Written Communications (Updated 1-17-2024) — Cupertino City Council, January 17, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

• Bring back a proposal for consideration, consider removing fee waiver & cost for two Chamber events.
• Consider reducing the funding for Cupertino Historic Society to the previous level of $20,000.

Moore seconded Chao’s substitute motion but with friendly amendments to:
• Look i
nto renegotiating the CUSD field use agreements.
• Add $30,000 to support commitment to 2024 Shakespeare in the Park, provided there is a commitment for fundraising for next year so the funding level is expected to be lower.
• $5000 for teen mental health program - to be referred to Teen Commission to come up with a replacement of Bobateeno.
• C
ontinue facility fee waivers for festivals but separate the “cost” for the city (Sheriff, part time staffing) and cap the total amount for each organization to be more equitable and inclusive. Set the cap to be 2x the cu rrent average “cost”, not including facility fee waivers per organization.
• Keep the reduction of $34,492 sheriff fee for all festivals + keep the reduction in item i (for staffing) to hold on to it. Make adjustments in Q1 if necessary. • Bring back a propos al for consideration, consider removing fee waiver & cost for two Chamber events.
• Remove fee waivers & sheriffs support for Holi and Diwali festivals (which are fundraisers), hosted by Chamber, but continue to support all other festivals, since the Chamber already receives $52,000/year grant. To be equitable to all organizations.
• Consider reducing the funding for Cupertino Historic Society to the previous level of $20,000.
(Chao accepted Moore’s friendly amendments). Chao’s a mended substitute motion failed with Moore and Chao voting yes.

Final Motion:

Wei moved and Mohan seconded as amended to:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 23 -068 establishing an Operating Budget of $117,645,365 for FY 2023- 24, which includes the following changes to the FY 2023 -24 Proposed Budget, published on May 5, 2023:
a. Approve the operating budget of $117,762,980 outlined in the FY 2023- 24 Proposed Budget.
b. Approve additional appropriations of $8,000 for the Community Funding Grant Program as included in Attachment D.
c. Approve additional appropriations of $8,380 for Movies in the Park as included in Attachment D.
d. Approve additional appropriations of $28,784 for the reclassification of the Emergency Services Coordinator as included in Attachment D.

City Council Minutes June 6, 2023

Page 11 ends

e. Approve additional appropriations of $4,720 and additional revenue of $175 for County of Santa Clara Environmental Health Permit Fees as included in Attachment D.
f. Approve additional appropriations of $146,650 for Golf Course Turf Management as included in Attachment D.
g. Approve a reduction of $154,149 in appropriations resulting from the prepayment of the CalPERS pension plan’s Unfunded Accrued Liability as included in Attachment D.
h. A
pprove a reduction of $160,000 in appropriations resulting from the elimination of library extra hours funding as included in Attachment D. i. A pprove additional estimated revenue of $84,218 resulting from the elimination of festival fee waivers as included in Attachment D. j. Approve additional revenue of $313,218 resulting from an updated SB 1 (Gas Tax) revenue estimate as included in Attachment D.
k. Approve Community Funding Grants for the following organizations, allocating a total of $32,500:
i. Cupertino Symphonic Band: $4,000
ii. No Time to Waste: $5,000
iii. West Valley Community Services: $10,000
iv. STEMBoost Corporation: $4,000
v. AINAK: $2,500
vi. Omniware Networks: $4,000
vii. Asian American Parents Association: $3,000
l. A
pprove additional funding of $30,000 for Shakespeare in the Park. m. Approve additional funding of $36,492 for Sheriff’s services at festivals; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 23-069 establishing a Capital Improvement Program Budget of $4,054,000 for FY 2023-24
a. Approve appropriations of $420,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the Stevens Creek Blvd./Calabazas Cr eek Storm Drain Repair (infrastructure)
b. Approve appropriations of $172,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the Stevens Creek Bridge Repair (infrastructure) c. Approve appropriations of $35,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Ca pital Projects Fund for the Street Light Installation - Annual Infill (infrastructure) d. Approve appropriations of $300,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the Annual Playground Replacement (parks) e. Approve appropriations of $100,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the ADA Improvements (facilities)
f. Approve appropriations of $1,000,000 in the Capital Improvement Program Capital Projects Fund for the Citywide Building Condition Assessment Implementation (facilities)
City Council Minutes June 6, 2023

Page 12 ends

g. Approve $2,027,000 of transfers from the Capital Reserve Capital Projects Fund to fund the Capital Improvement Program; and

3. Adopt Resolution No. 23-070 establishing an Appropriation Limit of $127,886,394 for FY 2023-24.

Wei’s amended motion carried with Moore and Chao voting no.

Wei moved and Fruen seconded to extend the meeting another 30 minutes to hear I tem 5 Quartic Solutions agreement. The motion carried unanimously.

Council recessed from 11:00 p.m. to 11:05 p.m.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

The following items were pulled from the Consent Calendar and placed after the Action Calendar for discussion.

5. Subject: Consider authorizing the City Manager to execute a Third Amendment to Professional Services agreement with Quartic Solutions, LLC., for software updates and technical support services, increasing the current contract amount by $184,800 over the next three years, for a total contract amount of $354,800 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Third Amendment to Professional Services agreement with Quartic Solutions, LLC., for software updates and technical support services, increasing the current contract amount by $184,800 over the next three years, for a total contract amount of $354,800

Written communications for this item included an email to Council.

This item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.

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

Councilmembers asked questions and made comments.

Wei moved and Mohan seconded to a uthorize the City Manager to execute a Third Amendment to Professional Services agreement with Quartic Solutions, LLC., for software updates and technical support services, increasing the current contract amount by $184,800 over the next three years, for a total contract amount of $354,800.

The motion carried with Moore voting no.

City Manager Pamela Wu shared a video showing photos of the recent events for Medical From: Kitty Moore
To: Pamela Wu; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk
Subject: Written Communications and Staff Questions for 1/17 City Council Meeting Item 1 Budget SLR Date: Sunday, January 14, 2024 3:40:45 PM
Attachments: Pages from FY_2023-24_Adopted_Budget2-2.pdf Dear City Clerk and City Manager,

Please include the following questions and attachment for written communications and for staff questions for Budget SLR Item 1:

See p. 2 of 3, “Shift School District Ground Maintenance to School District” shows a fiscal impact of $737,394 while the Budget Actuals for School Site Maintenance Budget Unit 100-84-812 have been over $1M (see FY 23-24 Budget p. 518, attached).

The current budgeted amount for School Site Maintenance is $1,237,763, considering the actuals have been very close to this number, will staff please consider adjusting the savings to match the Budget?

The budgeted revenue on p. 516 is $145,823, while the estimated revenue is shown in the SLR Summary table as approximately $57k, which is likely what the adjusted fees have resulted in. What was the impact of the field use fee calculation adjustments the City Council approved a couple of years ago?

