%
Community
Development
28 people 37 people 30%
Administration +
Administrative
Services
30 people 42 people 42%

4. The City Manager decided to stop video-recording and live-streaming the Parks and Rec meetings without input from the Council. I have asked the Mayor 3 times now what the cost to the City is of recording and livestreaming these meetings. No Answer. What I have learned is that the City charges only $68 per hour to Silicon Valley Clean Energy for video work and the use of our Community Hall monthly. If that’s all it costs, then we need to reinstate video-recording and livestreaming. If not, then we need to be charging an appropriate fee to Silicon Valley Clean Energy. What I did learn today is that these meetings are audio-recorded and these recordings are retained for 30 days.

Why is the City throwing out these recordings when it is all we have now? So my ask is that if the City Manager is unwilling to reinstate live-streaming and recording, that at least the audio-recordings be retained in perpetuity.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
CC 11-7-2023
Written
Communications
Item No. 1& 2
Approve the Tentative
Agreement revising
the salary and benefit
terms for Local 21 and
Local #3 employees
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 11/7 City Council Special Meeting Agenda items 1 and 2 Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 4:33:30 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Council,

Pertaining to 11/7 City Council Special Meeting Agenda items 1 and 2 It appears that at least 2 holidays are being added to the pay schedule.

That seems more than what other cities offer, but if that is what the City needs to retain excellent employees, then so be it.

Please update the budget accordingly so that we have transparency around the cost of employees and benefits.

Please keep in mind that 2 additional days off across 200 or so employees, is 400 days – that’s nearly 2-person years of jobs!
Not including weekends, there are 260 work days in a year.

I am guessing that on average, employees have about 15 days of vacation and now 14 days of holidays.

That takes us to about 231 working days per employee.

So - - - by adding 2 paid holidays (and it looks like it is sometimes 3), you are costing the City about 2-person-years of jobs.

Why?
Adding onto those 400 days, you’re probably going to be throwing in some double-time for folks who are have to work on holidays.

So for those 400 days, you could be closer to 432 working days (231 x 2).

And that’s not even counting those years where there are an extra 3 paid holidays and not 2.

I would have also liked to have seen easily-accessible data on how neighboring cities compare with paid holidays.

Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
CC 11-7-2023
Written
Communications
Item No. 4
Approval of the October
17 City Council Minutes
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Written Communications Nov 7 CC Meeting, Item 4 October 17 Minutes Item 7 Date: Friday, November 3, 2023 9:42:47 AM
Attachments: image002.png
Dear City Clerk,

The November 7, 2023 City Council Meeting Item 4 is the meeting minutes for the October 17, 2023 City Council Meeting.

The Original Motion for Item 7 of these minutes, by Mayor Wei was not included.

Vice Mayor Mohan seconded the Original Motion with a friendly amendment adding to ‘pursue potential partnerships with Sand Hill Properties and other developers…” which was accepted by Mayor Wei. For transparency, since about 20 minutes passed before this motion was withdrawn by Mayor Wei, and that the withdrawn motion under most circumstances need not be included in the meeting minutes, it should be mentioned that this is the amended Original Motion:

Mayor Wei’s amended Original Motion, seconded by VM Mohan:

“Motion:

Direct staff to pursue conceptual development with viable financing strategies for the City Hall, including new City Hall and/or renovation of existing City Hall, while preserving access to publicly owned rereational facilities including the Sports Center. Also instruct City staff to research and bring to the public and City Council the following:

1. Examples of successful Public Private Partnership projects for reference.

2. Pursue potential partnership with Sand Hill Properties and other developers per recommendation from Mr. Edward Hirshfield with Mr. Hirshfield’s introduction and connection.”

The minutes indicate two Substitute Motions which failed and does not reflect what happened to the above Original Motion. As stated above, I understand that withdrawn motions are generally not included in the meeting minutes, but there are circumstances where they may be.

The Original Motion was withdrawn at 27:49 after several minutes of discussion including where I object to having an individual developer identified (to develop city owned property) in the Original Motion. I think it is fairer to the public to be aware to have a better understanding of the progression of this motion. It is my preference that the Original Motion be included due to its significance, along with mention of its withdrawal.

Thank you,

Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389

CC 11-7-2023
Written
Communications
Item #6
Approve and update
the salary and benefits
for the Unrepresented
(Management and
Confidential) Employees
and Appointer
Employees
From: Peggy Griffin
To: Kristina Alfaro; City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-11-07 City Council REGULAR meeting-Agenda Item6 Mgt Salary and Benefits-Civil Grand Jury Findings Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:37:46 PM
Attachments: 2009-2010 CGJ Costs not sustainable-Cupertino Response.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear Manager Guerra, City Council and Staff,

During the 2009-2010 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury session, they looked into the growing, unsustainable employee costs in cities in Santa Clara County.

I have attached the City of Cupertino’s 2010 response to the Civil Grand Jury’s findings which lists the findings and recommendations. Many of these findings are very applicable today given our
current financial crisis. For example,

In the contracts presented, I do not see and the Staff Reports do not mention or list what steps are being done to contain employee costs. In fact, it looks like they are just increasing as if nothing has changed in our city!

Q1: What exact changes are being implemented in THESE contracts and policies to re-gain control of the rising costs?

Q2: The addition of more holidays is excessive given our city’s situation. Can these holidays be “non-paid holidays”?
Q2a: If not for represented employees, then for the non-represented with the intent of transitioning to all employees with the next contract?

Q3: Floating holiday(s)…Can they be changed so if they don’t use it, they loose it rather than automatically get paid for it?

Q4: Regarding new/future employees…What changes are being made to reduce the city’s burden for compensations?

REQUEST: Please review the attached document (City’s response to the Civil Grand Jury). The findings are very applicable to today’s environment. The city’s old response to them may no longer be applicable since staff has predicted 10 years of ongoing budget crisis.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

REFERENCES:
2009-2010 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: “Cities Must Rein in Unsustainable Employee Costs” (33 pages)
LINK:
https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2010/CitiesMustReinInUnsustainableEmployeeCo sts.pdf

2010-08-24 City of Cupertino’s Response letter (16 pages) LINK: https://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2010/responses/emp_costs/Cupertino.pdf

CUPERTINO
August 24,2010

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE' CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3202
(408) 777-3212 •FAX (408) 777-3366
FILED
The Honorable Jamie Jacobs-May
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
RE; Grand Jury: Cities Must Rein In Unsustainable Employee Costs Dear Honorable Judge Jacobs-May:

AUG 3 0 2010
DAVIDH. YAM
Chief executive Offl
Superior Court of CA Coun
BY n 11 nVCKL
The City of Cupertino received the above Grand Jury report dated May 26,2010 and has set forth our responses in Attachment A. We agree with all its applicable findings and have responded to all applicable recommendations. We also agree that all governmental agencies need to operate under a sustainable salary and benefit plan for its employees and appreciate the Grand Jury's efforts in this regard.

In conjunction with your efforts to address this issue for our entire county, we ask that the Grand Jury:
:Y Encourage CalPERS to offer additional plans that extend retirement age options out to 60, 62 and 65, and
).> Recommend that CalPERS investment guidelines be re-visited to prevent or limit high risk investments that have contributed to wide rate-of-return fluctuations.

Finally, please correct an error in the report (page 4) which states that the City of Cupertino's median total compensation cost per full-time equivalent for regular (non-safety) employees is $132,982. This number should be $103,080 (see Attachment B).

Thank you for our consideration of the above and restatement of our information.

Sincerely,

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

1 ATTACHMENT A
Finding 1:

The cost of total compensation for employees has grown substantially in the past decade and now threatens the cities' fiscal stability.

Response 1:

The City of Cupertino (CITY) agrees with the finding.

Recommendation 1:

All of the cities in the County need to implement measures that will control employee costs. As a starting point, each city should determine the percentage of savings required from the total compensation package to reach budget stability, and provide choices of wages and benefits in collective bargaining sessions for the unions to choose to achieve that percentage goal.

Response 1:

The recommendation has been implemented. CITY historically and currently has a balanced budget and a strategic plan to control employee compensation to avoid budget instability. Over the past ten years, CITY has maintained services without layoffs.

Finding 2:

Salary and wage increases do not reflect changes in economic conditions; e.g. even with minimal inflation, yearly COLAs are granted with little bearing on the actual increase in cost of living or market conditions.

Response 2:

CITY agrees with the finding. Cupertino analyzes market conditions and budget constraints, and negotiates with employees on pay increases if these are warranted. In FY201 0-20 11, a minimal increase of .5% was negotiated although the yearly COLA was over 2%.

Recommendation 2:

Cities should not increase salaries and wages that are not supported by planned revenue increases. Cities should tie COLA increases to clear indicators and retain the ability to adjust or withhold based on current economic data.

Response 2:

The recommendation has been implemented. CITY has assessed expenses and revenues, and offers salary increases commensurate with strategic budget planning and economic indicators. 1 2
Finding 3:

Step increases are arbitrary and do not adequately represent an employee's added value to a city.

Combined with COLAs, new employees' wages increase quickly and are not necessarily reflective of improved knowledge and skills.

Response 3:

CITY agrees with the finding. CITY's step increases are performance based and tied to evaluations. Employee needs to progress in knowledge and skills.

Recommendation 3:

Cities should negotiate step progressions from the current three and half years to seven years.

Employees should not receive COLA increases while in step progression.

Response 3:

The recommendation is not current industry practice, but will be taken under advisement. The subject of pay increases are considered during the collective bargaining process. The feasibility of these combined recommendations will be considered in future negotiations.

Finding 4:

Medical insurance costs for active employees are growing year after year at rates that exceed most cities" revenue growth, while the employee contribution to medical care is minimal.

Response 4:

CITY agrees with the finding. Cupertino has a set dollar amount for the employer's contribution to health benefits and employees pay the annual increases each year. In some cases, this dollar amount has not been adjusted since 2002.

Recommendation 4:

Cities should negotiate that employees assume some of these increased costs for their medical benefits. To contain medical costs cities should consider the following:

A. Split monthly premiums between the city and the employee and increase the employee's share, if already cost splitting, and remove any employee caps.

Response 4A:

The recommendation has been implemented. CITY cost is fixed. Employee pays annual increases.

B. Establish reasonable co-pays for doctors' visits, prescription drugs, and in-patient and out-patient hospital care.
2 3
Response 4B:

The recommendation has been implemented. CITY purchases medical plan coverage from CaIPERS, and CalPERS regulates through its purchasing agreements the co-pays and related costs for medical services. The CITY investigated alternative medical benefit providers through a regional joint powers agreement with a medical benefit broker and found that cost for coverage was more expensive and provided less medical benefits for the employees.

C. Prohibit an employee from being covered by both city-provided medical benefits and as a dependent of another city employee.

Response 4C:

CITY agrees with the finding. Employee may not have dual coverage with another CalPERS agency, and CalPERS retirement law paragraph 22843 sets forth how family members are covered.

D. Reduce cash-in-lieu payments.

Response 4D:

The recommendation was implemented in 2005 for all groups.

E. Introduce a new lower premium, high-deductible medical plan.

Response 4E:

Finding 5:

Pension formula changes instituted in the past decade, stock market losses, the aging "baby boomer" work force, and the growing unfunded pension and OPEB liability all contribute to making retiree pension and health care costs the most problematic and unsustainable expenses the cities are facing. The city contribution to pension plans and OPEBs far exceeds the employee contribution.

Response 5:

CITY agrees with finding.
3 4
Recommendation Sa:

Cities should:
1) Renegotiate and make provisions for increasing the employee's contribution for current pension plans.
2) Renegotiate to stop paying the employees' contribution amount to pension plans. 3) Renegotiate to implement a contribution amount for employees to OPEB; this contribution should provide for a reasonable split of costs between a city and the employee for retiree medical and dental benefits.

Response Sa:

The recommendation has been implemented. Recent negotiations resulted in increases for employee's contribution to the current pension plan and reduction of the employer's contribution. Consideration will be given to the feasibility of negotiating the OPEB costs in future negotiations.

Recommendation 5b:

Cities should thoroughly investigate reverting to prior pension formulas that were less costly.

Response 5b:

The recommendation was discussed this year during negotiations and will be addressed in 2012 negotiations.

Recommendation 5c:

To provide a meaningful, long-term solution, the cities should negotiate agreements to:
1) Institute a two-tier system for pension and retiree health care for new hires. 2) Increase the retirement age from 50 or 55 to 60 or 65. 3) Calculate current post-employment health care plans with health savings plan. 4) Replace current post-employment health care plans with health savings plans.

Response 5c:

The recommendation will be addressed in 2012 negotiations, especially a tier system with increased retirement age. Consideration will be given to the feasibility of negotiating the health savings plans in the future. In addition, we strongly recommend that the Grand Jury encourage CalPERS to offer more retirement options using age 60, 62 or 65. 4 5
Finding 6:

Public sector employees are granted a generous number of holidays, personal days, vacation days and sick leave annually. Rules and limits on accrual vary by city and union, but vacation days and sick leave can be accumulated and converted to cash or calculated into the pension benefit within those limits.

Response 6:

CITY agrees with the finding.

Recommendation 6a:

Cities should renegotiate with the bargaining units to:
1) Reduce vacation time.
2) Reduce the number of holidays and/or personal days.
3) Cap sick leave and eliminate the practice of converting accumulated sick leave to cash or adding into their years of service for inclusion in their retirement benefit.

Response 6a:

Recommendation has not been implemented. CITY will consider the feasibility of this recommendation for future negotiations. All contracts are currently settled.

Recommendation 6b:

Cities should negotiate to substitute paid days off for unpaid days instead of imposing furloughs.

For example, reduce paid holidays to major holidays only, consistent with private industry; and convert minor holidays to unpaid. Therefore, the public is not impacted by fewer services caused by furloughs, and the city saves the employee cost.

Response 6b:

Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. CITY has no furloughs.

Public has not lost services.

Finding 7:

Cities traditionally determine their compensation packages by surveying the wages and benefits of other public sector employees in the same geographic area. There is major resistance to comparing themselves or mirroring trends with the private sector. This has allowed wages and benefits to become artificially high and out of sync with market trends.

Response 7:

CITY agrees with the finding.
5 6
Recommendation 7a:

Cities should research competitive hiring practices and alter the approach to determine fair wages and benefits for each city by using public and private sector data.

Recommendation 7b:

Cities should renegotiate salaries and wages using valid market comparisons and not only the current wage index. Cities should utilize more market-oriented compensation practices so that salaries can adjust as competition for labor changes. Cities should reduce entry-level compensation for positions for which there are many qualified applicants.

Responses to 7a and 7b:

Recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be considered in preparation for future bargaining sessions. All contracts are currently settled.

Finding 8:

All cities perform certain core functions to run smoothly and provide services to their residents.

To reduce employee costs and streamline operations, the cities are in various stages of contracting services to private industry or partnering with other cities, special districts or the County to deliver services.

Response 8:

CITY agrees with the finding.

Recommendation 8a:

Cities should explore outsourcing some functions and services to private industry. Cities should discuss the prospect with cities that are successfully doing this to determine best practices and areas for success. Cities should develop contract with measurable objectives, performance goals, and timelines.

Response 8a:

Recommendation has been implemented. Cupertino is a contract city in the areas of library, Sheriff Services and refuse. Fire and sewer services are performed by a special district and we have leased our water utility to a private company.

Recommendation 8b:

Cities should create partnerships with other cities, special districts and/or the County for services, such as payroll, human resources, animal control, police and fire. Cities should investigate sharing the cost of new information technology systems. 6 7
Response 8b:

Finding 9:

Cities can gain operation efficiencies and effectiveness with lower employee costs by making sure they are staffed with the correct numbers of people in the appropriate job classification in all departments and work groups.

Response 9:

CITY agrees with finding.

Recommendation 9:

Cities should analyze the functions performed by all job classifications and make adjustments in the work force. Consolidate functions within the same group or a similar group. Reassign appropriate work to lower paid job classifications. Eliminate unnecessary functions.

Response 9:

Recommendation has been implemented. CITY's on-going practice is to analyze and consolidate positions as they become vacant. CITY also analyzes the cost of labor from outsourcing and from shared services with other agencies, thereby reducing payroll costs.

Finding 10: (Applies to San Jose)
Finding 11:

In many cities, the contract negotiations process is completed by placing the negotiated collective bargaining agreements on the consent calendar for approval, which is acted on quickly at the start of council meetings by a single motion and vote of the council.

Response 11:

City agrees with the finding.

Recommendation 11:

Cities should consider holding well-publicized public hearings about the cities' goals of negotiations before negotiations begin, and again at the end of negotiations to report to citizens clearly what changes have been made in contracts.
7 8
Response 11:

Recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be considered in the future if so determined after further consideration by Council.

Finding 12:

Current contracts were negotiated in good faith by representatives of the cities and the bargaining units; they were approved by the city councils. Promises made to employees were made by elected officials, past and present. Responsibility for formulating and approving solutions to restore the cities' financial stability resides squarely with our elected officials. The economic downturn has placed additional pressure on the situation.

Response 12:

City agrees with the finding.

Recommendation 12a:

City council members and mayors sh'ould become better informed about the fiscal realities of their cities, long-term costs and commitments, and be cognizant of potential issues in labor agreements.

Response 12a:

Recommendation has been implemented. City Council is well aware of the fiscal realities and long-term costs and commitments and understands the implications of labor agreements.

Recommendation 12b:

City councils and mayors should direct city administrators to (re) negotiate collective bargaining agreements that reverse the escalation of employer costs through concessions, cost sharing, and a second tier for new employees.

Response 12b:

Recommendation has been implemented.

Recommendation 12c:

City councils and mayors should meet with the bargaining units to clearly outline the cities' financial health and show how employee costs are impacting the budget.

Response 12c:

Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Management representatives meet and conferred with Council prior to negotiations and stay within Council directives. The negotiation team clearly outlines the City's financial health at the beginning of negotiations to the Council and all bargaining groups.
8 9
Recommendation 12d:

City councils and mayors should inform citizens of their plans for controlling unsustainable employee costs and remove politics from the equation.

Response 12d:

Recommendation has been implemented. This result has occurred during budget study sessions and Council meeting discussions.

Finding 12: (Applies to San Jose)
9 ATTACHMENT B

CITY OF CUPERTINO
THE FOLLOWING EXCEL SPREADSHEET PROVIDES 2009 GROSS SALARY FOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINO FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS FOR REGULAR NON-SAFETY EMPLOYEES.

THE MEDIUN (MIDDLE) TOTAL COMPENSATION COST IS CALCULATED ON PAGE 5 OF THIS SCHEDULE. IN SUMMARY, Median Gross Salary = employee #79, Susan Winslow.

Fully loaded benefit multiplier
Median Salary and Benefits - 2009, City of Cupertino
$71,089.44
x 1.45%
$103,080.00

LAST, FIRST NAME CLASSIFICATIONDEPARTMENTBASE PAYOVERTIMEOTHER PAY2009 GROSS

MILLER, ATHENA G
SR. OFFICE ASSISTANTPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$9,084.06$-$ 1,976.50$11,060.56

HETLAND, JOHN B
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$18,047.00$46.59$ 447.02$18,540.61

HUNG MARTIN, MIRANDA
ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEERPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$31,179.00$-$ 560.93$31,739.93

RECORDS,JOHN E
MAINTENANCE WORKER IIISTREETSDIVISION$31,808.96$-$ 769.90$32,578.86

SPITSEN, PAUL
RECREATIONASSISTANTSENIOR CENTER$17,458.74$-$17,064.43$34,523.17 flORES, SUSAN
RECREATION ASSISTANTSPORTSAND FITNESS$34,917.48$-$ 2,864.44$37,781.92

LEWIS, SUSAN
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKSAND RECADMIN$37,954.02$-$ 212.45$38,166.47

GROSS, LESLIE
ASSISTANT PLANNERPLANNING$38,876.38$-$ 974.84$39,851.22

HEJZA, JULIE
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTCITY CLERK$40,989.09$139.90$695.91$41,824.90

LEE, LAURA DOMONDON
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COORDADMINISTRATION$41,678.78$29.54$2,814.32$44,522.64

CARDENAS, TIFFANY
OFFICEASSISTANTADMINISTRATION$47,569.74$-$ 72.00$47,641.74

BULLOCK, RONALD
FACILITYATIENDANTPARKSAND RECADMIN$46,024.02$3,210.24$558.48$49,792.74

VILLALOBOS, RAFAEL
FACILITYATIENDANTSENIOR CENTER$48,719.84$-$ 1,073.03$49,792.87

VILLA, FRANCISCO
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$50,839.51$-$ 623.66$51,463.17

LAITILA, MICHAEL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$50,904.29$-$ 1,482.73$52,387.02

ORTEGA, VINCENT
FACILITYATIENDANTPARKSAND RECADMIN$48,719.84$3,562.47$120.00$52,402.31

GARCIA, PATRICIA
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTPLANNING$52,353.11$-$ 516.00$52,869.11

RAMOS, JOHN J
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$50,394.66$596.10$1,938.25$52,929.01

WILLIAMS, JONATHAN
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$51,513.87$555.51$1,160.55$53,229.93

SCHMITI, ANDREW
MAINTENANCE WORKER ISTREETSDIVISION$51,556.25$1,245.12$554.48$53,355.85

REDWINE, MARY
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTPARKSAND RECADMIN$52,805.67$372.03$180.00$53,357.70

SANTOS, DOMINGO
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11FACILITIESDIVISION$51,462.05$1,743.15$760.00$53,965.20

BADAL, ANDY
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$52,693.92$111.05$1,612.96$54,417.93

ALEGRIA, ALFREDO
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$53,912.40$-$ 952.00$54,864.40

KINST, JULIA
OFFICEASSISTANTSENIOR CENTER$55,098.60$-$ 180.00$55,278.60

PARSLEYYELAVICH, LINDA
RECREATIONCOORDINATORSENIOR CENTER$49,758.67$-$ 5,605.98$55,364.65

FAUTH, JASON
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETSDIVISION$51,849.49$1,983.21$1,737.27$55,569.97

PHILLIPS, LAUREN
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKSAND RECADMIN$55,414.99$964.21$ 72.00$56,451.20 STEED, JAME5
MAINTENANCE WORKER ISTREETSDIVISION$56,499.83$-$ 905.38$57,405.21 MEN DEl, SYLVIA
SR. OFFICEASSISTANTBUILDING$52,206.92$5,101.36$108.00$57,416.28

VILLALOVOS, ADRIAN
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$54,700.32$-$ 2,933.82$57,634.14

ORDWAY, JEFFREY
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKSAND RECADMIN$59,061.17$-$ 72.00$59,133.17

TEFFT, THEODORE
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$57,229.30$-$ 2,484.87$59,714.17

MABUTAS, CLIFF MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$58,664.88$1,804.54$1,317.37$61,786.79

ABE, ASAKO
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTORHUMAN RESOURCES$29,446.68$-$32,459.62$61,906.30

JAUCH, HEATHER
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTPARKS AND REC ADMIN$60,187.27$42.66$1,949.06$62,178.99

ALEXANDER, BRADFORD
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$59,314.24$1,507.90$1,893.19$62,715.33

SHAFFER, REBECCA
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTPARKS AND REC ADMIN$60,187.27$-$ 2,958.36$63,145.63

FERRANTE, JONATHAN
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$57,020.88$844.89$5,375.89$63,241.66

JAMES, MOLLY
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKS AND REC ADMIN$58,942.01$4,370.17$72.00$63,384.18

COLES, TIMOTHY
RECREATION COORDINATORBLACKBERRY ADMIN$60,600.63$-$ 2,908.36$63,508.99

BANFIELD, BARBARA J
RECREATION COORDINATORBLACKBERRY ADMIN$62,897.80$649.78$645.00$64,192.58

WONG, RICHARD
ACCOUNT CLERKFINANCE$64,013.69$45.37$ 144.00$64,203.06

SANDER, RACHELLE
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKS AND REC ADMIN$63,989.05$1,093.01$419.10$65,501.16

HOOK, ROBERT
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$63,044.70$-$ 2,484.87$65,529.57

RUMALEAN, YULIA
ACCOUNT CLERKFINANCE$60,696.45$689.29$4,365.88$65,751.62

TERADA, PETER
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$63,517.48$-$ 2,360.72$65,878.20

ARNST, PETER
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$63,517.48$93.18$2,320.25$65,930.91

SACKS, LAWRENCE
I.T. ASSISTANTINFORMATION TECHNOlOGY$65,970.84$-$ 270.00$66,240.84

BARRAS, DORIE
EXEC ASSIST TO THE CITY ATTYCITY ATTORNEY$50,579.36$-$15,828.73$66,408.09

CARIAGA, ABRAHAM
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$63,517.48$1,951.54$979.01$66,448.03 MORENO, JESUS 0
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$63,517.48$
-$ 3,084.89$66,602.37

MAD, TINA
ACCOUNT CLERKFINANCE$64,013.69$-$ 2,738.44$66,752.13

TOGNETTI, PAUL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$63,517.48$1,080.44$2,368.63$66,966.55

HAYES, KELSEY
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKS AND REC ADMIN$62,571.44$4,390.02$99.00$67,060.46

ALVAREZ, NICHOLAS
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$63,517.48$465.94$3,178.96$67,162.38

TABARES, ALBERT
EQUIPMENT MECHANICGENERAL SERVICES$6,321.09$426.14$61,101.44$67,848.67

OSBORNE, CHYLENE
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERKFACILITIES DIVISION$67,680.84$-$ 180.00$67,860.84

PRONI, ANTHONY
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$63,517.48$-$ 4,462.41$67,979.89

MO, TERESA
RECREATION COORDINATORSENIOR CENTER$66,344.98$-$ 1,659.41$68,004.39

EBBEN, BETHANY
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERKPLANNING$67,847.00$-$ 180.00$68,027.00

HEMBREE, TODD D
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$63,517.48$-$ 4,686.47$68,203.95

HOFFMAN, MABEL
OFFICE ASSISTANTSENIOR CENTER$48,004.40$605.11$19,931.42$68,540.93

OLSEN, KARL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$63,517.48$-$ 5,033.21$68,550.69

LEVY, KAREN
RECREATION COORDINATORPARKS AND REC ADMIN$66,344.98$316.34$2,021.06$68,682.38

FERRIS, COLLEEN
RECREATION COORDINATORSPORTS AND FITNESS$66,344.98$-$ 2,367.33$68,712.31

LA BRIE, MARC
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$63,517.48$4,236.20$1,332.24$69,085.92

NA.ITO, PAMELA HUMAN RESOURCES TECHHUMAN RESOURCES$68,976.77$-$ 270.00$69,246.77 BODENE, WilLIAM
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11FACILITIES DIVISION$62,193.63$4,049.23$3,352.96$69,595.82

NEMETZ, SCOTT
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11BLACKBERRY ADMIN$63,517.48$4,089.43$2,214.59$69,821.50

DUNN, DONALD
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GENERAL SERVICES$63,517.48$135.85$6,391.86$70,045.19

BARRAGAN, MANUEL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$63,517.48$1,274.08$5,407.98$70,199.54

LOPEZ, ANGEL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$62,960.42$5,567.15$1,712.28$70,239.85

FREY, KIMBERLY
RECREATION COORDINATORSENIOR CENTER$66,344.98$1,331.78$2,679.24$70,356.00

LOMAS III, RUTILIO
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11FACILITIES DIVISION$63,517.48$2,510.53$4,370.48$70,398.49

MARTINEZ, DEBORAH C
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11FACILITIES DIVISION$65,448.61$-$ 5,053.95$70,502.56

POLITO, RUSSELL
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$63,517.48$1,889.52$5,378.56$70,785.56

WINSLOW, SUSAN J
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERKBUILDING$67,847.00$-$ 3,242.44$71,089.44

SAKHRANI, GULU
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERCODE ENFORCEMENT$70,868.80$-$ 270.00$71,138.80

IRWIN, MELANIE
SR OFFICE ASSISTANTPARKS AND REC ADMIN$60,187.27$6,133.57$5,339.15$71,659.99

HENRIQUES, DONNA
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTPARKS AND REC ADMIN$70,819.55$-$ 1,188.00$72,007.55

BERNARD, KAREN A
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$71,952.54$-$ 162.00$72,114.54 BRIDGE, WilLIAM
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GROUNDS DIVISION$63,517.48$4,531.27$4,237.61$72,286.36

MERTENS, CHRISTOPHER
MAINTENANCE WORKER IIIGROUNDS DIVISION$70,050.50$-$ 2,324.67$72,375.17

CATON, TRACI
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTPLANNING$72,235.15$-$ 162.00$72,397.15

KIM, ROBERT
MEDIA COORDINATORADMINISTRATION$72,895.68$103.33$270.00$73,269.01 GOSS, L1AN (KAREN)
CASE MANAGERSENIOR CENTER$69,264.03$1,048.26$4,299.53$74,611.82

WOLFE, KANE
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$63,517.48$3,411.69$7,784.77$74,713.94 ROSALES, GilBERT
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GENERAL SERVICES$63,517.48$720.28$10,648.69$74,886.45

STEENFOTT, DOROTHY A
ADM IN ISTRA TIVE ASSISTANTADMIN SERVICES$72,235.15$-$ 3,048.32$75,283.47

RODRIGUEZ, JESUS
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11STREETS DIVISION$60,321.76$2,864.49$12,131.56$75,317.81

DRAKE, MICHAEL
MAINTENANCE WORKER IIISTREETS DIVISION$70,050.50$3,554.60$3,378.47$76,983.57

DELGADO, REI NALDO G
MEDIA COORDINATORADMINISTRATION$72,895.68$1,394.95$3,031.90$77,322.53

COGLIANESE, PETER
MEDIA COORDINATORADMINISTRATION$72,895.68$
-$ 4,866.52$77,762.20

JOHNSON, JO ANNE
ENGINEERING TECHNICIANPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$78,381.67$-$ 171.00$78,552.67

SCHMIDT, GRACE
DEPUTY CITY CLERKCITY CLERK$72,235.15$3,556.25$2,901.17$78,692.57

TOGNETTI, SHAWN
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11GENERAL SERVICES$63,517.48$5,892.80$9,803.37$79,213.65

WINSLOW J R, ROGER
MAINTENANCE WORKER IIIFACILITIES DIVISION$67,930.55$5,642.67$5,764.17$79,337.39

BLOOMQUIST, TY
MAINTENANCE WORKER 1/11FACILITIES DIVISION$63,517.48$6,952.38$9,208.93$79,678.79

GATHERS, BRIAN
MAINTENANCE WORKER IIIGROUNDS DIVISION$70,050.50$801.33$9,017.28$79,869.11

LOOMIS, MIKE V
EQUIPMENT MECHANICGENERAL SERVICES$64,427.48$7,585.56$7,961.64$79,974.68

TRYBUS, JEFFREY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERCODE ENFORCEMENT$80,176.98$56.83$ 464.82$80,698.63

BLOOMQUIST, CURTIS P
STREET LIGHT WORKERGENERAL SERVICES$71,016.68$7,176.19$5,222.16$83,415.03

GERHARDT, TERI
GIS COORDINATORINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY$83,346.25$-$ 216.00$83,562.25

LAGERGREN, LINDA
EXEC ASST TO THE CITYMNGRADMINISTRATION$79,021.80$202.88$4,871.34$84,096.02

JIMENEZ, MARIA
HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYSTHUMAN RESOURCES$80,453.88$-$ 4,312.20$84,766.08

KORNAHRENS, GARY
SR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFCRCODE ENFORCEMENT$81,588.54$735.18$2,547.65$84,871.37

LOMAN, HERMAN
TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIANPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$79,451.30$789.58$4,882.44$85,123.32

WYKOFF, ALEXANDER
SR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFCRCODE ENFORCEMENT$81,588.54$1,060.13$3,178.75$85,827.42

SILVA, RONALD J
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORGENERAL SERVICES$69,524.45$-$16,733.47$86,257.92

HOM, ARNOLD
PLAN CHECK ENGINEERBUILDING$86,161.70$-$ 216.00$86,377.70

GHOSH, PIU
ASSOCIATE PLANNERPLANNING$83,784.01$-$ 2,970.36$86,754.37

STREAM, GARY
BUILDING INSPECTORBUILDING$87,270.16$-$ 1,032.00$88,302.16

MIYAKAWA, LAURA
HUMAN RESOURCES TECHHUMAN RESOURCES$86,703.63$-$ 1,889.28$88,592.91

WINTER, RICHARD
BUILDING INSPECTORBUILDING$88,782.50$-$ 1,032.00$89,814.50

MATHUR, NIDHI
WEB SPECIALISTADMINISTRATION$83,346.25$-$ 6,501.60$89,847.85

ADAMS, QUINTON R
NETWORK SPECIALISTINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY$83,357.56$4,511.24$2,534.40$90,403.20

ORR, CHRIS
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORFACILITIES DIVISION$85,238.32$-$ 5,292.25$90,530.57

GREEF, JEFFREY
BUILDING INSPECTORBUILDING$92,501.94$-$ 552.00$93,053.94

CHANG, JENNIFER Y
ACCOUNTANTFINANCE$86,703.63$-$ 6,748.51$93,452.14

DONNELLY, CHERYL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS MGRPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$92,747.25$-$ 1,032.00$93,779.25

SAKAI, EDWI N T
EQUIPMENT MECHANICGENERAL SERVICES$75,157.03$10,060.16$8,594.77$93,811.96

COOKE, ERIN
ENVIRONMTAL AFFAIRS COORDADMINISTRATION$93,771.80$-$ 144.00$93,915.80

CHOW, HAN NAH
ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEERPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$96,773.43$-$ 216.00$96,989.43

GREGORY, ROBERT
BUILDING INSPECTORBUILDING$96,899.65$-$ 1,032.00$97,931.65

HONDA SNELLING, AKI
SENIOR PLANNERPLANNING$98,333.10$-$ 826.97$99,160.07

HANEL, CHRISTINE
RECREATION SUPERVISORPARKS AND REC ADMIN$96,809.96$-$ 2,767.26$99,577.22

VANDEVEER, MICHAEL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICIANPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$91,658.84$1,646.81$6,617.97$99,923.62

SABICH, ROBERT
BUILDING INSPECTOR-CNTR SPECBUILDING$99,070.79$-$ 1,189.40$100,260.19

GIL, VERAJ
SENIOR PLANNERPLANNING$100,227.38$-$ 240.00$100,467.38

BISELY, JOHN
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORGROUNDS DIVISION$99,070.79$-$ 2,209.80$101,280.59

RIEDEN, KEVIN
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTORPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$99,070.79$-$ 2,708.44$101,779.23

JUNG, COLIN C
SENIOR PLANNERPLANNING$100,227.40$-$ 2,393.06$102,620.46

WALTERS, THOMAS
RECREATION SUPERVISORPARKS AND REC ADMIN$96,809.96$-$ 7,530.96$104,340.92

MCCARTHY, DON
RECREATION SUPERVISORPARKS AND REC ADMIN$96,809.96$-$ 8,526.48$105,336.44

LAMY, JULIA SENIOR RECREATION SUPERVISORSENIOR CENTER$101,650.77$-$ 5,394.38$107,045.15

MAHAN, DIANE
PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISORSTREETS DIVISION$99,070.79$-$ 8,261.72$107,332.51

CHAO, GARY
CITY PLANNERPLANNING$107,964.74$-$ 192.00$108,156.74
SQUARClA, LARRY
SR. BUILDING INSPECTORBUILDING$105,857.18$155.30$4,052.44$110,064.92

LYNAUGH, CARMEN
PUBLIC WORKS PROJ MANAGERPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$110,095.44$-$ 2,684.40$112,779.84

SMITH, KIM M
CITY CLERKCITY CLERK$110,647.44$-$ 5,324.28$115,971.72

KITSON, JR, RICHARD G
PUBLIC & ENV AFFAIRS DIRADMINISTRATION$122,290.69$-$ 3,551.88$125,842.57

SHRIVASTAVA, AARTI
DIRECTOR OF COMM DEVELOPPLANNING$123,057.63$-$ 3,039.20$126,096.83

SERRATOS, MARIYAH
INFO TECHNOLOGY MANAGERINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY$125,061.12$-$ 2,540.40$127,601.52

KILIAN, CHARLES T
CITY ATTORNEYCITY ATTORNEY$3,822.89$-$125,742.37$129,565.26

SEEDS, GAIL
STEVENS CREEK CORR PREV MNRPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$129,835.29$-$ 552.00$130,387.29

WOO, DAVID
FINANCE DIRECTORFINANCE$129,835.29$-$ 1,068.47$130,903.76

KLINE, KELLY
REDEV/ECON DEVELOP MNGRPLANNING$129,835.29$-$ 1,422.53$131,257.82

STILLMAN, DAVID
SR. CIVIL ENGINEERPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$132,835.17$-$ 216.00$133,051.17

GREENE, TERRY
CITY ARCHITECTPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$129,835.29$-$ 4,583.88$134,419.17

CASTEEL, GREGORY J
BUILDING OFFICIALBUILDING$129,835.29$-$ 5,459.78$135,295.07

LEE, ROGER
ASSIST DIRECTOR OF PW MTCFACILITIES DIVISION$135,750.81$-$ 240.00$135,990.81

GOEPFERT, GLENN
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PWPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$142,214.41$-$ 4,031.88$146,246.29

QUALLS, JR, RALPH
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSPUBLIC WORKS ADMIN/ENG$160,990.57$-$ 8,345.24$169,335.81

LINDER, MARK
DIRECTOR OF PARKS RECPARKS AND REC ADMIN$164,793.20$-$ 5,183.96$169,977.16

ATWOOD, CAROL A
DIRECTOR OF ADMIN SERVICEADMIN SERVICES$175,310.98$-$11,010.66$186,321.64 KNAPP, DAVID W.

CITY MANAGERADMINISTRATION$220,632.75$-$13,973.20$234,605.95 $ 11,612,809.05 $ 145,708.30 $ 729,402.62 $ 12,487,919.97 '$ ..791S40~89 I
Median Gross Salary = employee #79, Susan Winslow.