Thank you,

Kitty Moore

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

School Site Maintenance
Budget Unit 100-84-812
General Fund - Grounds - School Site Maintenance
Budget at a Glance
2024 Adopted Budget
Total Revenues
$ 145,823
Total Expenditures
$ 1,383,586
Fund Balance
$
-
General Fund Costs
$ 1,237,763
% Funded by General Fund

89.5%
Total Staffing

4.2 FTE
Program Overview
Under a joint use agreement with Cupertino Union School District, nine athletic ﬁelds and landscape areas, constituting approximately 52 acres, are managed by the Grounds Division of the Public Works Department.

These sites include Hyde and Kennedy Middle Schools, Collins, Eaton, Lincoln, Regnart, Faria, Stevens Creek and Garden Gate Elementary Schools.

Service Objectives
The main objective of the Grounds Division is to provide the residents of Cupertino with the cleanest and safest recreational areas/athletic fields in the Bay Area.

Provide daily general clean up, trash removal, graﬃti removal, irrigation adjustments and repairs and other maintenance.

Provide weekly maintenance that may include mowing and edging of turf areas and other maintenance.

Provide quarterly maintenance that may include fertilization, aerating, over-seeding, top dressing, and pruning of trees and shrubs.

Provide semi-annual maintenance that may include replacement of planting material, pre-emergent applications and preparing athletic fields for seasonal use.

Maintain school sites for recreational activities including soccer, baseball, cricket, track and ﬁeld, soOball and a variety of other sports.

Reduce water consumption wherever practicable.

Utilize weekend work furlough program as needed to assist in weekend and weekday cleanup.

Provide logistical support to the Park and Recreation Department for all the City’s special events.

Adopted Budget
On June 6, 2023, City Council approved a budget of $1,383,586 for the School Site Maintenance program. This represents a decrease of $246,432 (-15.1%) from the FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget.

There is an increase in employee compensation and beneﬁts, which reﬂect the cost-of-living adjustments approved by the City Council in August 2022.

FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Public Works
516
The table below illustrates the reductions made to the original FY 2023-24 Budget. This budget was developed by taking the previous year's base budget and incorporating additional ongoing costs, while also adjusting material and contract expenses based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), where applicable.

Description
FY 2023-24 Original
Budget
FY 2023-24 Adopted
Budget
Reduction

Service Impact
Materials
$331,276
$304,115
$27,161
Reduced budget for office and
general supplies, meeting, conference
and training, memberships, safety
equipment not covered under the
MOU, small tools and equipment,
printing and advertising.

Contract
Services
$52,137
$26,302
$25,835
Pest abatement contract service has
been eliminated resulting in
increased pests and delayed control.

Tree maintenance contract services
have been reduced resulting in
deferred trimming/upkeep.

The following project/s have been identiﬁed as unfunded needs, which refer to priority projects that lack sufficient funding to be implemented at this time.

Service
Description
Estimated
Cost
Funding Status

Grounds
School Site
Maintenance
Garden Gate Elementary
School City Access Gate
Relocation
$25,000
Unfunded: Deferred maintenance may negatively
impact health of adjacent oak tree and will limit
access of service vehicles
Grounds
School Site
Maintenance
Faria Elementary School
Baseball Field Dugout Roof
Replacements
$25,000
Unfunded: Deferred building maintenance will
result in deterioration of building assets
Special Projects
The following table shows the special projects for the fiscal year.

Special Projects
Appropriation
Revenue
Funding Source
Description
Grounds School Site
Maintenance
$20,000
$20,000
General Fund
Kennedy Middle
School Baseball Field
Dugout Roof
Replacement

Revenues and Expenditures
FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Public Works
517
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
$ 141,505
$ 145,823
$ 144,000
$ 145,823
Total Revenues
$ 141,505
$ 145,823
$ 144,000
$ 145,823
Expenditures
Employee Compensation
$ 309,602
$ 349,033
$ 364,719
$ 405,493
Employee Benefits
$ 177,360
$ 205,892
$ 226,260
$ 228,901
Materials
$ 353,253
$ 331,997
$ 602,397
$ 304,115
Contract Services
$ 34,081
$ 14,587
$ 30,413
$ 26,302
Cost Allocation
$ 346,606
$ 421,419
$ 390,409
$ 394,645
Special Projects
$ 33,787
$ 28,970
$
-
$ 20,000
Contingencies
$
-
$
-
$ 15,820
$ 4,130
Total Expenditures
$ 1,254,689
$ 1,351,898
$ 1,630,018
$ 1,383,586
Fund Balance
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
General Fund Costs
$ 1,113,184
$ 1,206,075
$ 1,486,018
$ 1,237,763
Staffing
The following table lists full-time equivalents (FTE) by position. 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.

Position Title
2021 Actual
2022 Actual
2023 Adopted Budget
2024 Adopted Budget

MAINTENANCE WORKER I/II

3.40 3.40

MAINTENANCE WORKER III

0.60 0.60

PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR

0.20 0.20

0.20 0.20
Total

4.20 4.20

4.20 4.20
There are no changes to the current level of staffing.

FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
Public Works
518
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: City Council Study Session Item Number 5, 1/17/24 City Council Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 1:56:40 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.

FYI. Please include these comments in the Public Record for the Study Session, Item 5 for the City Council meeting on 1/17/24. Thank you. -------- Original Message --------
Subject: City Council Study Session Number 5, 1/17/24
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024, 1:53 PM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:

1. If Cupertino is trying to deal with Budget problems, please consider asking HCD and The state to reimburse Cupertino for the millions of dollars it has spent trying to get HCD to certify its Housing Element. Is this money coming from the General Fund?

2. Please have Cupertino ask the state for reconsideration of the Apple Tax Revenue.

It looks like the state is picking on Cupertino and Apple for some reason. I think it is Because the state has tried to make Cupertino a target for some reason and the state is Also picking on Apple.

3. Please do not stop maintaining the sidewalks. This is not a good plan. Many years ago it Was proposed The City stop maintaining the sidewalks to pay for the library to stay open.

When the city stops maintaining its sidewalks there goes the city. The City will stop Paving its roads and the city will go downhill.

4. Please start having more study sessions if the city is going to do things like stop Paving its roads and taking care of its sidewalks. The public needs to know what is Happening.

5. Consider breaking up long marathon City Council meetings like the one Will be into two meetings. It is more efficient moneywise. All the Planning Commission Meetings are cancelled most of the time as well as other City Council meetings So all the city business is lumped into one marathon City Council meeting.

6. Please consider bringing back the Design Review Committee and the Environmental Review
Committee because it seems like the state is going to persecute Cupertino further with Hundreds of Builders Remedy projects. HCD said Cupertino had to get rid of these two committees
And now we know why. Builders Remedy does not care about Environmental Review or Architectural Design. People will take advantage of Cupertino and try to circumvent good Building design and environmental concerns.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Tracy Kosolcharoen
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment - 01/17 Meeting Agenda Item #5
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 11:48:29 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 & Staff,
As you evaluate Cupertino's budget, please kindly consider the following:

1. If Cupertino is cutting so many city services, shouldn't its headcount decrease accordingly? The exact dollar savings from proposed headcount reductions is unclear because some of line items commingle staff cuts with other costs (like recruitment advertising).