Fully loaded benefit multiplier
Median Salary and Benefits - 2009, City of Cupertino
$71,089.44
x 1.45%
$103,080.00

From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Kristina Alfaro; Matt Morley
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-11-07 City Council REGULAR Meeting-Agenda Item6 MGT Salary and Benefits QUESTIONS Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:19:32 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear Manager Guerra, City Council and Staff,

At a time when finances are tight, I do not understand why you are adding 3 additional fully paid holidays to the city calendar!
Q1: How many holidays are you adding? The Staff Report says 2 but Attachment D indicates 3. Is it 2 or 3 new holidays?

Q2: How much does adding 1 fully paid holiday cost our city in dollars?

REFERENCE: Attachment D-Appointed Comp Program-Redline.pdf, on page 26 of 26 below Q3: Does this mean the salary range of the City Manager position will increase $912?

Q4: Does this mean the City Manager will receive a raise?

Management salaries are far higher than union workers. Giving the same percentage increase to higher paid workers does not make financial sense when finances are tight. Often, as the salary increases, the percentage of salary increase decreases. I do not see this here.

Q5: Will management get the same percentage increase as the union represented employees who are paid less?

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
CC 11-7-2023
Written
Communications
Item #8
Law Enforcement
Contract Extension with
the County of Santa
Clara Sheriff's Office
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: CC Nov 7 Written Communications Item 8
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 3:59:31 PM
Attachments: C - Sheriff Amended FY19 Ex A Proposed Costs (redlined).pdf A - Sheriff - Donation Agreement (1).pdf
11 Law Enforcement.pdf
Dear City Clerk,

Please pull agenda Item 8 from consent and include this email and attachments for written communications on the item.

I am trying to understand the updated Law Enforcement contract item.

Apple apparently makes donations to the City of Cupertino since 2018 for the following:

Enhanced law enforcement services for the C5 beat that encompasses Apple Park, equivalent to two Santa Clara County deputies with patrol vehicles. These services shall be provided from October 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. Annually, Apple intends to make a similar donation to support two deputies based on established rates.

The donation shows up as unspecified revenue in the Law Enforcement budget unit 100-20-200.

That unspecified revenue is now $1,462,646. How much does Apple currently ‘donate’ to the city for sheriffs?

The 2014 contract and amendment to that contract in 2019 (attached) do not include this provision which implies that the City is accepting the ‘donation’ from Apple and then verbally informs the Sheriffs that they are to assign the 2 deputies to Beat C5. Is this correct?

It would be more transparent if the Budget states what the unspecified revenue is for and that Apple contracts directly with the Santa Clara County Sheriff for the two deputies.

Lastly, does the City cover the cost of the lease for the Sheriffs?

Thank you,

Kitty Moore

Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389

EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED COSTS
FISCAL YEAR 2018 ‐2019
LOS ALTOS UNINCORP.

RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SARATOGA CITIES
GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Proposed Hours ‐ Activity
Proposed Hours ‐ Patrol
Total Hours 38,248.0 5,421.0 20,060.0 14,696.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $205.13 $7,845,709 $1,111,995 $4,114,854 $3,014,551 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ‐ DAYS:

Proposed Hours 9,015.0 1,859.5 4,195.4 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $200.93 $8,640 $842,960 $0 Motor @ $199.89 $1,801,977 $363,094
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ‐ NIGHTS:

Proposed Hours 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $207.31 $0 $0 $0
Motor @ $206.27 $0
INVESTIGATIVE HOURS:

Proposed Hours 7,200.0 600.0 2,400.0 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $202.48 $1,457,856 $121,488 $485,952 $0 FY19 Contract Cities_Proposed Costs add 2 FTE 08‐15‐2018 A ‐ 36 DSA=3% EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED COSTS
FISCAL YEAR 2018 ‐2019
LOS ALTOS UNINCORP.

RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SARATOGA CITIES
RESERVES ACTIVITY HOURS:

Proposed Hours 1,650.0 22.0 340.0 0.0
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $56.00 $92,403 $1,232 $19,041 $0 OPERATING COSTS OF WEST VALLEY SUBSTATION:

Proj Hours FY 2018 ‐2019 47,263 7,281 24,255 14,696
93,495
Percentage 50.5514% 7.7876% 25.9426% 15.7185%
Proj Costs July 2018 ‐ Nov 2018 @ $448,510 yr $94,470 $14,553 $48,481 $29,375 Proj Costs Dec 2018 ‐ Jun 2019 @ $458,974 yr $135,344 $20,850 $69,457 $42,084 Total Proj Costs of Substation = $454,614 $229,814 $35,403 $117,938 $71,459 SUBTOTAL COSTS:

Proj Costs FY 2018 ‐2019 $11,427,759 1,641,852 $5,580,745 $3,086,010 PROJECTED SPECIAL SERVICES
Projected Hours FY 2018‐2019 1,816.5000
Cupertino Traffic Sergeant $247,233 $0 $0 $0
Saratoga School Resource Officer $0 $0 $100,000 $0
SCHOOLS RESOURCE OFFICER
Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 @ $172.09 $500,162 $0 $0 $0 (1 SRO @ 85% and 1 SRO @ 75%)
TOTAL SHERIFF LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS
$12,175,154 $1,641,852 $5,680,745 $3,086,010
$12,199,580 $1,642,408 $5,689,948 $0
($24,426) ($556) ($9,203) $0
$12,175,154 $1,552,603 $5,680,745 $0
89,249
$12,175,154 $1,641,852 $5,680,745 $0
$558,979
Proposed Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019
TOTAL CAPPED COSTS 2018‐2019
Proj Costs Capped @ 5.128% (CPI+2%) Increase
AMOUNTS OVER/(BELOW) CAP OF 5.128%
Supplemental Information:

Current Level of Services
Added Services in FY19
Added Services effective October 1st 2018:
2 General Law Enforcement Deputies for 2,725 hrs
Proposed Capped Rates/Costs FY 2018‐2019 $12,734,133
FY19 Contract Cities_Proposed Costs add 2 FTE 08‐15‐2018 A ‐ 37 DSA=3% City of Cupertino
Standard Donation Form
The City of Cupertino acknowledges and thanks individuals arid institutions who wish to donate funds, goods/property, and their voluntary time to help the City achieve its public goals and objectives for the betterment of the community. This Donation Form is intended to memorialize the understanding between the City and the Donor. The undersigned Donor wishes to make a donation to the City of Cupertino as described in more detail below.

The Donor is ( check and complete all that apply):
l ,/ I Donating $ 558m9 in a lump sum.

D Donating$ __________ in---------- (monthly, quarterly, etc.) contributions of$ ___________ in ____ installments.

D Donating the following ( describe products, services, investment securities, real property, etc.) valued at$ __________ _
Donor wishes to have this donation used as follows (check one):
[_J For a general purpose consistent with the City's adopted goals and objectives, based on the City's discretion.

By the----------- (Department/Division) for a general purpose at their discretion.
l.�J By the· Law Enforcement Division
specific purposes:
(City/Department/Division) for the following
Enhanced law enforcement services for the CS beat that encompasses Apple Park, equivalent to two Santa Clara County deputies with patrol vehicles. These services shall be provided from October 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019. Annually, Apple intends to make a similar donation to support two deputies based on established rates.

Except as provided above, the City may use the donation in any manner at its sole discretion and the Donor has no right or obligation to control the City's use of the donation.

Donor understands that the City will endeavor to meet the use conditions of restricted donations, in accordance with the wishes of the donor. If, however, the City is unable to meet the Donor's restrictions, the City will make reasonable attempts to contact the Donor or the representative identified by Donor in the Form/Agreement to discuss alternative uses or to return the Donation.

Law Enforcement
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
283
This page intentionally left blank.

FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
284
Department Overview
Budget Units
Budget Unit
Program
2024 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
$ 17,812,608
100-20-200
Law Enforcement
$ 17,812,608
100-20-201
Interoperability Project
$
-
Total
$ 17,812,608
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
285
Budget at a Glance
2024 Adopted Budget
Total Revenues
$ 1,462,646
Total Expenditures
$ 17,812,608
Fund Balance
$
-
General Fund Costs
$ 16,349,962
% Funded by General Fund

91.8%
Total Staffing
FTE
Organization
Captain Neil Valenzuela, Office of the Sheriff
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
286
Performance Measures
Goal: Maintain a safe environment to live, work, learn and play.

Benefit: All members of the community are safe, informed, empowered and supported.

Performance Measure
FY 2021
July-June
FY 2022
July-June
FY 2023
July-Dec
Ongoing
Target
Response time for emergency calls
Priority 1

3.40 3.27

6.98*
5 minutes
Priority 2

6.07 6.66

7.07 9 minutes
Priority 3

11.80 11.73

11.28 20 minutes
% programs maintaining minimum
attendance
Teen Academy
92%
98%
75%
80%
Citizen Academy
N/A
N/A
N/A
80%
*
On Nov. 12, 2022, the Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce received a Priority 1 call that aﬀected the average response times for the reporting period.

FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
287
Workload Indicators
Workload Indicator
FY 2021
July-June
FY 2022
July-June
FY 2023
July-Dec
Total Priority 1 Calls
31 76
35 Total Priority 2 Calls
3,107
4,027
2,144
Total Priority 3 Calls
4,254
3,624
1,639
Total Teen/Community Academy Participants
23 39
15 Adopted Budget
On June 6, 2023, City Council approved a budget of $17,812,608 for the Law Enforcement department. This represents an increase of $998,089 (5.9%) from the FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget.

The increase is due to contractually agreed-upon increases in salary and beneﬁts for Sheriﬀ's Deputies and increases in the West Valley Substation facility lease agreement.

FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
288
Adopted Expenditures by Division
Department Expenditure History
Revenues and Expenditures
100.0%
Law Enforcement
$14.8M
$15.7M
$16.8M
$17.8M
2021 Actual
2022 Actual
2023 Adopted Budget
2024 Adopted Budget
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
289
Revenues and Expenditures
The following table details revenues, expenditures, changes in fund balance and General Fund costs by category.

It includes actuals for two prior fiscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior ﬁscal year, and the Adopted Budget
for the current
fiscal year.

Category
2021 Actual
2022 Actual
2023 Adopted Budget
2024 Adopted Budget
Revenues
Intergovernmental Revenue
$ 156,727
$ 161,285
$ 156,000
$ 161,094
Charges for Services
$ 410,824
$ 558,777
$ 61,000
$ 115,000
Fines and Forfeitures
$ 102,396
$ 188,053
$ 202,000
$ 180,000
Miscellaneous Revenue
$ 837,329
$ 887,259
$ 948,721
$ 1,006,552
Transfers In
$
-
$ 972,987
$
-
$
-
Total Revenues
$ 1,507,276
$ 2,768,361
$ 1,367,721
$ 1,462,646
Expenditures
Materials
$ 158
$ 222
$ 53,891
$ 408
Contract Services
$ 14,652,520
$ 15,547,160
$ 16,606,737
$ 17,667,516
Cost Allocation
$ 123,731
$ 168,433
$ 153,891
$ 144,684
Total Expenditures
$ 14,776,409
$ 15,715,815
$ 16,814,519
$ 17,812,608
Fund Balance
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
General Fund Costs
$ 13,269,134
$ 12,947,454
$ 15,446,798
$ 16,349,962
Staffing
There is no staffing associated with this department.

FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
290
Law Enforcement
Budget Unit 100-20-200
General Fund - Law Enforcement - Law Enforcement
Budget at a Glance
2024 Adopted Budget
Total Revenues
$ 1,462,646
Total Expenditures
$ 17,812,608
Fund Balance
$
-
General Fund Costs
$ 16,349,962
% Funded by General Fund

91.8%
Total Staffing
FTE
Program Overview
The Law Enforcement program provides law enforcement, emergency communications, and School Resource Oﬃcers. Law enforcement services are provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce, while communications services are provided by the Santa Clara County General Services Administration. Other services include general law enforcement (patrol), traﬃc enforcement and investigation, detective services, and additional resources from specialized units.

The State allocates the Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant to cities and counties for front-line law enforcement purposes. Funding is allocated proportionately based on population size with a minimum allocation of $100,000 per jurisdiction. This grant will be used to partially oﬀset the cost of a second School Resource Oﬃcer that was added in the FY 2016-17 school year. Furthermore, the City receives an annual donation for enhanced law enforcement services (two additional deputies) in the C5 beat. The donation is $1.0 million for FY 2023-24.

Service Objectives
Protect life and property through innovative and progressive policing methods.

Respond to Priority 1 emergency situations within an average of fewer than five minutes.

Enforce the vehicle code with the goal of increasing traffic safety.

Divert first time/minor youth offenders from the juvenile justice system.

Provide daily on-site interaction with our youth.

Provide annual Teen Academy during summer months providing community engagement and an introduction to law enforcement for youth (budgeted in the Public Safety Commission).

Adopted Budget
On June 6, 2023, City Council approved a budget of $17,812,608 for the Law Enforcement program. This represents an increase of $1,047,512 (6.2%) from the FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget.

The increase in Contract Services funding is due to contractually agreed-upon increases in salary and beneﬁts for Sheriff's Deputies and increases in the West Valley Substation facility lease agreement.

Revenues and Expenditures
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
291
Revenues and Expenditures
The following table details revenues, expenditures, changes in fund balance and General Fund costs by category.

It includes actuals for two prior fiscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior ﬁscal year, and the Adopted Budget
for the current
fiscal year.

Category
2021 Actual
2022 Actual
2023 Adopted Budget
2024 Adopted Budget
Revenues
Intergovernmental Revenue
$ 156,727
$ 161,285
$ 156,000
$ 161,094
Charges for Services
$ 410,824
$ 558,777
$ 61,000
$ 115,000
Fines and Forfeitures
$ 102,396
$ 188,053
$ 202,000
$ 180,000
Miscellaneous Revenue
$ 837,329
$ 887,259
$ 948,721
$ 1,006,552
Transfers In
$
-
$ 972,987
$
-
$
-
Total Revenues
$ 1,507,276
$ 2,768,361
$ 1,367,721
$ 1,462,646
Expenditures
Materials
$ 158
$ 222
$ 53,891
$ 408
Contract Services
$ 14,652,520
$ 15,547,160
$ 16,558,198
$ 17,667,516
Cost Allocation
$ 123,003
$ 167,594
$ 153,007
$ 144,684
Total Expenditures
$ 14,775,681
$ 15,714,976
$ 16,765,096
$ 17,812,608
Fund Balance
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
General Fund Costs
$ 13,268,406
$ 12,946,615
$ 15,397,375
$ 16,349,962
Staffing
There is no staffing associated with this program.

FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
292
Interoperability Project
Budget Unit 100-20-201
General Fund - Law Enforcement - Interoperability Project Budget at a Glance
2024 Adopted Budget
Total Revenues
$
-
Total Expenditures
$
-
Fund Balance
$
-
General Fund Costs
$
-
% Funded by General Fund

0.0%
Total Staffing
FTE
Program Overview
The Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) was formed under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act (JPA) to provide interoperable communications solutions to its members. The SVRIA represents the interests of all public safety agencies in Santa Clara County through its members. It services the Santa Clara Operational Area which includes the County of Santa Clara, its fifteen cities and towns, and all special districts.

Service Objectives
SVRIA exists to identify, coordinate, and implement communications interoperability solutions to its member agencies. The purpose of these projects is to seamlessly integrate voice and data communications between law enforcement, the ﬁre and rescue service, emergency medical services, and emergency management for routine operations, critical incidents, and disaster response and recovery.

Adopted Budget
There is no budget requested for this program.

There is no budget due to the elimination of the contract for this project.

Revenues and Expenditures
The following table details revenues, expenditures, changes in fund balance and General Fund costs by category.

It includes actuals for two prior fiscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior ﬁscal year, and the Adopted Budget
for the current
fiscal year.

FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
293
Category
2021 Actual
2022 Actual
2023 Adopted Budget
2024 Adopted Budget
Revenues
Total Revenues
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Expenditures
Contract Services
$
-
$
-
$ 48,539
$
-
Cost Allocation
$ 728
$ 839
$ 884
$
-
Total Expenditures
$ 728
$ 839
$ 49,423
$
-
Fund Balance
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
General Fund Costs
$ 728
$ 839
$ 49,423
$
-
Staffing
There is no staffing associated with this program.

FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Law Enforcement
294
CC 11-7-2023
Written
Communications
Item No. 10
Hungry Jacks Corp
(Blue Pheasant)
lease agreement
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Item 10 Blue Pheasant Written Communications CC Mtg Nov. 7 Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 12:36:45 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
04-025, Blue Pheasant Lease.pdf
08-097 Blue Pheasant Restaurant Lease Extension.pdf
13-098 Amendment #2 09-22-2020.pdf
13-098 Hungry Jack"s Corporation, Lease Agreement, 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Blue Pheasant); First Amendment dated 07_01_2018.pdf
13-098 Rent Deferral Letter of Understanding #1 07-21-2020.pdf Dear City Clerk,

Please include the following email and the attached Blue Pheasant lease agreements for agenda item 10 which I would also like pulled from Consent, to clarify the various changed base rent amounts. Of note is that the current lease base rent amount is lower than what was charged in 2005.

The Staff Report for the Agenda states:

“The updated lease contains the following substantive terms:

1) Base Rent of $6,715/month ($80,580/year) – (unchanged from current lease) 2) Additional payment of 6% of gross sales (pre-covid revenues were approximately $30,000/year) – (unchanged from current lease)
3) An initial two-year lease term, with three one-year extensions (each at City’s sole discretion to extend)
4) Tenant’s maintenance and utility payment obligations”

Here is the 2013 definition of gross sales the City receives a profit on:

“Gross sales" as used in this lease agreement means the sales price of all food, sundry food items, nonalcoholic and alcoholic beverages, and other commercial items sold and the charges made for
all services performed in which a charge is made by Lessee or its sublessees in or upon any part of the
Property, whether for cash or on credit, whether paid or unpaid, collected or uncollected, less all credits
for returned merchandise, exchanges, refunds, and allowances. The amount of sales tax or excise tax
based on sales imposed by any governmental taking authority shall be excluded from gross sales.

However the 2004 lease base rents are as follows:

Here are the 2008 lease base rents:

Then in 2013 the lease base rent was dropped significantly, what accounts for this?:

2020 Covid adjustment to a 50% reduced base rent from $6,875:

Thank you,

Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389

u-\ - 0~,.)

LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AND THE BLUE PHEASANT RESTAURANT, a California Corporation This Lease is entered into by the City of Cupertino ( the " City"), a municipal corporation of the State of California, and The Blue Pheasant Restaurant, a California Corporation whose address for these purposes is 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, California 95014 ( the " Lessee") The building to be leased by the Agreement is commonly known as " The Blue Pheasant" and more particularly described as 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard, City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California ( the " Property") WIT N E SSE T H:

WHEREAS, on May 31, 1983, Blackberry Farm Recreation Center, a California corporation and at that time the owner of the Property, and Lessees Ole Peter Rasmussen and Birthe Lisa Rasmussen entered into a lease for the use of the Property for a restaurant and bar. The term of said lease expires on March 31, 2004; and
WHEREAS, Lessee, a Corporation owned solely by Ole Peter Rasmussen and Birthe Lisa Rasmussen, wishes to enter into a new Lease with the present owner, City of Cupertino, for the continued use of the Property for a restaurant and bar.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follows:

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE LEASED
The " Property" includes a building of approximately 6, 800 square feet located at 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard, City of Cupertino, commonly known as the " Blue Pheasant" including the kitchen, bar, banquet room, the non- exclusive use of 92 parking spaces, and the fixtures attached to the real Property described in Exhibit " A" which is incorporated herein by reference. The Property does not include that certain real Property consisting of the Blackberry Farm Golf Course, nor that area of said building designated and used by the City as a golf professional shop.

2. LEASE TERM
The lease of the Property shall commence on April 1 , 2004 and end on March 31, 2009, unless otherwise terminated under the provisions of this Lease. r;;J ..
4'l:
1 3. OPTION TO RENEW
Lessee is given the option to extend the term on all provisions contained in this Lease, except for the Base Rent ( and any adjustments thereto) for a five 5) year period ( Extended Term), following the expiration of the term, by giving notice of exercise of the option ( Option Notice) to the City at least six ( 6) months but not more than one ( 1) year before the expiration of the term, provided that, if Lessee is in default on the date of giving the Option Notice, the Option Notice shall be totally ineffective, or if Lessee is in default on the date the Extended Term, the Extended Term shall not commence and this Lease shall expire at the end of the Term.

The parties shall have sixty ( 60) days after the City receives the Option Notice to agree on a Base Rent ( together with adjustments) which shall approximate fair market value. If the parties agree on the Base Rent and any other provisions for the Extended Term during that sixty ( 60) day period, they shall immediately execute an amendment to this Lease stating the Base Rent together with adjustments) and other related terms. If the parties are unable to agree with respect to the Base Rent or any adjustments thereto within that period, the Option Notice shall be of no effect and this Lease shall expire at the end of the Term. Neither party to this Lease shall have the right to have a court or other third party set the Base Rent or adjustment thereto, or enforce agreement of the parties with respect to any particular rent provision.

Lessee shall have no other rights to extend the term beyond the Extended Term.

4. BASE RENT
a) Lessee shall pay to the City a monthly base rent, without deduction or setoff, in the amount of $ 6, 779 commencing April 1 , 2004, subject to the following adjustments:

Commencing April 1 , 2005
Commencing April 1, 2006
Commencing April 1 , 2007
Commencing April 1, 2008
6, 982 per month
7, 192 per month
7,407 per month
7, 630 per month
b) Rent shall be payable in advance on or before the first day of each month without notice or demand of any kind by the City. In the event that this rent is not paid within ten ( 10) days after the due date, rent is deemed late and delinquent and a late charge of $ 250 plus interest at the legal rate on the delinquent amount shall be assessed as additional rent. j)/
c) Payments shall be submitted to the City, Attention Finance Department at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014.
d) Should Lessee default in the payment of any monthly installment of rent during the lease term, the unpaid balance of the rent for the entire term of this lease shall be due and payable at the City' s option subject to the provisions of Paragraph 15 of this Lease. When a default in the payment of rent has continued for ten ( 10 ) days after delivery of a written notice to Lessee of such default, no further notice or demand of any kind shall be necessary prior to the City' s exercise of it' s option to accelerate said rent and terminate this Lease.

5. ADDITIONAL RENT/ ARREARAGE
The parties agree that the sum of $ 58, 926 is owed to the City by former Lessees Peter Rasmussen and Birthe Lisa Rasmussen for rent of the Property during the previous lease term. Lessee agrees to pay this arrearage as additional rent, payable at the rate of $ 1 ,077 per month ( which includes the principle amount described above, plus interest at the rate of 40/ 0 per annum) for the entire five- year term of this lease. Said additional rent shall be paid at the same time and under the same conditions as is the base rent described in Paragraph 4 above.

6. HOLDING OVER
At the expiration of the term of this Lease, Lessee may continue to occupy the premises on a month to month basis under the same terms and conditions contained in this Lease, provided that the monthly base rent shall be one and one- half times the last monthly rent as described in Paragraph 4 of this Lease.

7. USE OF THE PROPERTY
a) Lessee shall use and occupy the Property exclusively as a restaurant and bar which shall be open to the general public.
b) The use of the Property shall be consistent with the rules and regulations of the City' s PR zoning district, which includes a nightly closing time of 11 : 00 p. m.
c) Lessee shall cause to be posted at the main entrance to the Property its hours of operation in a manner which will give reasonable notice of its business hours to prospective customers.
d) The parking spaces included in the Property shall be jointly used by Lessee and the City.
tJJ,
f!/7?

8. LESSOR' S OBLIGATIONS
a) The City shall, at its sole expense, keep, maintain and repair the exterior walls and roof of the Property. Should any such maintenance and repair cause the Lessee not to be able to operate the Property as a restaurant and bar for a temporary period, then Lessee' s base rent shall be abated during that temporary period. The City may commence any such maintenance or repair by giving Lessee five days written notice.
b) The City shall, at its sole expense keep, maintain, and repair the joint use parking spaces described in Paragraph 7 ( d). However, the indemnity provisions contained in Paragraph 14 of this Lease extend to the use of the parking spaces by Lessee' s customers and employees.

9. LESSEE' S OBLIGATIONS
a) Lessee shall pay, as they become due, all charges for water, heat, electric, gas, garbage, and all other utilities furnished to, or consumed on the Property for the maintenance, use, and operation of the Property during the term of the Lease ( including any holding- over.) Upon request of the City, Lessee shall produce receipts showing the payment of said utilities. b) Lessee shall reserve a parking space for pick- up of refuse material on collection days scheduled by the City' s garbage collection franchise. c) Lessee shall not do, or permit anything to be done in or about the Property, nor store anything therein, which would in any way increase the rate of fire insurance on the Property.
d) Lessee shall pay, when due, all possessory interest Property taxes, and special assessments imposed on the Property by any public entity during the lease term.
e) Lessee shall maintain the Property in a clean and sanitary condition, and in this regard do the following, all at Lessee' s expense:
i) Clean on a daily basis the grease deposit units located under the canopy and outlet flues above all grill installations;
ii) Enter into a contract with a licensed commercial cleaning service to clean the hood and ventilation ducts and equipment above all grills, at least once every six months;
iii) Service the automatic fire extinguisher located above all grills and provide for the maintenance and inspection of all fire extinguishers on the q),
4 i1J12.

Property in accord with the Fire Code and other applicable local ordinances and regulations.
f) Lessee shall, at their sole expense, remain in compliance with all local, state and federal laws and ordinances concerning the Property, the occupancy and use thereof, and the business conducted therein. Should Lessee fail to comply with any such laws and ordinances, the City may, but shall not be obligated to, comply therewith, in which case the amount paid by the City in order to comply, together with all costs, expenses, interest, penalties incurred, shall be added to Lessee' s next rent payment and shall be collectible as additional rent in the same manner and with the same remedies as if it had been originally reserved.
g) Insurance. Lessee shall, at its own expense, maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Lease, and during any hold- over, the following insurance in amounts not less than the amounts specified, and issued by an insurance company admitted in California and having a Best Guide Rating of A- Class VII or better:
i) Comprehensive public liability, including a dram shop endorsement and provisions for personal injury and Property damage coverages, in an amount not less than One Million 1, 000, 000) Dollars for anyone person injured or killed, not less than Two Million ($ 2, 000, 000) Dollars for anyone accident or occurrence, and not less than Two Hundred Thousand ($ 200, 000) Dollars Property damage for each accident or occurrence. The City, its officers and employees shall be named as additional insured in all of Lessees' insurance policies meeting the above stated requirements.
ii) Statutory workers compensation insurance and employer' s liability insurance for all of Lessee' s employees; and iii) Statutory fire insurance on the Property.

Lessee shall furnish to the City Certificates of Insurance evidencing the insurance coverages set forth above, the name and policy number of each carrier and policy, and that the insurance is in force and will not be cancelled or modified without thirty ( 30) days written notice to the City. If Lessee does not maintain the above- required insurance, the City may, at its option, pay for the necessary insurance, and the repayment thereof shall be added to any subsequent installment of rent, and shall be collectible as additional rent in the same manner, and with the same remedies as if it had been originally reserved.

Based on the fact that the City retains sole occupancy and control of that certain portion of the Property designated as a golf professional shop, c;j) ~
fi(j](}
appropriate exclusionary endorsements may be provided to remove said designated area from the insurance maintained by Lessee. h) Lessee shall, at its own expense, maintain the Property in good and safe condition and repair. The City retains and reserves the right to inspect the Property to insure said maintenance is satisfactory. All repairs, charges and improvements are subject to prior written approval of the City. Lessee' s duty to maintain the Property in good repair shall include, but not be limited to, maintaining air conditioning and heating equipment, elevator for disabled persons, freezers, ventilation ducts, kitchen equipment and appliances, garbage disposal equipment, grease traps, the stairs separating the first and second floors, and restroom facilities.
i) Lessee shall pay, before delinquency, any and all taxes, assessments, license fees and public charges levied, assessed, or imposed, and which become payable during the lease term ( including holdovers) upon Lessee' s fixtures, furniture, appliances and personal Property installed or located on the Property.

10. MECHANICS LIENS
Lessee shall keep the Property free and clear from all liens which may be filed as the result of any improvements made on the Property by any mechanic, laborer, materialman or general contractor. If Lessee, in violation of the foregoing condition, fails to pay and retire the amount for which such a lien is security, the City may, at its option, terminate this Lease upon giving written notice of such intention; or the City may, at its option, pay the amount necessary to release said lien, in which case all costs, interest and penalties connected therewith shall be added to the installment of rent next becoming due and shall be collectible as additional rent in the same manner and with the same remedies as if it had been originally reserved as rent. The City shall have the right to post and maintain on the Property such notices of nonresponsibility as are provided under California law governing mechanic' s liens.

11. ASSIGNMENT
Lessee shall not assign, sublet, license, mortgage or transfer any portion of this Lease, nor shall Lessee allow any other person to use or occupy the Property, or any part thereof, without the express written consent of the City.

The consent to one assignment, sublet, license, mortgage, transfer, use or occupancy shall not be construed to be a consent to use any subsequent assignment, sublet, license, mortgage, transfer, use or occupancy. The City shall have the sole discretion to require a deposit equal to the first and last two months rent, and to require written guarantees in exchange for its consent to any assignment or sublease to a corporation.
if)~
vCf/ .

12. TERMINATION
a) Any assignment, sublet, license, mortgage, transfer, use or occupancy by Lessee, whether voluntary or involuntary, without written consent by the City shall be void and shall, at the option of the City, terminate this Lease upon written notice to Lessee.
b) Should Lessee default in the payment of any installment of rent, or in the performance of any covenant contained in this Lease, or if any interest held by Lessee in this Lease is affected due to attachment, execution, judgment, insolvency or bankruptcy, whether voluntary or involuntary, the City may terminate this Lease as provided herein in Section 4( d).

13. SALE OF THE PROPERTY
In the event of any sale or conveyance by the City of the Property, said sale or conveyance shall be made subject to this Lease and shall operate to release the City from any further or future liability under any of the terms, covenants, and conditions contained herein, whether express or implied, and Lessee shall look solely to the responsibility of the successor in interest of the City in and to this Lease.

14. INDEMNITY
Lessee hereby expressly waive all claims against the City for damages to goods, wares and merchandise in, upon or about the Property, and for injuries to persons in, upon or about the Property, from any cause arising at any time during the Lease term. Lessee shall indemnify the City, its officers and employees, from and against any and all liability, loss or expenses in connection with any claim, demand or action asserted against the City, its officers or employees, because of injury to or death of any person, or for loss of or damage to Property of any person when such injury, death, loss or damage, however caused, results from, occurs in connection with, or arises from the use of the Property by Lessee or from the failure of Lessee to keep the Property in good condition and repair, or which results from any acts, omissions or negligence by Lessee, its agents or employees.

15. BREACH; LEGAL ACTION; DAMAGES
Upon Lessee' s breach of any provision of this Lease, abandonment of the Lease before the end of the term, or if Lessee' s right to possession is terminated by the City because of a breach of the Lease, the City, at its sole option may bring legal action to recover from Lessee:
9Jr
7 arl2
a) The worth at the time of judgment or award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination;
b) The worth at the time of judgment or award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of judgment or award exceeds the amount of the rental loss that the City proves could have been reasonably avoided;
c) The worth at the time of judgment or award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of judgment or award exceeds the amount of the rental loss that the City proves could have been reasonably avoided; and
d) Any other amount necessary to compensate the City for all of the detriment proximately caused by Lessee' s failure to perform the obligations under this Lease or which in the ordinary course of business would be likely to result therefrom.
e) " Worth at the time of judgment or award" of the amount referred to in Paragraphs 15 a and b is computed by allowing interest at the rate often ( 10%) percent per annum; the " worth at the time of judgment or award" of the amount referred to in Paragraph 15 c herein is computed by discounting such amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco at the time of award plus one ( 10/0) percent.

16. CONDITION OF PROPERTY; SURRENDER
Lessee accepts the Property and the leased fixtures and equipment as being in good and sanitary order, condition and repair, and agrees to surrender the Property in as good condition as received, except for normal wear and tear, and to remove all of Lessee' s signs from the Property.

17. GROUNDS FOR REPOSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY
Should Lessee fail to pay rent at the times and in the manner herein provided, without deduction, default or delay, or in the event of a breach by Lessee of any of the provisions herein, the City shall have the right to re- enter the Property to remove all persons and Property therefrom, and to repossess and enjoy the Property, notwithstanding anything stated herein to the contrary. The City may, at its option, relet the Property, or any portion thereof, for such rent and upon such terms as it may see fit to satisfy the rent herein reserved. Lessee shall satisfy and pay any deficiency in the rent and pay the expenses of such reletting and collecting. If the obligations of the Lessee are that of guarantor or surety, Lessee agrees that no change or modification of the relations or obligations between the City and the party or parties primarily liable, by reason of f'
RCJ;e
such reletting, nor any change in the Property, nor any delay shall release or exonerate Lessee.

18. ENTRY AND INSPECTION
The City shall have the right to enter the Property at all reasonable times to inspect, or to make necessary or agreed on repairs or alterations. Further, the City retains the right to enter upon and show the Property to persons considering purchase, rental or lease of the Property and to display the usual notices and signs, " For Sale," " For Lease," or " For Let," upon the Property for sixty ( 60) days prior to the expiration of the Lease term. Such signs shall be allowed without diminution of rent or hindrance by Lessee.

19. PROPERTY UNINHABITABLE; REMEDY
If the Property is wholly destroyed by fire, earthquake or any other cause whatsoever, or if the Property is injured by any cause which necessitates an expenditure of more than forty ( 400/ 0) percent of its fair market value to repair and restore it, or if more than forty percent ( 400/ 0) of the floor area, measured in square feet, is destroyed, the City may, at its option, elect to terminate this Lease. In which event, the City shall within sixty ( 60) days from the date of the destruction or injury, give notice to Lessee that it has elected to terminate this Lease. If the Lease is not terminated, Lessee shall not be obligated to pay the rent herein reserved during the time that the Property is wholly uninhabitable.

If the City does not terminate the Lease as herein provided, and does not commence restoration of the Property within sixty ( 60) days from the date of destruction or injury, Lessee may, at its option, terminate this Lease upon written notice to the City; provided, however, that the City shall in no event be under an obligation or duty to restore the Property. If the City elects to restore the Property, it shall proceed with reasonable diligence, but shall not be liable for any delay, other than an abatement of rent during the time that the Property remains uninhabitable. Where the Property is uninhabitable in part only, then such rent abatement shall be proportioned accordingly. The words " restore" and restoration" as used herein, shall not include or apply to any fixture, equipment or additions of any kind, or any Property whatever placed in or upon the Property by Lessee or anyone acting on their behalf. In making restorations, the City may use similar and/ or changed workmanship and/ or architecture. Immediately upon completion of repairs, the full amount of rent hereunder reserved shall be due and payable. For the purposes of this Lease, the Property shall be deemed uninhabitable" if it is nonoperative as a restaurant and bar business, or if any public agency deems it unsafe or unhealthy for human habitation or use as a restaurant and bar business.

I
jJ(}l

20. EMINENT DOMAIN
a) In the event of a total condemnation of the Property during the Lease term, this Lease shall terminate as of the date actual physical possession of the Property is taken by the condemnor. All compensation and damages awarded for such total condemnation shall belong to, and be the sole Property of the City, and Lessee shall have no claim thereto, and hereby irrevocably assign and transfer to the City any right to compensation or damages they may become entitled, provided however, the Lessee shall be entitled to receive any award that may be made for the taking of or damage to Lessee' trade fixtures and any improvements made by Lessee to the Property which Lessee would have had, but for the condemnation, the right to remove upon expiration or termination of this Lease.
b) On termination of this Lease by a total condemnation of the Property, all rent and other charges payable by Lessee to or on behalf of the City pursuant to this Lease shall be paid up to the date on which actual physical possession of the Property is taken by the condemnor, and the parties hereto shall thereafter be released from all further liability under this Lease. c) In the event of a partial condemnation of the Property during the Lease term, this Lease shall terminate as to the portion of the Property so taken on the date when actual physical possession of said portion is taken by the condemnor; and the parties hereto shall each have the option to terminate this Lease by giving written notice to the other, within thirty ( 30) days after actual physical possession of said portion is taken by the condemnor. If neither party terminates this Lease as herein provided, then this Lease shall continue in full force and effect as to the remainder of the Property not condemned; provided, however, that the rent payable by Lessee for the balance of the Lease term shall be abated in the ratio that the square footage enclosed floor space of the Property bears to the total floor space of the Property upon such condemnation. d) Upon partial condemnation, all compensation and damages awarded for such condemnation shall belong to and be the sole Property of the City; and Lessee shall have no claim thereto and hereby irrevocably assign and transfer any right they may have had to share in the award to the City; provided, however, that Lessee shall be entitled to receive any, award made for the taking of, or damage to, Lessees' trade fixtures and any improvements made by Lessee to the Property which Lessee would have had, but for the condemnation, the right to remove upon expiration or termination of this Lease. ( e) Upon termination of this Lease in part, as herein provided, all rent and other charges payable by Lessee to or on behalf of the City pursuant to this Lease, shall be paid up to the date on which actual physical possession is taken by the condemnor of that part of the Property being condemned; and Lessee shall thereafter be liable only for that portion of rent required for the balance of the Lease term as herein provided. 11lJ1

21. SIGNAGE
The existing signs which identify the Blackberry Farm Golf Course will continue to be prominently displayed along with necessary " Open to the Public" signs for the information of the City' s patrons. The installation of additional signs by Lessee concerning their business shall be in accordance with the City' s sign ordinances and regulations.

22. SECURITY
If any security is given by Lessee to secure the faithful performance of any or all of the covenants of this Lease on the part of Lessee, the City may transfer and/ or deliver such security to the purchaser of the reversion, in the event that the reversion is sold; and the City shall then be discharged from further liability in reference thereto.