Regardless, the amount appears to be less than $630K. If Cupertino is in such dire need of revenue that it is not only contemplating burdening taxpayers with more taxes but also cutting millions in services, shouldn't it be considering more than a few hundred thousand in staff cuts?

2. If a service is cut, why would the reduction in associated staff be gradual via attrition, rather than immediate? What if a service is cut, but the associated staff never attrites or takes decades to do so? Are Cupertino taxpayers funding headcounts that are not performing any services?

3. Putting sidewalk maintenance back on the residents means our sidewalks will deteriorate. Many residents will not want to pay for it or spend the time to hire for and oversee sidewalk maintenance. Doesn't Cupertino pride itself on its well-kept streets? What other cities are we comparing ourselves to that don't fund sidewalk maintenance? I would exclude cities that don't have a large number of sidewalks to begin with/are mostly in the hillsides from this comparison.

4. Why is Cupertino's unassigned fund balance $48M or 45% of its ending fund balance? That is a very large ratio compared to neighboring cities. Some of this budget should be freed up rather than carried over year over year, for some purpose unclear to residents.

Thanks,
Tracy
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: City Council Study Session Item Number 5, 1/17/24 City Council Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 1:56:40 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.

2. Please have Cupertino ask the state for reconsideration of the Apple Tax Revenue.

It looks like the state is picking on Cupertino and Apple for some reason. I think it is Because the state has tried to make Cupertino a target for some reason and the state is Also picking on Apple.

3. Please do not stop maintaining the sidewalks. This is not a good plan. Many years ago it Was proposed The City stop maintaining the sidewalks to pay for the library to stay open.

When the city stops maintaining its sidewalks there goes the city. The City will stop Paving its roads and the city will go downhill.

4. Please start having more study sessions if the city is going to do things like stop Paving its roads and taking care of its sidewalks. The public needs to know what is Happening.

Thank you.

Dear Cupertino City Council & Staff,
As you evaluate Cupertino's budget, please kindly consider the following:

Thanks,
Tracy
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-01-17 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 1 - Potential Service-Level Reductions KEEP CROSSING GUARDS Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 3:50:05 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 THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE AGENDA ITEM.

Dear Mayor Mohan, City Council Members and Staff,

Please do not eliminate/reduce the school crossing guards. They safe lives and help both pedestrians, cyclists and motorists get through critical school intersections safely. In addition, the city is focusing on Vision Zero which involves no lives lost!

There are other portions of the Safe Routes to School program that can be cut that do not have a direct impact on lives saved such as:

Frequency of the meetings
Newsletters
Combine bike fests with Earth Day and get a non-profit to fund/sponsor this.

These are just some ideas. Keep all the crossing guards, please.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 1/17/2024 City Council Agenda Item #1, Service Level Reductions Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 3:40:50 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,

There are a number of items in this mash-up list that should have already been considered years ago and I’m confident that there are others missing. I am saddened to see that many items on the chopping block relate to resident quality of life.

I think that the City needs to maintain sidewalks and street trees – this is a public safety issue.

Also, when you look at the costs for the Golf Course, please consider that some of those costs are not directly related to the golf course. For example, studies to turn the golf course into something else have been charged to the golf course fund. Also, there is a new fence on the golf course to protect pedestrians on the trail – that should go under the trail expense, not golf (I don’t know whether it did).

Please also make sure that dangerous trees are removed timely. There is a very dead one near the volleyball courts at Blackberry Farm.

We need to invest $70K in the internal audit projects. These are INVESTMENTS, not COSTS. We do need to stop doing studies for projects that we know won’t be built.

Please check the agreements made for the park rangers at blackberry farm. The area is isolated and having rangers contributes to public safety.

The pre-school program is already making money for the City. While reduce part-time staff for the preschool program and reduce its quality?

Charging extra for credit cards is a good idea as long as it does not cost the city to handle a lot more paper checks and put in a system (if it doesn’t have one already) for online bank transfers.

Reducing the scene to quarterly is a good idea. Maybe it could remain monthly online and then print quarterly by mail. Also provide residents to opt out of receiving paper and receive it via email.

City should pay for staff to get educated if it makes them better at their jobs. That is an investment.

Why hasn’t the sheriff budget been re-aligned in past budgets. Being off by $1M is significant. Why hasn’t this come up during the budgeting process?

Please explain the consolidation of the Learn to Swim Program. Keep in mind that running short- duration programs at the Blackberry Farm creates a public safety hazard. Historically, the driveway was essentially one way in at the beginning of the day and one way out at the end of the day. I have seen motorists rushing in there to get there on time and it could create a public safety problem.

I am disappointed by how the numbers are being presented in the staff report. 73% decline - $30M decrease. Compared with what? During the COVID years, the City received a huge bump in sales- tax income thanks to all California sales-tax collected from online Apple sales being directed to Cupertino. Cupertino, in turn rebates 35% of the tax collected to Apple. The State wants this lucrative deal to come to an end. And by the way, if have truly been looking at a 73% on Apple sales-tax money, that should have been revealed in the ACFR, the City’s annual report. The ACFR does mention that around a quarter (from my memory) of property-tax revenue comes from Apple.

And it is possible that Apple also leases building, so Apple’s contribution to our property taxes could even be higher.

So first, let’s look at the facts. Pre-COVID, Cupertino’s net sales-tax revenue as reported (or should have been reported) in the ACFR, was $26.65M in FY 2019/20 and $24.90M in FY 2018/19. We’ve heard various numbers thrown about for net sales-tax income dipping to about $9.4 or $11M. So really we’re looking at closer to a 60% or so decline. Below is a table for your reference. I’d also like the City to go back and reconcile the sales-tax income numbers for 2019/2020 as there is a significant discrepancy between what was reported during the City’s refinance of debt and the ACFR (see below).

YEAR
CDTFA 1%
Sales-Tax
Revenue (a)
ACFR
Reported
Sales-Tax(b)
CDTFA
minus ACFR
should equal
rebate(c)
Rebate
Payment to
BAZ(d)
(Apple)
Rebate
Payment to
Insight(e)
Rebate
Payments to
BAZ +
Insight(f)
22/23 $41,252,088 TBD TBD
21/22 $57,475,110 $43,647,000 $13,828,110 $13,105,289 $578,427 $13,683,716 20/21 $58,225,876 $42,581,000 $16,355,876 $13,280,388 $988,340 $14,268,728 19/20 $35,468,863 $35,657,214 -$188,137 $8,247,674 $922,677 $9,170,351 18/19 $31,799,696 $24,902,000 $6,897,917 $5,697,816 $1,024,262 $6,722,078 a. This column shows the sales-tax revenue paid from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to Cupertino. The data comes from the State of California.

Numbers have been rounded to the nearest dollar.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=MonthlyLocalAllocationCities b. This column shows Cupertino’s sales-tax revenue as reported in its ACFR. This column should be the same as the first column but the amounts are much smaller. This is explained in the ACFR that buries the statement, “Sales tax consultant payments which are contingent on revenues collected are netted against the related revenues.” See https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/finance/budget-reports c. This is the difference between the two first columns and equals the “sales tax consulting payments.” The ACFR makes no mention that these are actually sales-tax rebates to two corporations. This should be approximately what was paid to Apple and Insight. d. BAZ is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple that receives the rebate money from Cupertino.

This data was compiled through the City’s accounts payable data. e. Insight is the other company that Cupertino shares sales-tax with. This data was compiled through the City’s accounts payable data.
f. This is the sum of the previous two columns and should add up to column (c) NOTE 1 – For 2019/2020 the ACFR shows $35,657,214 sales-tax income. This looks like the gross tax even though the ACFR states it is the net tax. The Certificate of Participation Official Statement states the unaudited result of $26,651,250, which is appears to be more accurate. That would indicate a sales-tax rebate of about $9M which is confirmed by the “Payments to Baz + Insight” data.

NOTE 2 – there is a discrepancy between the ACFRs. The 2022 report listed the sales-tax income as $41,870,000 for 2021. However, the 2021 reported the sales-tax income as $42,581,000.

Further not quite showing how things really are is the “elimination” of 14 vacant positions. This has happened when budgeted headcount is at an all-time high (in spite of a declining population).

Reading further, I am worried about defunding the weed-abatement subsidy. If a resident is unable to care for weeds and poses a fire hazard, what will happen?

With respect to field use – we need to get the whole picture. If the city charges more for the fields used at schools, then maybe we should continue doing the maintenance. Can we please get the whole picture before to decide to turn it over to the schools? I just wonder whether our parks and rec uses any school fields and that if we turn over maintenance to the schools whether the fees to residents might go up. Also, we maintain our own parks as well – will the per-unit cost go up if we are maintaining fewer fields overall?

There was a mash-up of items listed and it makes it very confusing. We know that there has been an excess in the Library funding for years that was covered by the county. It was essentially a duplicate entry from the city. This is not a service-level issue.

I had heard that Earth Day actually makes money for the City? Why cut it?

Councilmember Moore asked about removing AI from McClellan. If it can’t be removed, can it be reduced?

Councilmember Moore asked about transparency for Blackberry Farm and the Sports Center and Councilmember Chao asked for the Senior Center. What I see is the golf course but not the pool / picnics. Can you please provide a report on pool/picnics?

Thanks,
Rhoda
CC 1-17-2024
Item No. 4
Resolution establishing the
City Council meeting
schedule through
January 22, 2025
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2023-01-17 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 4 City Council Schedule for 2024 Date: Sunday, January 14, 2024 8:08:46 PM
Attachments: 2023 Dec-Jan.pdf
2024 Dec-Jan.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 THE ATTACHMENT AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE AGENDA ITEM.

Dear Mayor Mohan and City Council Members,

REQUEST: When a regularly scheduled City Council meeting is cancelled and re-scheduled as a special meeting, please make sure

1. It starts at 6:45 pm on the alternate day.

2. That it be conducted as if it were a regular meeting.

3. Do not cancel the second City Council meeting in December (Dec. 17 th, 2024) or in any
month, if it comes up in future discussions.

This past year has been one of the least productive City Council years that I can remember due to an enormous number of cancelled meetings then cramming the cancelled items into a future, already packed agenda thus limiting discussion and public comments.

Attached is the calendar months for
2023 Dec-Jan and
2024 Dec-Jan.

For Dec 2023-Jan 2024, I highlighted all the cancelled meetings (YELLOW) in Dec 2023-Jan 2024. You can see that due to the City Council meeting cancellations (YELLOW), it is over 6 weeks between regular City Council meetings! The cancellation of the second Council meeting of any month results in the Treasurer’s Reports AND Accounts Payables being late and in direct violation of City and State law. It also results in packed agendas when the Council finally meets.

For Dec 2024-Jan 2025
, I highlighted the Jan 7 City Council meeting that is proposed to be cancelled and the Dec. 17th meeting that SHOULD NOT be cancelled. I realize that right now cancelling the Dec. 17th meeting is not proposed which is wonderful. I am writing to encourage you to NOT let that meeting (Dec. 17th) be cancelled in the future.

Happy New Year!

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin

CANCELLED MEETINGS ARE IN YELLOW

ElecƟon of Mayor, Vice Mayor
CC 1-17-2024
Item No. 5
Appointment of 2024
Council Committee
Assignments
Written Communications
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: City Council Study Session Item Number 5, 1/17/24 City Council Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 1:56:40 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.

2. Please have Cupertino ask the state for reconsideration of the Apple Tax Revenue.

It looks like the state is picking on Cupertino and Apple for some reason. I think it is Because the state has tried to make Cupertino a target for some reason and the state is Also picking on Apple.

3. Please do not stop maintaining the sidewalks. This is not a good plan. Many years ago it Was proposed The City stop maintaining the sidewalks to pay for the library to stay open.

When the city stops maintaining its sidewalks there goes the city. The City will stop Paving its roads and the city will go downhill.

4. Please start having more study sessions if the city is going to do things like stop Paving its roads and taking care of its sidewalks. The public needs to know what is Happening.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
CC 1-17-2024
Item No. 8
Award Blackberry Farms
Accessibility
Improvements Project to
Selway Construction
Written Communications
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 1/17/2024 Cupertino City Council Agenda Item #8 Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 3:02:47 PM
Attachments: img374.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.
1/17/2024 Cupertino City Council Agenda Item #8
Can you explain why staff is requesting approval of a contract modification #4, when the contract has already started?
Please refer to the attached.

Given the budget constraints, had there been any consideration to renovating only one pool rather than both at this time?
Thanks,
Rhoda Fry
ADAMS
+T»pooLSOLUTIONS
January 12, 2024
Subject: Blackberry Farms -Recreation & Slide Pool Renovation -One Week Notice

NOTICE TO RESIDENTS/BUSINESS OWNERS
This notice is to inform you that the City of Cupertino, Department of Public Works, has contracted with Adams Pool Solutions to renovate the recreation and slide pools located at 21975 San Fernando Ave, from San Fernando Ave to Stevens Creek Trail.

The pool renovation will mainly occur on weekdays -Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 AM AND 4 PM and is scheduled to start approximately 5 days from the date of this notice and will continue from 1/17/24 through 3/18/24. Please be aware that there may be construction activities that cause traffic delays. Traffic impacts will be limited to San Fernando Ave and Blackberry Farm parking area.

Adams Pool Solutions will make every effort to maintain normal traffic access and minimize disruption in your neighborhood. Access to driveways will be maintained at ALL times during construction.