23. LEASE SUBORDINATE.
a) This Lease shall be subordinate to any mortgages, trust deeds, or bond indentures that are now or may hereafter be placed upon the Property, to any and all advances made or to be made thereunder, to the interest thereon, and to all renewals, replacements and extensions thereof, provided the mortgagee or beneficiary named in the mortgages, trust deeds or bond indentures agrees to recognize Lessee' s Lease in the event of foreclosure if Lessee are not in default. If any mortgagee or beneficiary elects to have this Lease superior to its mortgage, trust deed or bond indenture by notice to Lessee, then this Lease shall be deemed superior to the lien of any such mortgage, trust deed, or bond indenture whether this Lease is dated or recorded before or after said mortgage or trust deed.
b) Lessee shall, upon not less than ten ( 10) days prior written request by the City, execute, acknowledge and deliver to the City a written statement certifying that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect, or that there have been modifications and this Lease is in full force and effect as modified, and stating the modifications, and the dates to which the rent and other charges have been paid in advance, if any. The intent is that the statement provided pursuant to this subsection, may be relied upon by any prospective purchaser, mortgagee or assignee of any mortgagee of the Property.
c) The voluntary or other surrender of this Lease by Lessee, or a mutual cancellation thereof, shall not cause a merger and shall, at the City' s option, terminate all or any existing subleases or subtenancies consented to pursuant to this section, or may, at the City' s option, operate as an assignment to the City of any or all such subleases or subtenancies.
1)<
11 Of}{

24. GENERAL PROVISIONS
a) Notices. Any notices to be given by either party under the terms of this Lease shall be made in writing and may be delivered either personally or by certified or registered mail with postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

TO LESSEE: The Blue Pheasant Restaurant
c/ o Lona Means
22100 Stevens Creek Blvd.

Cupertino, CA 95014
TO THE CITY: Director of Parks and Recreation
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
b) Entire Agreement. This document comprises the entire and integrated agreement of the parties concerning the lease of the Property and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. Any amendments to this document shall be effective only if in writing and signed by the City and Lessee.
c) Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is commenced to enforce or to declare the effect of any provision of this Lease, the prevailing party shall be awarded attorneys' fees and costs incurred by such party in the action. d) Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Lease is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the rest of this Lease shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated.
e) Time. Time is of the essence of this Lease.
f) Waiver. The failure of the City to exercise any right under this Lease shall not constitute a waiver of such right. Additionally, the subsequent acceptance of rent by the City shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Lessee of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other than the failure of Lessee to pay the particular rent so accepted, regardless of the City' s knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent.
g) Remedies Cumulative. The remedies provided herein shall be cumulative, therefore, the exercise of anyone remedy shall not be to the exclusion of any other remedy.
l
1? 02
h) Binding on Heirs; Joint and Several Liability. The covenants and conditions provided herein shall apply to and bind the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assigns of the parties hereto; and the parties hereto shall be jointly and severally liable hereunder.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease Agreement on 4,' , 2004.

THE CITY:

Date:

LESSEE:

The Blue Pheasant Restaurant
B:

DAVID KNAP
BY:~ . ,{ J~~~._
PETER RASMUSSEN*
President
Date: b - Z s- C) it
ATTESTED BY:

Date:

Ci~
Bya.4d/~ a;!?/.1~
BIRTHE LISA RASMUSSEN*
Date 0CR/:kAA~ %. s-~ y
Charles T. Kilian, City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A - List of Fixtures

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT REQUIRED
H:\ DOCS\ City\ Blue Pheasant lease corp lessee. doc
1~

EXHIBIT A

CITY' S FIXTURES LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPRATED INTO

REAL PROPERTY BEING LEASED
Front and Back Bar
Built- in Waitress Station in banquet room
Swampt Cooler on roof
Air Conditioning Unit
Furnaces
Built- in Speakers
Water Heaters
Light Fixtures
Safe
Refrigerated Waitress Station in front of kitchen
Hood and Ventilation System ( including automatic fire extinguishing system) Steam Table and Built- in Freezer in downstairs banquet room kitchen Walk- in Box with Compressor
rpl
14($
12 CALIFORNIA ALL- PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
c:-<: tY.~
I
County of 1 IlL- alLllu
55 State of California
On 3. j~- 04
Date
before me, tlfl ({ C ' L. r- i"Jaui <;
Name and Title of Officer ( e. g., " Jane Doe, Notary Public") Pet-if (. J. fA S ilU,- '5 SOu....-
Name( s) of Signer( s)
personally appeared Ole
D personally known to me
rx( proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
vidence
to be the person( s) whose name( s) is/ are
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/ she/ they executed
the same in his/ her/ their authorized
capacity( ies), and that by his/ her/ their
signature( s) on the instrument the person( s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person( s)
acted, executed the instrument.
fj.....

LINDA L. DAVIS
o .... j::...~ COMM. # 1282586
i ~_.

NOTARY PUBLIC. CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY ...

Comm. Exp. OCT. 31, 2004
Place Notary Seal Above
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
t.; " _~ /'\
I ,{, u ( I ,' 1.../ ' fLt, ,-'-"-
Signature of Notary Public

OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.

Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:

Document Date: Number of Pages:

Signer( s) Other Than Named Above:

Capacity( ies) Claimed by Signer
Signer' s Name:
o Individual
o Corporate Officer - Title( s):
o Partner - 0 Limited 0 General
o Attorney in Fact
o Trustee
o Guardian or Conservator
o Other:

RIGHT THUMBPRINT

OF SIGNER
Top of thumb here
Signer Is Representing:
@ 1997 National Notary Association' 9350 De Soto Ave., P. O. Box 2402' Chatsworth, CA 91313- 2402 Prod. No. 5907 x
Reorder: Call Toll- Free 1- 800- 876- 6827

CALIFORNIA ALL- PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
f
I
tY."
State of California
ss
County of Ln tn f lid ,~
On . 3 -,") j- - 04
Date
L.' n (~( 1 L~ Jrl-u i .~
Name and Title of Officer ( e. g., " Jane Doe, Notary Public") I ~
Lt <){1 (- (;. <) Mil ':,, 5 ( 1--
Name( s) of Signer( s)
before me,
personally appeared j!2 ,'rtJ1t" "
D personally known to me
11 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person( s) whose name( s) is/ are
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/ she/ they executed
the same in his/ her/ their authorized
capacity( ies), and that by his/ her/ their
signature( s) on the instrument the person( s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person( s)
acted, executed the instrument.

LINDA L. DAVIS
U ;'. j; I" COMM. # 1282586
i ~< NOTARY PUBLIC. CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY ....

Comm. Exp. OCT. 31, 2004
Place Notary Seal Above
WIT~ ESS my. hand and officia/~ eal.
lj , ~ J'"
I
i. lIt ( l ( 1-- ~ ,
I"
d.J. . l- A-
Signature of Notary Public

Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:

Number of Pages:Document Date:

Signer( s) Other Than Named Above:

Capacity( ies) Claimed by Signer
Signer' s Name:

D Individual
D Corporate Officer - Title( s):

D Partner - D Limited D General
D Attorney in Fact
D Trustee
D Guardian or Conservator
D Other:

RIGHT THUMBPRINT

OF SIGNER
Top of thumb here
Signer Is Representing:

I
@ 1997 National Notary Association' 9350 De Soto Ave., PO. Box 2402 . Chatsworth, CA 91313- 2402 Prod. No. 5907

0. Reorder: Call Toll- Free 1- 800- 876- 6827

GUARANTY AGREEMENT
This guaranty is given by OLE PETER RASMUSSEN and BIRTHE LISA RASMUSSEN (" Guarantors") to CITY OF CUPERTINO (" Obligee") to induce Obligee to enter into a lease with The Blue Pheasant Restaurant, a California Corporation date 3- 2 S- - 0 ~ , 2004, for the lease of property located at 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard, City of Cupertino, State of California.

1. Obligation Guaranteed. For valuable consideration, the undersigned Guarantors jointly and severally unconditionally guarantee to Obligee the following obligations of Obligor: Performance of all terms, provisions, and conditions of said lease above- described and any extension thereof, including the payment of any and all indebtedness of Obligor to Obligee. The word " indebtedness" is used in its most comprehensive sense and includes any and all rent, debts, obligations and liabilities of Obligor, whenever made, incurred, or created, whether voluntary or involuntary and however arising, whether due or not due, absolute or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, determined or undetermined, and whether Obligor may be liable individually or jointly with others, or whether recovery may be or become barred by any statute of limitations or otherwise become unenforceable.

2. Insolvency or Bankruptcy. Guarantors jointly and severally unconditionally guarantee the performance of all terms, provisions, and conditions of said lease and any and all indebtedness of Obligor to Obligee, whether or not due or payable by Obligor, on a) the dissolution, insolvency, or business failure of, or any assignment for the benefit of creditors by, or commencement of any bankruptcy, reorganization, arrangement, moratorium, or other debtor relief proceedingsby or against, Obligor or Guarantors, or b) the appointment of a receiver for, or the attachment, restraint of, or making or levying of any court order or legal process affecting, the property of Obligor or Guarantors, and jointly and severally unconditionally promise to pay this indebtedness to Obligee or order, on demand, in lawful money of the United States.

3. Extent of Liability. The liability of Guarantors under this agreement is exclusive and independent of any security for or other guarantee of the indebtedness of Obligor, whether executed by Guarantors or any other party, and the liability of Guarantors under this Agreement is not affected or impaired by any of the following:
a) Any indebtedness exceeding Guarantors' liability;
b) Any direction of application by Obligor or any other party; c) Any other continuing or other guaranty, undertaking, or maximum liability of Guarantors or of any other party as to the indebtedness of Obligor; d) Any payment on or in reduction of any other guaranty or undertaking; e) Any dissolution, termination, or increase, decrease, or changes of personnel of any of the Guarantors; or
f) Any payment made to the Obligee on the indebtedness that Obligee repays to Obligor pursuant to court order in any bankruptcy, reorganization, arrangement, moratorium, or other debtor relief proceeding. Guarantors waive any right to the deferral or modification of Guarantor' s obligations by virtue of any such proceeding.

4. Joinder of Parties. The obligations of guarantors are joint and several, and independent of the obligations of Obligor. Obligee who may bring and prosecute a separate action or actions against Guarantors, whether it brings an action against Obligor or joins Obligor in any action or actions commenced. Guarantors waive, to the fullest 9J
extent permitted by law, the benefit of any statute of limitations affecting their liability under this agreement or the enforcement of this agreement. Any payment by Obligor or other circumstance that operates to toll any statute of limitations as to Obligor shall also operate to toll the statute of limitations as to Guarantors. Any Guarantor who is a married person agrees that recourse may be had against his or her separate property for his or her obligations under this agreement.

5. Change of Obligation. ( a) Guarantors authorize Obligee, ( whether or not after revocation or termination of this guaranty) without notice or demand ( except any notice or demand that is required by statute and cannot be waived) and without affecting or impairing their liability, from time to time to do any of the following:
1) Renew, compromise, extend, accelerate, or otherwise change the time for performance of, or otherwise change the terms of the obligation;
2) Take and hold security for the performance of this guaranty or the obligation guaranteed, and exchange, enforce, waive and release any security;
3) Apply security and direct the order or manner of sale of security as Obligee in its discretion may determine; and
4) Release or substitute anyone or more of the Guarantors. b) Obligee may without notice assign this guarantee in whole or in part.

6. Capacity and Authority. If Obligor is a corporation, partnership or other entity, Obligee need not inquire into or verify the powers of Obligor or the authority of those acting or purporting to act on behalf of Obligor, and this Guaranty shall be enforceable with respect to any indebtedness Obligee grants or extends to Obligor in reliance on the purported exercise of those powers or authority.

7. Subordination. Any indebtedness of Obligor now or later held by Guarantors is subordinated to the indebtedness of Obligor to Obligee, and all indebtedness of Obligor to Guarantors, if Obligee so requests, shall be collected, enforced, and received by Guarantors as trustees for Obligee and be paid over to Obligee on account of the indebtedness of Obligor to Obligee, without affecting or impairing in any manner the liability of Guarantors under the other provisions of this guaranty.

8. Waiver of Defenses. ( a) Guarantors waive any right to require Obligee to ( 1) proceed against Obligor/ ( 2) proceedagainst or exhaust any security held from Obligor; or ( 3) pursue any other remedy in Obligee' s power whatsoever. b) Guarantors waive any defense based on or arising out of any defense of Obligor other than payment in full of the indebtedness, including without limitation any defense based on or arising out of the disability of Obligor, the unenforceability of the indebtedness from any cause, or the cessation from any cause of the liability of Obligor other than payment in full of the indebtedness.
c) Obligee, at its election, may foreclose on any security held by Obligee by one or more judicial sales, whether or not every aspect of any sale is commercially reasonable, or exercise any other right or remedy Obligee may have against Obligor, or any security, without affecting or impairing in any way the liability of Guarantors under this agreement, except to the extent that the indebtedness has been paid. d) Guarantor waives all rights and defenses arising out of an election of remedies by Obligee, even though that election of remedies, such as nonjudicial foreclosure with respect to security for a guaranteedobligation, has destroyed Guarantor' s rights of subrogation and reimbursement against the principal by operation of Code of Civil Procedure Section 580d or otherwise
e) Until all indebtedness of Obligor to Obligee is paid in full, even though that indebtedness is in excess of Guarantors' liability under this agreement, Guarantors shall f/ 99t
b\l
have no right of subrogation, shall waive any right to enforce any remedy that Obligee now has or may later have against Obligor, and shall waive any benefit of, and any right to, participation in any security now or later held by Obligor. Guarantors waive all presentments, demands for performance, notices of protest, notices of dishonor, notices of acceptances of this guaranty, and notices of the existence, creation, or incurring of new or additional indebtedness.
f) Guarantors assume all responsibility for keeping themselves informed of Obligor' s financial condition and assets, and all other circumstances bearing on the risk of nonpayment of the indebtedness and the nature, scope and extent of the risks that Guarantors assume and incur under this agreement, and agree that Obligee shall have no duty to advise Guarantors of information known to it regarding those circumstances or risks.

9. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. In addition to the amounts guaranteed under this agreement, Guarantors jointly and severally agree to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and all other costs and expenses incurred by Obligee in enforcing this guaranty in any action or proceeding arising out of, or relating to, this guaranty.

10. Liens and Setoffs. In addition to all liens on, and rights of setoff against the money, securities or other property of Guarantors given to Obligee by law, Obligee shall have a lien on and a right of setoff against all money, securities and other property of Guarantors now or later in the possession of Obligee, whether held in a general or special account or for safekeeping or otherwise; and every lien and right of setoff may be exercised without demand on or notice to Guarantors.

11. Nonwaiver of Rights of Obligee. No right or power of Obligee under this agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by any act or conduct on the part of Obligee, or by any neglect to exercise that right or power, or by any delay in so doing; and every right or power shall continue in full force and effect until specifically waived or released by an instrument in writing executed by Obligee.

12. Singular and Plural. In all cases when there is but a single Obligor or a single Guarantor, all words used in the plural shall be deemed to have been used in the singular if the context and construction so require; and when there is more than one Obligor, or when this guaranty is executed by more than one Guarantor, the word Obligor" and the word " Guarantor" respectively shall mean all and anyone or more of them.

13. Effect on Heirs and Assigns. This guaranty and the liability and obligations of Guarantors under this agreement are binding on Guarantors and their respective heirs, executors, and assigns, and inure to the benefit of and are enforceable by Obligor and its successors, transferees, and assigns.

14. Notices. Any notice given by any party under this guaranty shall be personally delivered or sent by United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to Obligee or Guarantor at their respective addresses for notices indicated below. Guarantor and Obligee may change the place to which notices, requests, and other communications are to be sent to them by giving written notice of that change to the other.

15. Governing Law and Modification. This guaranty shall be deemed to be made under, and shall be governed by, the laws of the State of California in all respects, including matters of construction, validity, performance, and enforcement, and its terms and provisions may not be waived, altered, modified, or amended except in writing duly signed by an authorized officer of Obligee and by Guarantors.

16. Invalidity. If any provision of this guaranty contravenes or is held invalid under the laws of any jurisdiction, this guaranty shall be construed as though it did not contain that provision, and the rights and liabilities of the parties to this agreement shall be construed and enforced accordingly.

17. Headings. Headings in this agreement are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret or construe its provisions. .~ l~

18. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Guaranty on 26"'-" If , 2004.
a_~. ~
o e Peter Rasmussen
@~~ fflo;]J~
Birthe Lisa Rasmussen
Address for Notices to Guarantor:

Ole Peter Rasmussen and
Birthe Lisa Rasmussen
22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, CA 95014

OBLIGOR
The Blue Pheasant Restaurant
By:~ d~~.

Ole Peter Rasmussen, President
Address for Notices to Obligor:

Ole Peter Rasmussen and
Birthe Lisa Rasmussen
22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, CA 95014
1, {, . Oe-(B:

David Knapp, City
Address for Notices to Obligee:

Cupertino City Hall
AUn:

ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE
The following definitions and designations shall apply in Assignment, without regard to number or gender:

BUSINESS: The Blue Pheasant Restaurant
PREMISES: 22100 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA 95014 ASSIGNOR ( Seller): Ole Peter Rasmussen, Birthe Lisa Rasmussen ASSIGNEE ( Buyer): Hungry Jack' s Restaurant Corporation LESSOR: The City of Cupertino
LEASE DEPOSIT: $ 2, 300
CLOSING: Close of escrow for transfer of the Business from Assignor to Assignee.

LEASE: Lease Agreement from Lessor to Assignor for above Premises occupied by Business and dated 04- 0 1- 04 .

Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee all of his rights in the Lease including the Lease Deposit. Assignee hereby agrees to comply with all the terms and obligations of the Lease, and to hold Assignor harmless from any liability on it arising after Closing.

Lessor consents to the above Assignment but no future assignments. Lessor does not release Assignor from any liability under the Lease.

Assignor shall have a right of re- entry as reasonably necessary to exercise any rights held under any security agreement on the Business assets or leasehold.

This assignment is only effective upon the close of escrow on the sale of The Blue Pheasant to Hungry Jack' s Restaurant Corporation. Each party warrants that he has carefully read and fully understands the provisions of the Lease.

D~__ ~
Ole Peter Rasmussen, Assignor David Knapp, City Manager, Les or gry Jack' s Rest. orporation, Assignee
by Mike Tsachres, President

EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF LIEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND HU~~ GRY JACK'S RESTAURANT

CORPORATION AND MIKE TSACHRES
This Agreement between the City of Cupertino, a California municipal corporation ( the "City"), and Hungry Jack's Restaurant Corporation, a California corporation, and Mike Tsachres ( collectivE~ly " the Lessee") constitutes an extension and amendment of a certain Lease Agreement ("the Lease") executed between the City and the Lessee's predecessor in interest, The Blue Pheasant Restaurant, a California corporation ("Predecessor in Interest") on or about April 1, 2004 for the lease of the premises knowrn as " The Blue Pheasant Restaurant" the "Property") and more particularly described as 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard, City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, and State of California WITNE~~ SETH:

WHEREAS, on April 1, 2004 the City and Predecessor in Interest executed a lease for the Property; a copy of which is attached hereto; and WHEREAS, on or about April 7, 2C~ 04,Predecessor in Interest assigned, with the consent of the City, all right, title ~~nd interest in the Lease to Lessee; and WHEREAS, the present Lease terra expires March 29, 2009; and WHEREAS, Lessee, pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Lease, has the option to extend the term of the Lease for a period of five ( 5) years beyond the expiration date of March 29, 2009, under the same terms and conditions as contained in the Lease executed on April 1, 2004 with the exception of the Base Rent Term described in Paragraph 4 of tP~e Lease; and
WHEREAS, Lessee has, within thE~ time prescribed in the Lease, provided notice of Lessee's intent to exercise the option above- described; and WHEREAS, the City and Lessee have agreed to a new Base Rent to be charged.