Adams Pool Solutions and the City of Cupertino, Department of Public Works, apologize for any inconvenience due to these activities.

If yQu have any questions or need assistance as these activities progress, please call the number(s) listed below:

ADAMS POOL SOLUTIONS
Greg Adams
Project Manager
(925) 580-4581 (24-hour number)
CITY OF CuPERTINO

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
City Office -(408) 777-3354
Thank you for your patience and cooperation.

Adams Pool Solutions
3675 Old santa RitaRoad Pleasanton, Califomia94588 (800) 675-0665 Fax (925) 734-0417

CC 1-17-2024
Item No. 11
Application for seven-unit
townhome development and
environmental review - 10046
Bianchi Way
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Luke Connolly; [email protected]
Subject: 2024-01-17 City Council Mtg, Agenda Item 11 - Bianchi Way Project Date: Thursday, January 11, 2024 10:12:37 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 THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE MEETING AGENDA ITEM.

Dear Mayor Mohan and City Council Members,
I want to encourage you to please go visit Bianchi Way and the area where this project will be constructed. Go at several different times a day to see the issues the current disabled residents face on a day-to-day basis. Please make time to do this.

Please contact and speak (in person preferably) to the disabled resident (man) who came to the Planning Commission meeting and spoke on behalf of all the disabled residents. Their addresses are on the Public Comments attachment.

All these housing bills were meant to help people who can’t afford housing but at what cost when it impacts some of the very people it is supposed to protect?
Also, when you go to the site area, look at the sidewalk, the street parking, how it is used. -Can the sidewalk be required to be double wide?
-Can it be re-done to fix the issues?
-Can the street parking be permit-only for the disabled residents only? Seems reasonable since the developer of this project doesn’t see a need to provide visitor parking at all! They must not need it.

You have the power to make a difference. Please do so on behalf of these disabled residents. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
P.S. QUESTIONS:
1-Can you require a detailed financial statement from the applicant showing the cost and the profit between a regular project and their density-bonused project?
2-If it has been done, can it please be included in the materials? 3-If it has not, can it be requested as part of this review? 4-Why was it not considered under CEQA since this project has a direct impact on the disabled residents adjacent to the project?
From: Connie Cunningham
To: Pamela Wu; City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 11. Seven-unit townhome application Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 11:03:26 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 Mayor Mohan, Vice Mayor Fruen, Councilmembers, and Manager Wu:

My name is Connie Cunningham, Housing Commissioner but speaking for myself only. I am, also, an Audubon member, speaking for myself only. I am a 37-year resident of Cupertino.

I am pleased to see a housing project along Stevens Creek Blvd being considered for Cupertino. I have two concerns:
1) It would be useful for the Staff Report to clarify what is “moderate” income and what is “median” income, as they are both used in the Staff Report, but it is not clear what income level is actually being implemented, nor how the affordable unit will be restricted to lower income applicants.
2) It would be important for the report to address Cupertino's Bird Safe and Dark Skies Ordinances,
*Excerpt from page 1 of staff report:

Under SB 330, a housing development project is generally subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application was submitted. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(o).) SB 330 allows applicants to submit their project application within 180 days of their preliminary application. In this case, the applicant submitted both on the same day. *Bird Safe and Dark Skies Ordinances were adopted in 2021.

Excerpt from page 1 of staff report:
*On January 30, 2023, the applicant, Top Mission Realty & Investment, Inc., submitted both a preliminary application under Senate Bill (SB) 3301 and a project application Please ask that the Staff Report confirm that the Bird Safe and Dark Skies ordinances have been addressed and will be included in this housing project since they were in effect before the application for the project. Please ask that the Staff Report include details about how this will be implemented. There are details about trees being removed, in detail. That level of detail would be appropriate for Bird Safe and Dark Skies requirements.

I urge you address these two critical questions in your deliberations on January 17, 2024.

Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
*all underlining and italics are mine
From: des metcalf <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 1:34:44 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: to the council

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.

01/17/2024

City of Cupertino
City Council
10350 Torre Ave
Council Chamber

Re: Agenda 01/17/2024

Union Church of Cupertino
20900 Stevens Creek Blvd
Cupertino, Ca. 95014

Dear Council Members
My name is Des, and I am representing the Trustees at Union Church of Cupertino. This letter is regarding our neighbor Leon Hu of Top Mission Reality and Investment Corporation. Who is on the agenda for tonight’s meeting. Number 11 on the agenda.

2 Idem C, Resolution number 24-013
Approving the tentative final map.

To our knowledge the property in question has not been surveyed as of 1/12/24. Describing property boundaries and markers. Union Church of Cupertino will have a land surveyor come out and mark our property lines as we believe the property lines go further than the parking lot, fence and "tree.which is the next idem".

2 Idem D, Resolution number 24-014
Approving the tree removal permit. Tree # 9
We do not believe at this time any permits should be approved for the Tree removal between Union Church of Cupertino and said property. Reason being we believe the tree is on Union Church of Cupertino Property. We are having a land surveyor come out and mark property lines.

Union Church of Cupertino’s first notification of “anything” regarding next door was on 12/20/2023 and this was regarding tonight’s meeting.

It should also be noted we will not be leasing or renting any parking spaces for this venture.

Regards,
Union Church of Cupertino

CC 1-17-2024
Item No. 12
Proposed amendments to
Municipal Code Chapter 19.12,
Chapter 19.28 and 19.112
regarding Two Story Permit and
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Written Communications
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Three Story Adus on Agenda Item 12 on 1/17/24 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 9:27:18 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 City Council:
(Please add this to the Public Record for Item 12, City Council Meeting, 1/17/24. ) Why is the city trying to have two and three story adus? This is completely illogical.

The legislature and the governor decided without talking to any of the public to Enact adu legislation that supposedly allows two story adus, and now, I guess three story Adus.

There are massive amounts of problems with this type of construction. The public needs To be a partner of this type of construction is proposed. We cannot depend on the Legislature anymore to test-drive housing laws that they come up with. We are the ones Having to wind up living with it.

Apparently the Legislature does not care anymore about any of the people living in the State, as evidenced by the massive amounts of internal strife being launched upon San Francisco by HCD and the ramifications of SB 423.

I never in my life thought the cities of the state would be torn apart by the ministrations Of an out of control California public agency such as HCD.

The wreck of the Housing Element across the state and the attempts of totalitarian take-over Of San Francisco by HCD have pushed the cities of this state into near collapse. The Wreckage the Housing Bills create is continuing and proposing two and three story adus Is ludicrous.

Please do not allow this type of Missing Middle Takeover to happen in Cupertino.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Gian Martire
Cc: City Clerk; Christopher Jensen
Subject: 2023-01-17 City Council Mtg Agenda Item 12 - ADU PROPOSED modifications Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 8:55:35 PM
Attachments: Griffin-Govt Code Supporting Requests for ADU changes.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 ATTACHMENT AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM.

Dear Mayor Mohan, City Council Members and Sr. Planner Gian Martire,

I am requesting several modifications to the proposed Cupertino ADU law as follows:

REQUESTS

1. REQUEST1 - Require that ADUs not be sold separately.

2. REQUEST2 - Require that one of the units, either the single-family-home or one of the ADUs be owner-occupied.
a. This means there is a person on-site responsible for the rentals and not some investment firm out to maximize profits.

3. REQUEST3 – Require that ADUs, if rented, must be for terms longer than 30 days. a. No AirBnBs! We want permanent housing for our residents!

4. REQUEST4 – Do not allow ADUs to be more than 2-stories. a. There are height restrictions based on feet but it would be good to put this in, just to be explicit and objective.

5. REQUEST5 – DO NOT allow heating or cooling equipment or associated piping installed on the roof of ADUs.
a. AC units are LOUD! Putting them on the roof of ADUs means the noise will be carried to their neighbors since they are only 4 ft from the property line.

6. REQUEST6 – DO NOT allow balconies of any kind on ADUs of any kind. a. With setbacks of 4 ft from the property line, this means balconies would look right into neighboring yards, homes, bedrooms and play areas, etc.

7. REQUEST7 – Require all window sills on second floor windows to be 6 ft or higher. a. With setbacks of 4 ft from the property line, it means normal windows would look right into neighboring yards, homes, bedrooms, play areas, etc.

These requests would help minimize “for profit” investments, minimize impacts to neighbors and simplify approvals. Attached are excerpts from the CA Government Code that allow these specifications and the Cupertino Muni Code that should be modified for Requests 5, 6 and 7.

Please consider these modifications. They would help minimize the impact of ADUs on neighbors while also protecting ADUs from being exploited by investment firms. Thank you. 2023-01-17 CC MeeƟng, Agenda Item 12 – ADU Proposed ModiﬁcaƟons

GOVERNMENT CODE SUPPORTING MY MODIFICATION REQUESTS

REQUEST1: Require that ADUs not be sold separately.

Government Code 65852.2(a)(1)(A) AƩachment D – page 3 of 11

REQUEST2: Require that one of the units, either the single-family-home or one of the ADUs be owner-occupied.

This means there is a person on-site responsible for the rentals and not some investment ﬁrm out to maximize proﬁts.

Government Code 65852.2(a)(8)(A) AƩachment D – page 3 of 11

Government Code 65852.2(e)(5) AƩachment D – page 6 of 11

REQUEST3: Require that ADUs, if rented, must be for terms longer than 30 days.

No AirBnBs! We want permanent housing.

Government Code 65852.2(a)(8)(C) AƩachment D – page 3 of 11

Government Code 65852.2(e)(5) AƩachment D – page 6 of 11

REQUEST:4 Do not allow ADUs to be more than 2-stories.

Government Code 65852.2(c)(2)(D)(iv) AƩachment D, pages 4-5 of 11

ATTACHMENT B – DRAFT ordinance (Redline).pdf, Page 15 of 25 REQUEST5: DO NOT allow heaƟng or cooling equipment or associate piping installed on the roof.

AC units are LOUD! Puƫng them on the roof of ADUs means the noise will be carried to their neighbors since they are only 4 Ō from the property line.

Proposed Muni Code 19.28.110.A.5

REQUEST6: DO NOT allow balconies of any kind on ADUs of any kind.

The 4 Ō setbacks from the property lines mean the balconies would look right into neighboring yards, homes, bedrooms, play areas, etc.

REQUEST7: Require all window sills on second ﬂoor windows to be 6 Ō or higher.

The 4 Ō setbacks from the property lines means normal windows would look right into neighboring yards, homes, bedrooms, play areas, etc.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: Two Story Adus in City Council Meeting (1/17/24), Item 12 Date: Thursday, January 11, 2024 1:27:22 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 see corrected date above of City Council Meeting. Thank you. -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Two Story Adus in City Council Meeting (1/17/23), Item 12 From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024, 1:17 AM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:

Greetings to you all in our new year.

I am very concerned to see Two Story Adus being proposed by the City Council in Item 12 of the City Council meeting of 1/17/24 (postponed from 1/15/24. This is being Proposed for Chapter 19.112, ADUs Section of both Streamlined and Non-Streamlined ADUs.

This states that in each above adu section :Allowance for a Second Story on Attached and Detached adus. The previous section says adus can be up to 25 feet high.

The issue of two story adus have never been discussed in the city before. It was never agendized
For discussion, yet two members of the Planning Commission brought up two story adus At 11:30 PM at the November Planning Commission meeting, apparently out of the blue.

No one from the public was aware that two story adus were going to be discussed. In Fact, there had been previous confusion in the agenda because the item was concerning Two story houses, not two story adus.

The public has had no ability to speak about the story adus at all. Two story adus will cause Massive chaos across the city as evidenced by the out of control adu construction across The city of San Diego. The adu construction issues were so bad, the city had to back down on Some of their previous adu construction permitting because it was overly aggressive and Wound up causing issues in the neighborhoods. Berkeley has had similar problems with Adus placed haphazardly about city lots and in areas where there was flooding last winter.

Two story adus need to be thoroughly discussed before they are implemented in Cupertino.

Concerns about Two Story Adus:

1. Adus that are two story could be placed under or next two power lines where the second Story could wind up next to high voltage sires

2. Building on neighbors' property lines. Two story adus could be built so close to the Neighboring properties they could be built on the neighbors actual property line As many lots may have fences that do not sit on the actual property line. Neighbors will Have to go to the expense of hiring surveyors to make sure the adu is not built on Their property.

3. Looking into other people's yards. Two story adus might be allowed to be four feet from A property line. The two story adu could be crammed up against the neighbors property line With windows looking into the neighbors back yard or bedroom windows. This is indeed A privacy matter because no screening with trees or shrubs is possible with only four feet Of separation from a fence. In fact, the adu windows could be in direct observation of Bedroom Windows in existing homes. Since the neighbors do not know who will live In the adu, there is concern about what the adu may see in the neighbors windows. A two Story adu will allow people to see into other people's yards and bedroom windows. This Could also present a security hazard.

4. Definition of a Two Story Adu. Does this mean the adu could be 100 square feet on the first story
And 100 square feet on the second story for a total of 200 square feet? How do you have a Staircase in that type of a structure? It would be a skinny tower sticking up like a smokestack.

How do you get utilities to the two story adu? Can a two Story adu have a balcony? Where would
The balcony be located?

5. Bringing in Fre-Fab Two Story Adus: Many adu companies being in their adus with giant cranes.

Since many of these two story adus would be in backyards, the adu company would be trying to
Place these two story adus by swinging these cranes and derricks over other people's property And cars. The cranes could fall over and damage other people's houses and property. There are Huge booms careening over other people's homes and the adu could be dropped on other Homes.

6. Back Yard tree damage. Two story adus are so tall they could damage neighbors trees in their
Back yards. The two story adu would wind up in the tree canopy and could kill or damage Existing trees.