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed between the City and the Lessee as follows:

Effective April 1, 2009, the term of the Lease shall be extended from April 1, 2009 until March 31, 2013.

2. Effective April 1, 2009, Paragr~~ph 4(a) of the Lease shall be amended to read as follows::

4. BASE RENT
a) Lessee shall pay to the City a monthly base rent, without deduction or setoff, as follows:

Commencing
Date
Monthly
Ba~~e Rent Annual Rent
April I , 2009 68374 100,488
April I, 2010 X68626 103, 512
April I , 20 I I X68885 106,620
April I, 2012 X69152 109, 824
April I , 20 13 X69427 113, 124
Lease Rent
Total 533, 568

3. All other terms and provisions of the Lease will remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Extension and Amendment to Lease Agreement on ~,~ a~ st a7 , 2008.

THE CITY:

Date:
sy:

AVID KNAPP, City anager
ATTESTED BY:

Date:

Kimberly Smith, i y Clerk
ASSIGNEES:

F~ CJI~RY JACK'S RESTAURANT
CORPORATION by MIKE
TSACHRES, President
Date:
4 ~
r
MIKE TSACHRES, as an
Individual
Date: / 4~ 9 ~
s { ~.?, ZooB
Approved as to Form:

Date:
arles T. ilian, City Attor
2 CALIFORNIA ALL- PURPOSE ACKNOVIILEDGMENT
State of California
County of S Qrt~'a Clara...

On f~ ugdS't Z7, Z~8 before me, trn url, @. SrYlt~l'~, Notary i~~ bl-c , Date Here Insert Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared M -ke. TS ach C ~ s
Name(s) of Signer(s)
IoM ( MARE
lg1AlIH~COmnrllior- # t 1615409
Nolory Aibec - CaNbmia
OaMv Clara CaxMy
eirCana. ~ Nov 1,
who i~ rovedto me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(,a7 whose name(,s') is/ are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/ skw<tJ~ ey executed the same in his/ faerft~ieir authorized capa~~ity(ies), and that by his/ he~eir signature(~'j on the instrument the person(, or the entity upon behalf of
which the personJ~ acted, executed the instrument.

I cer~:ify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws
of tht: State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true , end correct.

WITPJESS my hand and official seal.

Place Notary Seal Above
Sign~~ture ~~:~~
Signature of Notary Public
OPT/ ON~1 L
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.

Description of Attached Document
Ex-{ eris~~n anc~ lEv, nerzdvnerrtof trear.~ ,~ 9reewtertl be~} Wee-r~ Title or Type of Document: - N„ ~ r ~ ~ ~
L~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~~~ ~
i ~ n ~.~ ~~~
Document Date:
ana MikeT;
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:

Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name:

Individual
Corporate Officer - Title( s):

Partner - ^ Limited ^ General
Attorney in Fact
Trustee
Guardian or Conservator
Other:

Signer Is Representing:

Top of thumb here
Number of Pages:
3gner's Name:

Individual
Corporate Officer - Title( s):

Partner - ^ Limited ^ General
Attorney in Fact
Trustee
Guardian or Conservator
Other:

Signer Is Representing
Top of thumb here
2007 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., PO. l3ox 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 9. 1313-2402 • www. NationalNotaryorgItem # 5907 Reorder: Call Toll- Free 1- 800-876- 6827

r---------------· ------------___ ...,. _______ w-------- Title_------ Date ----
I--'--+-+--=----

CITYOFCUPERTINO
By __________ _
Title ----------Date ----------

APPROVEDASTOFORM
CityAttorney
ATTEST:

CityClerk
1292506.1
It
2 OF2
CityManager9/
28/2020
Heather M. Minner
Sep 29, 2020
SecondAmendmentto LeaseAgreementwith
BluePheasant
Final Audit Report 2020-09-30
Created: 2020-09-29
By: Araceli Alejandre ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAACZ4a5LVi40nKQ0V16HBPKLvogUgCD9xV SecondAmendmentto LeaseAgreementwith Blue Pheasant"
History
Documentcreatedby AraceliAlejandre ([email protected]) 2020-09-29 - 10:58:27 PM GMT- IP address: 73.170.27.253 Documentapprovedby AraceliAlejandre ([email protected]) Approval Date: 2020-09-29 - 10:59:30 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.170.27.253 Document emailed to Heather M. Minner ([email protected]) for signature 2020-09-29 - 10:59:31 PM GMT
Emailviewedby HeatherM. Minner ([email protected])
2020-09-29 - 11:04:19 PM GMT- IP address: 45.41.142.147 Documente-signedby HeatherM. Minner ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2020-09-29 - 11:04:43 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 52.39.49.65 Documentemailedto KirstenSquarcia ([email protected]) for signature 2020-09-29 - 11:04:45 PM GMT
Emailviewedby KirstenSquarcia ([email protected])
2020-09-29 - 11:22:13 PM GMT- IP address: 104.47.74.126 Documente-signedby KirstenSquarcia ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2020-09-29 - 11:23:09 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 69.110.137.176 Document emailed to Cyrah Caburian ([email protected]) for approval 2020-09-29 - 11:23:13 PM GMT
Emailviewedby CyrahCaburian ([email protected])
2020-09-30 - 8:35:07 PM GMT- IP address: 99.105.212.240 Document approved by Cyrah Caburian ([email protected]) Approval Date: 2020-09-30 - 8:35:26 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 99.105.212.240 Agreementcompleted.
2020-09-30 - 8:35:26 PM GMT
CC 11-7-2023
Written
Communications
Item No. 11
Mitigation Fee Act -
an Annual & Five-
Year Report for (FY)
2022-2023
From: Kitty Moore
To: Kirsten Squarcia; Pamela Wu; City Clerk
Subject: Written Communications and Questions for Nov 7 CC Mtg Item 11 Date: Monday, November 6, 2023 9:58:46 AM
Attachments: June 30 2023 Balances B Report of City-wide Fund BalancesNet Position June 2023.pdf Questions added to 2022 Development Impact Fee Report Questions[45].pdf Dear City Manager and City Clerk,

Please include the attachments for Written Communications.

My questions for Staff are in the attachment. They are in red and are follow-ups to last year’s questions on the matter.

The June 30, 2023 fund balances are included for convenience.

Thank you very much,

Kitty Moore

Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389

June 2023 Report of City‐wide Fund Balances/Net Position Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance
Fund Type Fund Number/Name as of May 31, 2023 Revenues Expenditures as of June 30, 2023 General Fund 100 General Fund 129,318,250 4,375,093 4,841,240 128,852,104 General Fund 130 Investment Fund 229,425 ‐ ‐ 229,425 Special Revenue Funds 210 Storm Drain Improvement 2,140,100 ‐ ‐ 2,140,100 Special Revenue Funds 215 Storm Drain AB1600 1,872,123 6,696 ‐ 1,878,819 Special Revenue Funds 230 Env Mgmt Cln Crk Strm Drain 855,531 561,196 96,578 1,320,149 Special Revenue Funds 260 CDBG 1,143,163 321 1,367 1,142,117 Special Revenue Funds 261 HCD Loan Rehab 222,300 ‐ ‐ 222,300 Special Revenue Funds 265 BMR Housing 5,308,215 30 11,553 5,296,692 Special Revenue Funds 270 Transportation Fund 11,445,366 258,694 148,406 11,555,653 Special Revenue Funds 271 Traffic Impact 766,576 ‐ ‐ 766,576 Special Revenue Funds 280 Park Dedication 18,678,878 30,000 1,980 18,706,898 Special Revenue Funds 281 Tree Fund 76,299 962 ‐ 77,261 Debt Service Funds 365 Public Facilities Corp 2,322,250 ‐ 2,315,400 6,850 Capital Project Funds 420 Capital Improvement Fund 21,579,164 53,333 127,237 21,505,261 Capital Project Funds 427 Stevens Creek Corridor Park 158,146 ‐ ‐ 158,146 Capital Project Funds 429 Capital Reserve* 13,953,210 ‐ ‐ 13,953,210 Enterprise Funds 520 Resource Recovery 4,598,417 134,397 178,707 4,554,107 Enterprise Funds 560 Blackberry Farm 578,902 63,787 51,905 590,784 Enterprise Funds 570 Sports Center 1,978,606 351,037 355,275 1,974,368 Enterprise Funds 580 Recreation Program 2,906,858 191,795 110,786 2,987,867 Internal Service Funds 610 Innovation & Technology 1,809,410 ‐ 280,885 1,528,525 Internal Service Funds 620 Workersʹ Compensation 2,184,612 ‐ 3,302 2,181,311 Internal Service Funds 630 Vehicle/Equip Replacement 2,169,528 ‐ 169,511 2,000,016 Internal Service Funds 641 Compensated Absence/LTD 790,565 8,938 8,145 791,359 Internal Service Funds 642 Retiree Medical (1,250,810) ‐ 114,597 (1,365,407) Total 225,835,084$ 6,036,280$ 8,816,874$ 223,054,491$ * For reporting purposes, this fund rolls up/combines with Fund 420 Printed July 06, 2023
For more information on funds, please see cupertino.org/fund‐structure The following are Staff responses to Councilmember Moore’s questions regarding Development Impact fees in 2022, further questions or information are provided by Moore in red. The fund balances in the Development Impact Fee report differ from the fund balances in the budget and Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) due to how investment income and Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) expenses are accounted for. It has been the City’s practice to exclude mark-to-market adjustments and CAP expenses from the Development Impact Fee reports. Mark-to-market adjustments account for the fair value of investments based on the market price at the end of each fiscal year. 1) The budget shows Traffic Impact and Transportation Fund accounts. The Traffic Impact account appears to align with the Traffic Impact Fees, but CC Moore was unsure what the Transportation Fund was associated with (somewhere around $12M). It does not appear to align with anything in the impact fee report, so we will need to have an answer for this. The Transportation Fund is not reported on the Development Impact Fee report as revenues are not from development impact fees. The Transportation Fund accounts for the City's gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and grant revenues and expenditures related to the maintenance and construction of City streets. Traffic Impact is Special Revenue Fund 272 which had a June 30, 2023 ending balance of $776,311 which does not match the $802,090 shown in Attachment A page 7. What accounts for this difference? There is an estimated cost of $59,780,125 for projects in the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study. What are these projects? 2) What is the AB 1600 Storm Drain fee associated with? Where do these monies come from, and what are they used for? Accounts for AB1600 revenue from storm drain fees. Revenues were collected from developers as a result of connections to the storm drainage system or impacts to the storm drain system from development. Monies are used for storm drain improvement and maintenance. 3) She sees a number for the BMR Fees at $5,933,166, but the mitigation fee act report shows an unrestricted balance as of 6/30/22 of $5,462,532. What is the discrepancy? Matt and I believe this is probably just because some funds have been encumbered, but not spent, but we will want to verify that. The June 2022 Treasurer’s Report was printed on July 20, 2022. At that time, the year-end close process was not complete, and the fund balance was not finalized. The final year-end fund balance will be reported in the FY 2021-22 ACFR. Also, the Development Impact Fee report differs from the budget and ACFR as described above. Page 2 of the Report shows our BMR RHNA total of 356 VLI, 207 LI, and 231 MI for a total of $160.3 M. Our 2023-2031 allocation is: Very Low Income 1,193 x $241k/unit = $287,513,000 Low Income 687 x $213k/unit = $146,331,000 Moderate Income 755 x $ $123k/unit = $ 92,865,000 Total using the City estimated costs: $526,709,000 How were the costs per unit derived? Would the City please show the new RHNA numbers we need to meet to improve the transparency of the report? 4) Again, the Park Fee total in the budget is somewhere around $22M, but the amounts in the impact fee report do not add up to that total. Why? The June 2022 Treasurer’s Report was printed on July 20, 2022. At that time, the year-end close process was not complete, and the fund balance was not finalized. The final year-end fund balance will be reported in the FY 2021-22 ACFR. Also, the Development Impact Fee report differs from the budget and ACFR as described above. This year the June 30, 2023 ending fund balance for Special Revenue Fund 280 Park Dedicationis $18,706,898 and does not match the $7,984,137 fund balance shown on page 5 of the report. How is the $11M discrepancy accounted for? What projects are the $11M going towards? Should they be added in the report? This item has the opposite problem of Traffic Impact, there there are unkown projects with a high cost shown and insufficient funds, but it is fairly consistent with the June 30, 2023 balance provided to the public, but for the Park fee, there continues to be a much greater balance shown to the public in the June 30, 2023 fund balance report than the Development Impact fee report shows, which is a repeat of last year, and part of why I wanted the subcommittee formed, to work on understanding this issue and see if it is a discrepancy or not. 5) Where are the impact fees being held (it appears to be 100 200-223) and where are these shown in the budget? The majority of developer deposits are being held in 100 220-223. 100 220-223 is a liability account and is therefore not budgeted. The N. Stelling/I-280 Bridge Pedestrian Lighting & Upgrades project is budgeted in 420-90-971 900-905. The De Anza/McClellan/Pacifica Signal Modification project is budgeted in 420-99-036 900-905 (encumbered in Kimley-Horn PO 2021-390). Other transportation projects in the Development Impact Fee report are not budgeted and are recorded in 100 220-223. May we know how much is in the liability account since these are items which will need to be funded? 6) In the Mitigation Fee Act report, we identify a series of transportation related projects. Where are the funds from these projects held? Assuming they are aggregated in one account, can that account be broken down to show what is in it? See 5. 7) A definition of each storm drain fund. 210 Storm Drain Improvement Accounts for the construction and maintenance of storm drain facilities, including drainage and sanitary sewer facilities. Projects are funded by the Capital Reserve. 215 Storm Drain AB1600 Accounts for AB1600 revenue from storm drain development impact fees. Revenues were collected from developers as a result of connections to the storm drainage sewer system. 230 Environmental Management/Clean Creek/Storm Drain Accounts for activities related to operating the Non-Point Source Pollution Program. Revenues are from parcel taxes. Thank you, this (3 accounts) is a little confusing as was seen regarding the SCB emergency 54” pipe repair as to which account should be paying and I know Staff is working on resolving which account should pay, and that the SCB drain will come back to council with an update as to which account is being debited. 8) Are Art in-lieu of fees or the public art program requirements considered Development Impact Fees? Should either of these amounts, particularly the in-lieu of fees, be included in this report? There may be some new guidance on this? From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Written Communications Agenda Item
Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 3:41:19 PM
Attachments: 2022 Developement Fee Report.pdf
A - Annual Five-Year Report for FY 2023.pdf
A - Report of City-wide Receipts Disbursements and Cash Balances June 2022 (1).pdf June 30, 2023 Cash Balances A Report of City-wide Receipts Disbursements and Cash Balances June 2023.pdf CC Resolution No. 633.pdf
CC Resolution No. 4422.pdf
Dear City Clerk,

Please include the following email and the attachments for Agenda Item 11 which I would like pulled from Consent.

AB 1600 requires that both general law and charter cities account for every fee that they collect under its terms.

Funds collected for each capital facility or service shall be deposited in separate accounts and not commingled with any other funds for other impact fees. (Gov.

Code § 66006(a).) While funds are accruing for individual capital facilities, the city must keep track of each fund and provide an annual report. (Gov. Code § 66006(b).) If the city fails to accurately account for the collected fees, the city can be required to refund the fees. (Gov. Code § 66001(d).)

The City Council must make these findings:

a. The purpose of the development impact fees has been identified. b. There is a continued need for the improvements and a reasonable relationship between the fees and the impacts of development for which the fees are collected.
c. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of the improvements have been identified.
d. The approximate dates for funding improvements have been identified.

I have the following questions/comments:

CMC 14.05 references a Park Maintenance Fee which would be deposited in the Park and Recreational Facilities Acquisition and Maintenance Fund. I think this would qualify as a Development Impact Fee and the CMC indicates that a nexus study was done, however I am unable to locate this fund in the report and need assistance. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/cupertino/latest/cupertino_ca/0-0-0- 88074#JD_Chapter14.05

14.05.040 Requirements–General. Any person who proposes to erect or construct any building or structure for which a building permit is required by the City, or who seeks a use permit or architectural and site approval from the City, must pay a fee, as determined under the provisions of this chapter, for the establishment, maintenance and rehabilitation of parks and recreation facilities within the City. Said fee shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of any required building permit, planned development permit, use permit, or architectural approval.

This fund would be separate from fund 280. Is that correct? CMC 13.08 Park Land Dedication Fee has a matching “Park dedication in-lieu fee fund” which I believe is fund 280 “Park Dedication,” is this correct and may the fund name be made to match the CMC wording?

The Lawrence Mitty purchase of about $3M does not appear to be reflected in the report, please help me locate it.

CMC 14.02 Transportation Impact Fee Program has a matching TIF Account which I believe is fund 271 Traffic Impact, is this correct and may the fund names be something like Transportation Impact Fee?

CHAPTER 19.148: REQUIRED ARTWORK IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS has an in lieu of payment for developments which appears to qualify as an AB 1600 Development Impact Fee. The City did collect funds from Westport for this fund. Because the fund has a codified, intended purpose it should probably have a separate fund in the budget and appear in the AB 1600 report? I noticed that Union City has an art fund in their AB 1600 report, for example.

19.148.090 In Lieu Payment for Artwork is Discouraged.

In some instances the placement of artwork on a particular property may not be feasible.

The developer or property owner may apply to the Arts and Culture Commission for an in lieu payment alternative on projects that lack an appropriate location for public art, although such alternative is strongly discouraged. In such cases, an in lieu payment of 1.25% of the construction valuation may be made to the City, pursuant to the approval authority provisions of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.12.030 .

CMC 19.172 Below Market Rate Housing Program, I believe is fund 265 BMR Housing, does not have the fees listed by Ordinance which some other cities do, or the name of the account the fees would go into, it does however reference the Residential Housing Mitigation Program rules and regulations. Would it be better to have the fee and fund name codified?

Fund 215 Storm Drain AB 1600 is another fund which is not codified however, was adopted by Resolutions 633 and 4422 from 1962 and 1977 per Attachment A for this agenda item. The fee costs appear to still be based off of 1977 values without update? While the city does have two storm drain fees in the CMC, it would seem that the Development Impact fee needed to be reviewed if the fees truly haven’t been updated since 1977.

The 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan is here:
https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?
id=731252&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino

Attachment A which is the City’s AB 1600 report, has multiple, unique, Public Works Projects funded by Conditions of Approval of various past projects. Some of the projects have changed since last year’s report, such as TM-2012-04 which used to state it was for Rodriguez and Pacifica but now states Stevens Creek Blvd. Class IV bikeway. Additionally, I could not locate any of these unique funds in the city financial reports to verify there is no commingling.

The June 30, 2022 and June 30, 2023 Fund Balances are included as attachments. These balances are off in all instances from the amounts shown in the AB 1600 report. Where is the City getting the balance numbers from and in what bank account is the interest being derived from? Are we to assume these funds are in the Chandler account or elsewhere?

Thank you,

Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Councilmember
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389

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
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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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, 2023

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

Local Authority:

The fiscal year 2022-23 BMR Housing Mitigation Fee amounts are being reported below.