7. HVAC Noise. A two story adu would be so close to the neighbors property that it's HVAC System placed on the roof or outside could present constant noise for neighbors.

These and other issues need to be discussed before any two story adus should be permitted in The city of Cupertino.

There is no rush to permit this type of construction so adequate time should be allowed to discuss
Two story adus. There should be a study session or many study sessions on this type of construction
Which many consider an unwise type of construction.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Adus and Transit Distance
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 11:53:03 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 City Council :
(Please include in Item 12 for City Council meeting on 1/17/24 for Public Comment on this item).

I am confused about the mention of proximity to transit as part of the adu and two Story adu discussion in Item 12 on the City Council Agenda for the 1/17/24 City Council meeting.

Where did this ever come from? This first time anyone ever heard it mentioned was by the Two planning commissioners who brought it up at 11:30 PM on November 15, 2023 At the Planning Commission meeting.

No one had ever mentioned transit before in conjunction with the subject of adus. Where did These two Planning Commissioners get it from? What relevance did it have to the discussion of Adus?
I am very concerned that there is a whole adu agenda that is being put forth, that the public is Not privy to. Is this what the developers want? To cut out transit? Why if you wanted to live In an adu, would you just want to just take transit? People who live in adus can own cars.

There is no rule preventing them from owning or travelling in a car. Do developers think That people who live in adus should not have cars? What do developers know about anyone Living in an adu? Do they know special things the public does not know?I Are developers planning on selling adus to people who don't have cars? That is pretty outrageous If it is true.

Are developers to try to get these two story adus passed in this city and then try to get Legislation pAssed in the city so they can then sell these two story adus to people, Maybe people with cars or without cars? Is this where we are going with this.

Really, the Missing Middle Propaganda Agenda implementation is getting a bit old and really Easy to read and read into. How it is being implemented is really easy to predict too.

Please explain why this connection of adus (of any height) to public transit is supposed to Included in or not included in this Agenda Item 12.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Long Jiao
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Cupertino Voice Survey Results Regarding New ADU Policies Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 9:35:08 AM
Attachments: ADU-Results-Summary.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.

Dear City Clerk,
Please include this email and attachment to public comment for the City Council meeting on 1/17/2024.

Dear City Council,
Cupertino Voice is a group of Cupertino residents who care passionately about our community and the welfare of our city.

We performed a survey in December of 2023 regarding the new ADU policies passed by the Planning Commission on 11/14/2023. There were 169 total responses, including 148 from verified Cupertino voters.

Below are the options which received the most significant totals of at least 55% of the votes (or 81.4) from verified Cupertino voters. The votes are marked at the end with format:
number of verified Cupertino voters (number of total votes). For example, 49 (55) means 49 votes from verified Cupertino voters, and 55 votes from all responses.

Question: What are your concerns about these new policies? I am concerned about too many cars trying to park on my street 85 (102) Question: Do you support the changes to increase the number of ADUs allowed on each residential lot?
No 88 (104)
Question: If the City Council adopts the changes, how comfortable would you be with your neighbor having multiple ADUs (up to three) on their residential lot? I would not like it, and would actively oppose it 76 (90) I would not like it, but I would not oppose it either 19 (22) Even though none of the options passed the 55% threshold, both are “I would not like it”.

The combination of the two is 95 (112).

Please see attachment for the complete results.

Sincerely,
Long Jiao

From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-01-17 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 12 - ADUs CHANGES ARE FAR MORE THAN REQUIRED Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 4:40:04 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 THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM.

Dear Mayor Mohan and City Council Members,

The Staff Report did not identify the ADU changes that exceeded (were more than required by) CA state law. I think that would be very helpful to know when looking at the proposed changes. Please note that 2-story ADUs are NOT required by CA state law EXCEPT within a half a mile walking distance of a major transit stop or corridor.

What the Planning Commission did was strike out the ½ mile transit requirement completely! Below shows the words that were removed in YELLOW.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION before PLANNING COMMISSIONS ACTION:

CITY COUNCIL VERSION after PLANNING COMMISSION:

The result of their action
was 3 fold:

1. Allows 2-story ADUs all over Cupertino, regardless of their proximity to transit.

2. Increased the allowable heights of all ADUs, even single story ADUs.

3. Eliminated the transit component completely which removes the incentive to build near transit.

You, the Council, do not have to follow what the Planning Commission recommends. There is a reason the state added the transit component to the ability to increase ADU height. It was intended as an incentive. Please add this transit component back into the ADU changes.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: Pamela Wu
Subject: Agenda Item No. 12, ADU, CC meeting 1-17-24
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 12:06:06 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 Mohan, Vice-Mayor Fruen, Councilmembers and Manager Wu:

Agenda Item No. 12, Municipal Code Amendments Two-Story Permits and Accessory Dwelling Units
In 2018, long before I had even thought about applying to the Housing Commission, I attended a Housing Commission meeting where ADU’s were being discussed. I was very supportive of the ADU’s, and expressed my opinion there. I, also, attended a Legislative Affairs meeting and expressed my favorable opinion to the Mayor and Vice-Mayor at the time. Having lived in Cupertino for over 30 years at the time, I had knowledge of residents who could have used an ADU for their growing families, a room for a teenager, or for aging parents. I was surprised to discover that Cupertino, at that time, did not support ADU’s, and did not prioritize changes to make building ADU’s easier, faster, and less expensive for residents.

I am happy to see that this is changing. I support the changes in Agenda Item No. 12, Municipal Code Amendments Two-Story Permits and Accessory Dwelling Units, and hope that it is passed this evening.

In the Written Communications, I have read several letters of other ADU supporters and add my voice to their specific comments as well.

Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
Housing Commission, self only
From: Cupertino ForAll
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 12 - 1/17/24
Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 3:10:38 PM
Attachments: CFA Comment_Item 12_01.17.24_City_final_.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.

Hello,
On behalf of Cupertino for All, I would like to submit the attached letter as commentary for Item 12 of tonight's agenda.

Regards,
Steering Committee
Cupertino for All
January 17, 2024
Commentary regarding Agenda Item 12 - Proposed amendments to municipal code regarding Two-Story Permit and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws Consistent with our commentary on November 17, 2023, Cupertino for All reiterates our support for more effective permitting and ADU laws. Cupertino for All closely follows the Housing Element process on behalf of our constituents, many of whom beneﬁt from not only more housing opportunities, but also a diversity of the types of housing available.

Previous commentary highlighted beneﬁts of ADU production, particularly in Cupertino. Showcased in our Annual Progress Report, most of Cupertino’s recent housing production consisted largely of ADUs. In addition, the HE draft plans for even greater production over the next planning period and speciﬁcally calls for more ADU ﬂexibility through Strategy HE 1.3.8. In light of these ﬁndings and in accordance with these commitments, CFA hopes to see support for the Planning Commission’s recommendations coming before the Council in Agenda Item 12.