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement:

Residential (per sq. ft.) -
Detached Single Family Residence $20.29
Small Lot Single Family Residence or Townhome $22.31
Multi-Family Attached Townhome or Condo $27.05
Multi-Family Rental Apartment (1 to 35 du/ac) $27.05
Multi-Family Rental Apartment (over 35 du/ac) $33.81
Non-Residential (Per sq.ft.) –
Office, Research & Development, or Industrial $32.06
Attachment A

Page | 2
Hotel $16.03
Self-Storage, employee unit provided $0.60
Self-Storage, employee unit not provided $1.26
Warehouse $44.53
Commercial or Retail $13.52

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost*

Fund
Balance
6/30/2023

%
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 $4,945,424 100% 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.

Attachment A

Page | 3
394\01\1992522.1

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Based on adopted Fee Schedule

FY2022-23
Trust
Fund
Activity

Fiscal Year

Purpose of Expenditure

Balance at
7/1/2022
$5,462,532
Fees
Collected*
$172,698
Interest $79,323

Expended

Subtotal
($378,741)
($57,476)
($265,554)
($50,000)
($13,787)
($3,571)
($769,129)
Staff and administration
Legal and professional services
Housing placement services
Rental mediation services/contract services
Homelessness
Habitat for Humanity

Refunded 0
Unrestricted
balance at
6/30/2023
$4,945,424
*- Includes funds collected by Development Agreement

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:

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 impact. 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.

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.

Five-Year Report
Attachment A

Page | 5
394\01\1992522.1

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2023

%
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 $7,984,137 100% Project is
fully funded
Winter 2020 Spring
2015
Summer 2025

Annual Report

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

FY2022-23
Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal Year

Purpose of Expenditure

Balance at
7/1/2022***
$5,401,272
Fees
Collected*
$646,767
Interest $286,098
Expended

see
reservations
below

Returned** $1,150,000
$500,000

Memorial Park Amphitheater
Memorial Park Specific Plan

Reserved

Subtotal
($8,270,994)

($3,000,000)
($11,270,994)
Reserved for purchase and construction of
Lawrence-Mitty Park
Reserved for Memorial Park Pond Repurposing

Balance at
6/30/2023***
$7,984,137
*- Includes funds collected by Development Agreement and other developments **- Unused project funds returned to parkland in-lieu fee account ***- Balance reflects the unreserved funds

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:

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.

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
6/30/2023

%
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 $802,090 100% 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

FY2022-23
Trust
Fund
Activity

Fiscal Year

Purpose of Expenditure

Balance at
7/1/2022
$752,839
Fees
Collected
$38,199

Interest $11,052
Expended

Subtotal
0 0

Refunded 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$802,090

Attachment A

Page | 8
Dept.: Public Works
Project: Master Storm Drain Fee

Local Authority:

The City of Cupertino has collected master storm drain fees from developments since 1962 based on nexus studies conducted at that time – the 1961 Master Storm Drainage Plan and Cost Study, the 1974 Revised Master Plan and the 1993 Storm Drainage System Master Plan, all prepared by Mark Thomas. On July 16, 1962, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 633, approving the Storm Drainage Fee Policy that set forth the fee structure for the Master Storm Drain Fee for residential (single family and multi-family) and non-residential (commercial and industrial) uses.

On March 21, 1977, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4422, amending the fee structure to include and better define various uses – low-density residential (less than 1 du/ac), single-family residential (1 du/ac and less than 5.2 du/ac), multi-family residential (greater than 5.2 du/ac) as well as include public educational use and public facility use in the non-residential category.

On January 15, 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 19-011 accepting the 2018 City of Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan prepared by Schaff & Wheeler, which updates the 1993 Storm Drainage System Master Plan by taking into account improvements made to the system since acceptance of the 1993 plan, incorporating more advanced software in the preparation of the hydraulic models, and describing and prioritizing capital improvement projects necessary to maintain and improve the storm drain collection system operated by the City in a manner consistent with industry standards.

Five Year Reporting & Findings Requirement:

1. The purpose of the Master Storm Drain Fee is to help maintain and mitigate impacts to the City’s existing storm drain infrastructure. The requirements for applicability to the Master Storm Drain Fees are set forth by the City Council adoption of Resolution No. 633 and 4422, and the fee was adopted under the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. The Master Storm Drain Fee is based on nexus studies from the 1961 Master Storm Drainage Plan and Cost Study, the 1974 Revised Master Plan and the 1993 Storm Drainage System Master Plan. Master Storm Drain Fees are used to fund maintenance and capital improvements to the City’s storm drain infrastructure.

2. A reasonable relationship exists between the Master Storm Drain Fee and the purpose for which the fee is charged as the storm drain system requires ongoing maintenance due to drainage from development projects and storm drain improvements are needed to address increased demand from new developments. The need for the Master Storm Drain fees, as identified in the Storm Drain Master Plan remain, as maintenance and infrastructure improvements are necessary.

3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of the Master Storm Drain Fee are identified below:

 Developer Fair-Share Contributions from all projects that propose new developments.

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

Attachment A

Page | 9
394\01\1992522.1
Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost*

Fund
Balance
6/30/2023

%
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
Maintenance
Activities &
Projects in the
2018 Storm
Drain Master
Plan
$79,280,000 $1,888,161 70% Additional
Developer
Contributions,
State and
Federal grants,
General Fund
As projects
develop/
redevelop
Ongoing Ongoing

* Based on estimates from the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan: High priority capital improvements = $12.52 million.

Moderate priority capital improvements = $25.88 million. Low priority capital improvements = $40.88. Total = $79.28 million.

Annual Report

Amount of Fee: Based on Storm Drain Master Plan

FY2022-23
Trust
Fund
Activity

Fiscal Year

Purpose of Expenditure

Balance at
7/1/2022
$1,787,537
Fees
Collected
$73,912

Interest $26,712
Expended

Subtotal
0 0

Refunded 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$1,888,161

Attachment A

Page | 10
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:

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
6/30/2023

%
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 $53,430 50% Anticipated
that City will
fund the
remaining
cost of the
project
Spring/2025 Summer/2025 Fall/2025

Attachment A

Page | 11
394\01\1992522.1
Annual Report

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

FY 2022-23

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2022
$52,744 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 50,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $686 $6,980
Expended 0 ($3,550)
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$53,430 $53,430

Attachment A

Page | 12
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:

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 signal modification 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
6/30/2023

%
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 $28,322 14% Developer
Contributions,
General Fund,
and VERBS
Grants
Funding
has been
provided.

Summer/
2019
Spring
2021
Winter 2023

Attachment A

Page | 13
394\01\1992522.1
Annual Report

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

FY2022-23

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2022
$62,841 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 145,700 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $817 $24,068
Expended ($35,336) Design
Services
($141,446)
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$28,322 $28,322

Attachment A

Page | 14
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.

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
6/30/2023

%
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 $13,879 5% Developer
Contributions,
and General
Fund.

Funding
has been
provided.

Summer/
2019
Spring/2020 Summer/2025

Attachment A

Page | 15

Annual Report

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

FY2022-23

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2022
$13,701 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 25,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $178 $2,005
Expended 0 Kimley Horn
Contract
($13,126)
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$13,879 $ 13,879

Attachment A

Page | 16
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.

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
6/30/2023

%
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 $440,827 100% 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

Attachment A

Page | 17
Annual Report

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

FY2022-23

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2022
$435,169 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $400,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $5,658 $40,827
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$440,827 $440,827

Attachment A

Page | 18
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.

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 the funds have been allocated to the Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV Bikeway project with expenditures expected to be registered during FY23-24.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimat
ed Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2023

%
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
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Class IV
Bikeway
$1,084,0
00 $110,207 10% Project fully
funded
Fees have
been
collected.

Development
Project
completed
June 2018
Summer
2020
Fall 2023

Attachment A

Page | 19

Annual Report

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

FY2022-23

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2022
$108,793 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $100,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $1,414 $10,207
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$110,207 $110,207

Attachment A

Page | 20
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.

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.

Attachment A

Page | 21
Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2023

%
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
$3,100,000 $71,636 5% Additional
Developer
Contributions
are needed to
complete the
project
Developer
contributions
obtained
when
adjacent
properties
redevelop.

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

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

FY2022-23

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2022
$ 70,716 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 65,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $920 $6,636
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$71,636 $71,636

Attachment A

Page | 22
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:

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 added angled parking along Vallco Parkway to serve the development which reduced the number of east-bound lanes as 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 surrounding area is currently planned to further develop.

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 utilized at the City’s discretion to remove angled parking and/or add an additional vehicle lane along Vallco Parkway. The City plans to continue evaluation Vallco Parkway layout for traffic concerns by June 2028.

Five-Year Report

Incomplete Project that Was Identified When Imposing the Fee:

Project
Description

Total
Estimated
Cost

Fund
Balance
6/30/2023

%
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 $495,930 100% No
additional
funds
needed at
this time.

Fees have
been collected.

Development
Project
completed
June 2018
June 2018 June 2028
Attachment A

Page | 23

Annual Report

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

FY2022-23

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2022
$489,566 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $450,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $6,364 $45,930
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$495,930 $495,930

Attachment A

Page | 24
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.

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
6/30/2023

%
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 $892,855 100% No additional
funds needed
at this time.

Fall/ 2017 Summer/2017 Winter/2026

Attachment A

Page | 25
Annual Report

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

FY2022-23

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2022
$881,397 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $850,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $11,458 $84,333
Expended 0 IDAX &
Stantec
Consulting
Contracts
($41,478)
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$892,855 $892,855

Attachment A

Page | 26
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 DeAnza 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 DeAnza 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.

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
6/30/2023

%
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 $55,103 100% Fair share
contributions
from other
developers
that impact
the corridor
Developer
contributions
obtained
when
adjacent
properties
redevelop.

Anticipated
Summer/2020
Fall/2019 Summer
2025

Attachment A

Page | 27

Annual Report

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

FY2022-23

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2022
$54,396 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 50,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $707 $5,103
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$55,103 $55,103

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:

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
6/30/2023

%
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 $79,947 3% Developer
Contributions,
and General
Fund.

Winter/
2021
Spring/2021 Summer/2024

Attachment A

Page | 29

Annual Report

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

FY2022-23

Trust Fund
Activity

Fiscal
Year
Purpose of
Expenditure
Inception
To Date

Loans/Transfers

Balance at
7/1/2022
$78,921 Amount $ -
Fees Collected 0 $ 75,000 Repayment Date
(est.)
na
Interest $1,026 $4,947
Expended 0 0
Refunded 0 0
Balance at
6/30/2023
$79,947 $79,947

June 2022 Report of City‐wide Receipts, Disbursements, and Cash Balances Cash and Investments
Beginning Balance Ending Balance
Fund Type Fund Number/Name as of May 31, 2022 Receipts Disbursements Journal Adjustments as of June 30, 2022 General Fund 100 General Fund 119,250,480 9,541,698 (4,962,941) (580,913) 123,248,325 General Fund 130 Investment Fund (1,200) ‐ ‐ ‐ (1,200) Special Revenue Funds 210 Storm Drain Improvement 2,351,326 ‐ (11,218) ‐ 2,340,108 Special Revenue Funds 215 Storm Drain AB1600 1,855,315 7,097 ‐ ‐ 1,862,412 Special Revenue Funds 230 Env Mgmt Cln Crk Strm Drain 981,529 575,866 (100,384) (103,792) 1,353,218 Special Revenue Funds 260 CDBG 526,002 ‐ (73,705) ‐ 452,297 Special Revenue Funds 261 HCD Loan Rehab 232,280 ‐ ‐ ‐ 232,280 Special Revenue Funds 265 BMR Housing 6,045,158 3,350 (52,803) (25,652) 5,970,054 Special Revenue Funds 270 Transportation Fund 12,670,077 224,692 (319,128) (204,168) 12,371,473 Special Revenue Funds 271 Traffic Impact 750,695 ‐ ‐ ‐ 750,695 Special Revenue Funds 280 Park Dedication 22,115,785 ‐ (35,249) ‐ 22,080,536 Special Revenue Funds 281 Tree Fund 138,323 ‐ ‐ ‐ 138,323 Debt Service Funds 365 Public Facilities Corp 2,284,850 ‐ ‐ (2,278,000) 6,850 Capital Project Funds 420 Capital Improvement Fund 30,275,814 110,000 (520,657) ‐ 29,865,158 Capital Project Funds 427 Stevens Creek Corridor Park 174,018 ‐ ‐ ‐ 174,018 Capital Project Funds 429 Capital Reserve* 9,546,568 ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,546,568 Enterprise Funds 520 Resource Recovery 6,208,920 217,055 (159,454) (84,641) 6,181,879 Enterprise Funds 560 Blackberry Farm 1,260,849 539 (62,849) 47,274 1,245,812 Enterprise Funds 570 Sports Center 2,326,278 ‐ (346,865) 81,553 2,060,966 Enterprise Funds 580 Recreation Program 3,454,398 11,545 (129,012) 12,741 3,349,672 Internal Service Funds 610 Innovation & Technology 1,809,088 ‐ (343,869) 736,187 2,201,406 Internal Service Funds 620 Workersʹ Compensation 3,947,638 ‐ (4,231) 73,109 4,016,516 Internal Service Funds 630 Vehicle/Equip Replacement 865,973 ‐ (185,307) 426,124 1,106,790 Internal Service Funds 641 Compensated Absence/LTD 691,266 ‐ 790 (2,238) 689,817 Internal Service Funds 642 Retiree Medical (3,732) ‐ (114,486) (3,720) (121,938) Total 229,757,697$ 10,691,842$ (7,421,366)$ (1,906,137)$ 231,122,036$ * For reporting purposes, this fund rolls up/combines with Fund 420 Printed July 20, 2022

COUNCIL POLICY

TITLE COUNCIL CONDUCT POLICY PAGE
1 of 4

POLICY NUMBER
0-28
EFFECTIVE DATE November 8, 1994 REVISED DATE November 30, 2004 APPROVED BY COUNCIL ACTION 11/08/94 Item 9(C)

PURPOSE
This Policy applies only to the Mayor and City Council members, and amends and supersedes the original City Council Policy 0-28, the Censure Policy .

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
It is the Policy of the City Council that all of its members shall abide by federal and state law , City ordinances and City policies, including the Code of Ethics. Violation of such law or policy tends to injure the good name of the City and to undermine the effectiveness of the City Council as a whole.

Depending on the circumstances of alleged violations of law or policy , the Council may initiate an investigation of the allegations prior to the filing of a request for any of the actions described in this policy .

Nothing in this policy shall preclude individual Councilmembers from making public statements regarding such alleged conduct.

Considerations
In deciding whether or not to open an investigation, Council should consider:
• whether an investigation may compromise investigations regarding the same alleged actions, and, if the actions may result in criminal charges, whether the right of the accused Councilmember to a fair jury trial may be compromised by proceeding with an investigation; • if persons involved in the allegations may choose to exercise their constitutional right against self-incrimination, which may limit the investigation's ability to present a full picture of alleged events; • how to ensure that it ensures protection of the rights of those accused of violations of law or policy , those making such accusations, and those who have information regarding the accusations.

At any point during any of the processes described in this policy , the Council may refer the matter , as appropriate, to the Santa Clara County District Attorney or to the San José Elections Commission for investigation. Following such a referral, the Council may proceed with any actions it chooses to undertake under the provisions of this policy .

While the Council has broad discretion in deciding actions it may choose to take in response to violations of law or policy , this policy provides definitions and procedures related to three types of action: admonition, sanction, and censure.

DEFINITIONS
Admonition
This is the least severe form of action. An admonition may typically be directed to all members of the City Council, reminding them that a particular type of behavior is in violation of law or City policy , and that, if it occurs City of San José, California
or is found to have occurred, could make a member subject to sanction or censure. An admonition may be issued in response to a particular alleged action or actions, although it would not necessarily have to be triggered by such allegations. An admonition may be issued by the City Council prior to any findings of fact regarding allegations, and because it is a warning or reminder , would not necessarily require an investigation or separate hearings to determine whether the allegation is true Sanction
This is the next most severe form of action. Sanction should be directed to a particular member of the City Council based on a particular action (or set of actions) that is determined to be in violation of law or City policy , but is considered by the Council to be not sufficiently serious to require censure. A sanction is distinguished from censure in that it is not a punishment. A sanction may be issued based upon Council's review and consideration of a written allegation of a policy violation. The member accused of such violation will have an opportunity to provide a written response to the allegation. A sanction may be issued by the City Council and because it is not punishment or discipline, would not necessarily require an investigation or separate hearings.

Censure
Censure is the most severe form of action contemplated in this policy . Censure is a formal statement of the City Council officially reprimanding one of its members. It is a punitive action, which serves as a penalty imposed for wrongdoing, but it carries no fine or suspension of the rights of the member as an elected official. Censure should be used for cases in which the Council determines that the violation of law or policy is a serious offense.

In order to protect the overriding principle of freedom of speech, the City Council shall not impose censure on any of its members for the exercise of his or her First Amendment rights, no matter how distasteful the expression was to the Council and the City . However , nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the City Council from collectively condemning and expressing their strong disapprobation of such remarks.

PROCEDURES
Investigation

1. Any member of the City Council may submit, in writing, an allegation concerning a violation of law or policy to the Rules Committee.

2. The Rules Committee shall determine whether to forward a recommendation to conduct an investigation to the full Council for consideration as part of the Rules Committee report agenda item at the appropriate subsequent Council meeting. Part of the determination should include allowing the Councilmember who is the subject of the allegation the opportunity to address the allegation in writing or by appearing at the Rules Committee meeting at which the allegation is discussed.

3. If the Council determines, by majority vote, that:
a. An investigation is warranted, it may designate a standing or special committee or one of its members, including the Mayor , to conduct the investigation. The Council may select an independent investigator to assist in conducting the investigation. The independent investigator would be managed by the committee or individual designated by Council to conduct the investigation. b. An investigation is not warranted, an individual Councilmember is not precluded from submitting a request for admonition, sanction, or censure in accordance with the provisions of this policy .

4. In the course of the investigation, the individual or committee designated to manage it must determine the process by which statements are taken. A witness may choose to provide a signed declaration under penalty of perjury attesting to his or her knowledge of the facts surrounding the allegations. If a witness is unwilling to submit such a declaration, the Council may issue a subpoena to compel the witness' testimony , consistent with its subpoena power granted under the City Charter .

TITLE COUNCIL CONDUCT POLICY PAGE
2 of 4

POLICY NUMBER
0-28

5. At the conclusion of the investigation, the results shall be presented in writing to the full Council. Based on the results, any individual Council member may file a request for admonition, sanction, or censure.

Admonition

1. A request for an admonition must be submitted to the Rules Committee in writing by a member of the Council. The request should contain the specific language of the proposed admonition.

2. The Rules Committee shall determine whether to forward the proposed admonition to the full Council for consideration as part of the Rules Committee report agenda item at the appropriate subsequent Council meeting.

3. An admonition can be approved by a majority vote of the Council.

Sanction

1. A request for sanction must be submitted to the Rules Committee in writing by a member of the Council.

The request should contain specific allegations of conduct in violation of federal or state law , City ordinances, and City policies, including the Code of Ethics.

2. A copy of the request for sanction shall be provided to the Council Member accused of the conduct by personal service at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the Rules Committee meeting at which it will be considered.

3. The Rules Committee shall determine that either:
a. The proposed sanction should be forwarded to the City Council for consideration as part of the Rules Committee report agenda item at the appropriate subsequent Council meeting; or b. An admonition, rather than sanction, should be recommended to the City Council for consideration; or c. No action is required.

4. This determination is subject to confirmation by the City Council as part of the Rules Committee report at the next Council meeting.

5. A sanction is based on the Council's review of the written record and of the information provided as part of the public hearing of the issue as part of the Council meeting. A sanction action must be approved by a majority vote of the Council.

Censure

1. A request for a censure hearing must be submitted to the Rules Committee in writing by a member of the Council. The request must contain the specific allegations of conduct in violation of federal or state law , City ordinances, and City policies, including the Code of Ethics, upon which the proposed censure is based.

2. A copy of the request for censure and the charges shall be served on the Council Member accused of the conduct by personal service at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the Rules Committee meeting at which it will be considered.

3. The Rules Committee shall determine that either:
a. Further investigation of the charges is required; or b. The matter is to be set for a separate public hearing; or c. The recommended level of action is admonition or sanction, rather than censure; or d. No action is required.

4. This determination is subject to confirmation by the City Council as part of the Rules Committee report at the next Council meeting.

TITLE COUNCIL CONDUCT POLICY PAGE
3 of 4

POLICY NUMBER
0-28

5. Depending on the determination of the Rules Committee and the confirmation of the City Council; a. If further investigation is required, it shall be done by an ad hoc committee appointed by the Mayor . If the Mayor is the subject of the charges, the committee shall be appointed by the Vice Mayor .

The following guidelines apply to ad hoc committee investigations:
i) The committee may be staffed by administrative and legal staff. ii) If authorized by City Council, the committee may subpoena witnesses and documents. iii) In making a determination, the committee should determine if taking all the facts and evidence into consideration, there are reasonable grounds to believe or not believe that the conduct, violation, or offense occurred.
iv) The committee shall issue a final report and recommendations to the City Council. The final report shall be made available to the public.
b. If a separate public hearing is set, it must be set far enough in advance to give the member of Council subject to the charges adequate time to prepare a defense, and that member shall be given the opportunity to make an opening and closing statement and to question his or her accusers. The member subject to the charges may be represented and may have the representative speak or question on his or her behalf. The Mayor , or Vice Mayor if the Mayor is the subject of the charges, would preside at the hearing. The rules of evidence shall not apply to the hearing, which is not a formal adversarial proceeding. The City Attorney or designee shall provide legal advice to the City Council during the hearing.

6. A decision to censure requires the adoption of a Resolution making findings with regard to the specific charges, based on substantial evidence, and approved by a two-thirds vote of the Council.

TITLE COUNCIL CONDUCT POLICY PAGE
4 of 4

POLICY NUMBER
0-28
4831-0084-6333v2
JH\27697001

ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY OF THE LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL
Adopted October 12, 2021

PURPOSE
The Los Altos City Council adopts this policy for members of the City Council to assure public confidence in the integrity of local governance, to hold itself accountable to each other and the public, and to foster trust from the public.

This policy applies only to the City of Los Altos Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Councilmembers serving on the Los Altos City Council (“Council”) for improper conduct that could result in admonition or censure.

This policy shall be effective on the date of adoption by the Council (“Effective Date”) and shall not be applied retroactively to any conduct occurring before the Effective Date.

Any disciplinary action taken by the Council under this policy shall be a final action and is not subject to an appeal or reconsideration.

POLICY
It is the policy of the Council that all its members shall abide by federal and state law, City ordinances, and City policies, including the Council Norms and Procedures (hereinafter referred to as Law or Policy). Violations of such Law or Policy tend to undermine the effectiveness of the Council as a whole and foster distrust from the public.

Depending on the circumstances of alleged violations of Law or Policy, the Council may initiate an investigation of the allegations prior to the filing of a request for any of the actions described in this policy. An investigation is not required, but any Councilmember may request and be granted an investigation of the alleged violation.

Nothing in this policy shall preclude individual Councilmembers from making public statements regarding such alleged conduct. While the Council has broad discretion in deciding certain actions it may choose to take in response to violations of Law or Policy, which would not require the Council to adopt policy, including but not limited to voting to remove a Councilmember from a Committee or Board, or a vote of no confidence in a particular Councilmember, this policy provides definitions and procedures related to two types of actions: admonition and censure.

The Council shall only admonish or censure a Councilmember pursuant to this policy if a Councilmember has violated the same Law or Policy more than two times and the

4831-0084-6333v2
JH\27697001
Councilmember has been publicly warned about such violations by another Councilmember or Councilmembers(s) and the Councilmember that received the warning continues to violate the Law or Policy.

Admonition
An admonition may be informal or formal and is typically directed to a member or members of the Council. An admonition may be issued in response to a particular alleged action or actions in violation of a Law or Policy. An informal admonition may be issued by the Council prior to any findings of fact regarding allegations, and because it is a warning or reminder, it would not require an investigation or separate hearings to determine whether the allegation is true. A formal admonition would follow a public hearing, as further described below. The Council recognizes the right to criticize is protected by the First Amendment, and may be done by an individual Councilmember, or by a Council motion and vote. A Mayor may from time to time remind Councilmembers to comply with any Law or Policy in order to conduct an orderly meeting.

Such reminders by the Mayor are not an admonition.

Censure
Censure is an official reprimand or condemnation made by Council in response to specified conduct by one of its own members. Censure is disciplinary in nature and requires the formal adoption of a resolution setting forth the Councilmember’s alleged violations of Law or Policy.

Although not required, censure could involve an investigation and it must protect the due process rights of the Councilmember being investigated. Censure carries no fine or suspension of the rights of the Councilmember as an elected official, but a censure is a punitive action for a Councilmember’s violations of Law or Policy.

PROCEDURE
Informal Admonition
An individual Councilmember can make an informal admonition at any Council meeting during the Public Presentations or Reports of Councilmembers portion of the meeting. The Councilmember making the informal admonition must first ask the Mayor to make the informal admonition and state on the record the basis for the informal admonition, including the previous two or more times that the Councilmember, who would be subject to the informal admonition, had been warned. After doing so, the Mayor must allow the Councilmember to make the informal admonition. If the Mayor would like to make an informal admonition, the Mayor is also required to state on the record the basis for the informal admonition.

Formal Admonition or Censure Public Hearing
At a public City Council Meeting, three (3) Councilmembers may request a discussion of a formal censure and/or formal admonition action be placed on a future regular meeting Council agenda. At the future meeting that the discussion is heard, a vote by three (3) or more Councilmembers is required to agendize a formal public hearing. The City Clerk shall provide a formal notice of the hearing to the Councilmember who is the subject of the action. The notice 4831-0084-6333v2
JH\27697001
shall contain the specific allegations and/or charges on which the proposed action is based and the date and time that the matter will be heard. At the hearing, the Councilmembers who requested the hearing shall have a cumulative total time of no more than 10 minutes to state the reason(s) they are requesting the formal admonition or censure, and the Councilmember who is the subject of the action shall have up to 10 minutes to respond. Upon hearing the testimony, the Council may take action setting forth its findings and stating the terms of the disciplinary action.

Disciplinary Action.

If, at the close of the hearing, a majority of the entire membership of the Council finds that the subject member’s conduct violates any Law or Policy, the Council may take one or more of the following measures:
(1) Formal Admonition. A Formal Admonition can be in the form of a motion and vote, or an adopted Resolution, and can take any or all of the following forms:
(a) The admonition is directed to one or all members of the Council, reminding them that a particular type of behavior is in violation of law or City policy; and/or

(b) Direction is given to the subject Councilmember to correct the result of the particular behavior that violated Law or Policy; and/or

(c) A reprimand is directed to the subject member of the Council based on a particular action (or set of actions) that is determined to be in violation of Law or Policy but is considered by the Council to be not sufficiently serious to require formal censure. (2) Resolution of Censure. The Council may adopt a resolution of censure that clearly sets forth the facts supporting the allegations of misconduct giving rise to the censure. A resolution of censure requires a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council. A resolution of censure may include the imposition of certain actions against the Councilmember such as removal from a committee or Board.

CC 11-7-2023
Written
Communications
Item No. 13
Adoption of Code of
Ethics and Conduct
for Elected and
Appointed Officials
From: Debbie Timmers
To: City Council
Subject: Written Communications Nov 7 CC Meeting, Item 13 Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 2:45:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Wei, Vice Mayor Mohan and fellow Councilmembers, I support the adoption of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials, which is Item 13 on the agenda tonight. While none of us enjoy having our actions pointed out, especially in a public forum, it really does help us perform better, if we buck up and are willing to change. I can attest to that in my own work experience. I know it does take courage.

The Grand Jury Report made real findings and so did independent counsel, Linda Daube, Esq.

The City Council wasn’t under scrutiny for “asking questions”—it was under scrutiny for violating its own Municipal Code. It was under scrutiny for individually directing the activities of staff outside of council meetings in contravention of our form of government. The City’s internal auditor, Moss Adams LLP, corroborated that as well.

Don’t we want to have the best-in-class local government working for its citizens efficiently and without a lot of unhelpful micro-managing? Let’s be better and improve our ways. Each of us has things to work on. Let's show true courage and begin that today.

I recommend that the Council adopt the draft resolution for the revised Ethics Code and rescinding the 2020 Ethics Policy.

Sincerely,
Debra Timmers

Page 16 of 51 ends

REPORT TITLE A HOUSE DIVIDED
internal audit risk reduction and mitigation recommendations. Recommendation 3b should be implemented by July 31, 2023.

Finding 4
A comprehensive Code of Ethics not only provides guidance and baseline standards for ethical behavior, it includes sanctions and consequences for deviations from the standard. The City’s Ethics Polic y is generic and lacks enforcement provisions and therefore fails to provide a framework to address ramifications for policy violations.

Recommendation 4a
The City should establish an independent Public Ethics Commission with guidance from experts in applied ethics, such as the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, to: (i) develop and implement a robust government ethics training program for all councilmembers; and (ii) evaluate a best practices enforceable Code of Ethics and Conduct Policy that governs all councilmembers and appointed officials for consideration by the City Council. This recommendation should be implemented by March 31, 2023.

Recommendation 4b
The City should reinstate enforcement procedures to enable the City Council and the public to file complaints and testify at public hearings to help remediate ethics violations. This revision should include a procedure for public admonishment, revocation of special privileges, or censure. This recommendation should be implemented by March 31, 2023.

Recommendation 4c
The City Council should engage a conflict resolution professional to help enhance mutual understanding and respect amongst all stakeholders. This recommendation should be implemented by January 31, 2023, and should be repeated at least once per year.

Recommendation 4d
The City should publish its current Ethics Policy on the City website by January 31, 2023.

428
CC 09-19-2023
428 of 673
CC 11-7-2023
Written
Communications
Item No. 19
Information regarding
hybrid options for
commission meetings
From: Jim Lee
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public comment for 11/7 city council meeting agenda item #19 Date: Sunday, November 5, 2023 7:54:14 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Cupertino City Council,
Please do not remove the zoom option for city commission meetings. The whole point of commissions is to increase accountability and transparency of city decisions to the public. To remove the zoom option limits public visibility. Time is a valuable commodity, and most of us, due to busy work schedules or family/caretaker commitments, cannot easily attend city meetings in person.

Moreover, please ensure all meetings continue to be recorded and posted to the public. Even if this was not a common practice pre-pandemic, times have changed, along with expectations.

Public meetings with a virtual option are basically the standard now.

I understand there is a cost to video and zoom. However, if you can find millions to spend on consulting contracts, surely you can pony up a few thousand for video/staff time?? Thanks,
Jim
From: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 7:09 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: City council meeting agenda item 19. Hybrid access to commission meetings.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,

Kindly include the below mail in written communications for the 11/7/23 city council meeting.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao

Begin forwarded message:

On Friday, November 3, 2023, 10:09 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Honorable Mayor Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan and council members,

I wish to draw your attention via the below that working groups are still running hybrid zoom meetings.

Why have residents lost access to engage with the city on commission meetings due to removal of zoom feature. Why the inequity with working group meetings vs. commission meetings. Why are working groups allowed to use zoom? Because you cannot get school kids and parents joining in- person.

If you can accommodate that for working groups we should be accommodating likewise for all commission as well as council meetings.

I request all of you to please kindly be inclusive of young Cupertino families with kids that are unable to spend hours in-person at community hall. Please commit to the cause of stakeholder engagement and equity of all stakeholders.

I appeal to you to make a decision at the 11/07 council meeting in itself to immediately bring back the zoom feature for all commission meetings. I realize city staff wants to present information which means we wait another set of weeks before we get to a decision.

Please kindly direct city manager and staff on 11/07 to immediately restore zoom feature for all commission meetings and maintain the same for council meetings.

Thank you for your consideration of all your stakeholders and city residents.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao

Begin forwarded message:

On Friday, November 3, 2023, 10:01 AM, City of Cupertino <[email protected]> wrote:

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.

November 2023

Cupertino Safe Routes to School Working
Group: Hybrid Meeting
Wednesday, November 8 at 4 p.m.

Cupertino Safe Routes to School's monthly Working Group meeting is next Wednesday and will be hybrid. Join us in person (there will be snacks!) or online.

To join in person (which we highly encourage), come to City Hall, downstairs:
10300 Torre Avenue, Conference Room C
To join online, register for a Zoom link at our website below.

You will find the agenda at the website below, too.

Website: SR2S Working Group
Contact: [email protected] (408)777-7609
Cupertino Safe Routes to School's mission is to create a safer environment for students and families in Cupertino to travel to and from school actively. Safe Routes to School Working Group meetings bring together the program's partners to discuss how to accomplish this mission and expand the program. Partners include Cupertino Union School District, Fremont Union High School District, all public schools in Cupertino, parents in the community, high school student representatives from each high school, and community groups. Members of the public are welcome to attend these meetings.

cupertino.org

City of Cupertino, California
Website | 408.777.3200
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202

Manage Preferences | Help

This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California · 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3202

From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Matt Morley
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-11-07 City Council Mtg-AGENDA ITEM19-Request save 30-day audio recordings Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 11:12:12 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear City Council,

I understand the need for cost cutting measures, although it appears that the impacts are primarily on the public.

The city currently records the audio for every meeting covered under the Brown Act to help staff write up the minutes. These audio recordings are kept for 30 days then deleted.

REQUEST: Since the audio recording of the meetings are already being done and will continue, rather than deleting them after 30 days, I am requesting that the city save these 30-day recordings and post them under the associated meeting date.

This request would be a very minimal change and improve transparency. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

Reference: ITEM19-Informational Memorandum.pdf, page 1, last paragraph

From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: Santosh Rao
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: RE: City council meeting agenda item 19. Hybrid access to commission meetings.

Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 11:11:10 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
image014.png
image015.png
image016.png
image017.png
image018.png
image019.png
Good morning Santosh (Council Bcc’d), your comments have been received for the November 7 City Council meeting and will be included with the written communications for agenda item #19.

Regards, Kirsten

Kirsten Squarcia
City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225

From: Santosh Rao <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 7:09 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: City council meeting agenda item 19. Hybrid access to commission meetings.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear City Clerk,

Kindly include the below mail in written communications for the 11/7/23 city council meeting.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao

Begin forwarded message:

On Friday, November 3, 2023, 10:09 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Honorable Mayor Wei, Vice-Mayor Mohan and council members,

I wish to draw your attention via the below that working groups are still running hybrid zoom meetings.

If you can accommodate that for working groups we should be accommodating likewise for all commission as well as council meetings.

Please kindly direct city manager and staff on 11/07 to immediately restore zoom feature for all commission meetings and maintain the same for council meetings.

Thank you for your consideration of all your stakeholders and city residents.

Thanks,
Santosh Rao

Begin forwarded message:

On Friday, November 3, 2023, 10:01 AM, City of Cupertino <[email protected]
> wrote:

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.

November 2023
Cupertino Safe Routes to School Working
Group: Hybrid Meeting
Wednesday, November 8 at 4 p.m.

Cupertino Safe Routes to School's monthly Working Group meeting is next Wednesday and will be hybrid. Join us in person (there will be snacks!) or online.

To join in person (which we highly encourage), come to City Hall, downstairs:
10300 Torre Avenue, Conference Room C
To join online, register for a Zoom link at our website below.

You will find the agenda at the website below, too.

cupertino.org

City of Cupertino, California
Website | 408.777.3200
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Manage Preferences | Help
This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud, on behalf of: City of Cupertino, California · 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3202

From: Lisa Warren
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Public Comment for CC Nov 7, 2023 meeting agenda ITEM 19 Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 10:44:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mayor and City Council Members,
Please help me to understand what the purpose of Informational Item #19 is, and what it is meant to ‘do’, if anything. Subject: Information regarding hybrid options for commission meetings Recommended Action: Receive the information regarding hybrid options for commission meetings
The information consists of two documents – one created in February of 2023, the other created in March of 2023. There is no current document that might help inform the purpose of the ‘item’. 3 documents are attached here.

Based on a public communication, some are feeling that the goal is to remove the ability for the public to attend city meetings (commission meetings and others?) via Zoom. If that is the case, why is that not specifically indicated, and why would that not be a public hearing item? I admit to being increasingly concerned about the minimizing of public input being a goal of Staff/Council Majority.

In reading the attachments, I also wonder whether the recent decision that the Vice Mayor attend a meeting remotely was supported by these rules... not sure.

As I understand things, the new structure of your meetings does away with Public Hearings, and casually states things as ‘information’ and potentially creates or dictates changes without public discussion. If I am correct, then I question the legality of this approach and find it troublesome that neither the Council nor the public are allowed to discuss ‘the item’.

n
Lisa Warren
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Matt Morley
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-11-07 City Council Mtg-AGENDA ITEM19-Offering Hybrid Options to meetings Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 1:09:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear City Council,

This whole topic should be DISCUSSED openly in a City Council meeting where the Council and the public can provide input rather than burying it in an Informational Memo. The expectation these days is that meetings have a hybrid option.

There are several high-visibility commissions that at a minimum should provide the hybrid option to the public such as:

Planning Commission
Parks and Rec Commission
Bike-Ped Commission

These are actual commissions yet the city continues to provide the hybrid option for the Safe Routes to School meetings which is not an actual commission yet you can’t manage to do it for the few remaining commissions we have!

This informational memo had no data. Just general statements.

Q1: How much does it cost to provide/support a hybrid meeting per hour? Q2: What facilities are required to do so and which rooms are equipped with these requirements? Q3: How many people were attending during the pandemic? Are there counts or was just one meeting in the summer used as the benchmark?

REQUEST
I just sent a minimal request to save the 30-day audio recordings and post them for public access rather than deleting them. This would be the ABSOLUTE MINIMAL REQUIRED BUT I believe that the MINIMUM/compromise should be a hybrid option for the above 3 commissions (Planning, Parks and Rec and Bike-Ped) which have direct impacts on our community on a day-to-day basis plus saving the audio recordings!

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

Cupertino City CouncilNovember 7, 2023

Cupertino City Council
November 7, 2023