Eliminating the discretionary Two‐Story Permit requirement will improve the efﬁciency of ADU production, and historical data shows interest in this type of development. Additional modiﬁcations will help avoid conﬂicts with state law, and other changes, like the removal of major transit stop and transit corridor thresholds for height and second story allowances, will empower property owners to determine what works best without arbitrary municipal interference.

Furthermore, the adoption of these changes will afﬁrm the City’s positive intentions and clear commitments within our Housing Element, which is still pending certiﬁcation by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD).

In summary, CFA reiterates our support for actions that:

1. Make our ADU regulations less prescriptive. For example: let ADUs be attached or detached, by allowing up to three of each category of ADU in draft Table 19.112.030(A).

2. Enable the creation of two-story/second-story ADUs by removing the requirements for proximity to a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor, as per the Planning Commission recommendation. While we support transit-oriented development, it is overly prescriptive to require this when an ADU could easily function as an in-law unit, in which case transit accessibility may be less of a concern.

3. Within reason, allow the same design opportunities for single and two-story ADUs.

4. Given the similarity between duplexes and single-family homes in Cupertino and under our current development standards, clarify that the same rules that apply to ADUs on single-family-zoned lots also apply in lots zoned for duplexes (i.e. R-2 zones).

We look forward to seeing the City’s support of improved policy and code supporting ADU development, like the Planning Commission recommendations before Council tonight, and our aforementioned goals above.

Regards,
The Steering Committee for Cupertino for All
From: Debbie Timmers
To: City Council
Subject: Support for Item 12, Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 19.12, Chapter 19.28 and Chapter 19.112 regarding Two-Story Permit and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws.

Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 3:34:42 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 Mohan, Vice Mayor Fruen and Councilmembers, My name is Debbie Timmers. I have been a Cupertino resident for 10 years and I would like to express my support for item 12, Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter

19.12, Chapter 19.28 and Chapter 19.112 regarding Two-Story Permit and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) laws. (Application No. MCA-2023-002; Applicant: City of Cupertino; I support whatever we can do to further enhance ADU middle income projects. This, along with other housing types, helps the “missing middle” - those whose incomes aren’t low enough for below-market rate housing, but who still can’t afford Cupertino prices. I am heartbroken every time one of my grandson’s classmates moves out of the area because their family (usually with 2 professional parents) can no longer afford to live here.

Unfortunately, this is a very frequent occurrence due to the “missing middle” housing.

We need to make Cupertino more inclusive for multigenerational families, currently overcrowded households, students, young professionals, and more! I realize ADUs aren’t the only solution, but they are an easy, low-hanging fruit to begin to address the issue. Additionally, an even stronger ordinance would demonstrate to the State of California that we are acting in good faith to do everything we can to meet our local obligations for solving the housing crisis!
In addition, the less time our city staff has to process permits for this type of housing, the less cost it is to the city. Furthermore, eliminating this process has the potential to streamline the overall residential permitting process, saving residents time and money to upgrade their homes.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and please pass this ordinance.

Debbie Timmers
CC 1-17-2024
Item No. 13
Councilmember Reports
Written Communications
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Lauren Sapudar; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Council Report Date Fix
Date: Friday, January 12, 2024 8:05:16 AM
Attachments: Jan 17, 2024 Moore Report.pdf
Hi,

Would someone please replace my report with the attached one. I kept putting 2023 for the January dates, missing this is a new year : )

Thank you, Happy 2024!

Kitty

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

1 CITY COUNCIL ACTIVITY REPORT Meeting: Click or tap to enter a date. Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember Kitty Moore Report Activity Dates: 11/28/23 to 1/8/24 Event Date, Title, and Description: December 1, 2023. City of Cupertino Tree Lighting at the Quinlan Center. Parks and Recreation Director Sander led an excellent celebration with music, crafts, Gogo Biblio, and a special visitor. December 4, 2023. Prep. Session on Revenue tax measures. December 5, 2023. City Council Meeting. December 9, 2023 – December 15, 2023. Wrap up of Environmental Studies courses finals Environmental Resource Management and Pollution Prevention and Environmental Resource Management and Pollution Prevention Lab. 9 courses in certificate program, A+ avg. Self-funded. December 11, 2023. 1:1 with City Manager. December 14, 2023. City Council reorganization. December 16, 2023. Visited Wreaths Across America. Meeting with Rep. Ro Khanna and office administrative staff. December 18, 2023. 1:1 with City Manager. Silicon Valley Hopper Ribbon Cutting with Santa Clara Councilmembers and Staff leaders from both cities who coordinated this program.

City Council Councilmember Activity Report
2 https://www.santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/44837/3171 How to access SV Hopper: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/transportation-mobility/community-shuttle December 19, 2023. City Council closed session. December 21, 2023. Hsinchu Sister City visit and tour. December 22, 2023. Submitted budget questions. January 4, 2024. CalCities committee introductions. 4th year accepted to the CalCities Environmental Quality Policy Committee which includes councilmembers from across the state. January 5, 2024. Group Chat: Governance vs. Politics, Social Prosperity Partners. Councilmembers and other nationwide community leaders discuss governance vs. politics. January 8, 2024. Begin Winter quarter Environmental Studies courses: very special thank you to Prof. Jeff Staudinger for excellent environmental instruction and caring guidance. Current courses: Environmental Management Tools: Environmental Management Systems & Environmental Performance Reporting and Environmental Resource Mgmt & Pollution Prevention: Air, Water & Land. Self-funded. Respectfully submitted in Memory of Professor Jeff Staudinger, PE, CHMM.

CC 1-17-2024
Item No. 15
Receive the monthly
Treasurer's Investment
Report for November
2023
Written Communications
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: Christopher Jensen
Subject: Written Communications and Questions for Council 1/17 meeting Items 15 and 17 Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 9:26:39 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Investment Report June 2022 Staff Report.pdf
Dear City Manager and City Clerk,

Please include the following request for information for written communications and Staff questions for agenda items 15 and 17, Monthly Treasurer’s Investment Reports:

Council had been receiving what had been a complete list of investments as you can see from the June 27, 2022 Audit Committee report, however at the start of 2023 Council removed the Audit Committee’s authority to review the Monthly Investment reports and instead they go directly to Council and are put under Informational Items, and what has been provided was abbreviated and no longer following the requirments.

To make prudent financial decisions, the Council needs to be informed of our financial condition, please provide the fund balances and transactions for all of the accounts per Ca Gov Code 53607 and CMC 2.24.050.

See the change below:

2022 provided documents included balances for ALL accounts:

2022 provided documents to Council only include ONE account, see 15 and 17 below:

As stated above, in order to make prudent financial decisions, the Council needs to be informed of our financial condition, please provide the fund balances and transactions for all of the accounts per Ca Gov Code 53607 and CMC 2.24.050.

“On May 19, 2022, the City Council approved the City Investment Policy. Per the City's Investment Policy, the Treasurer shall submit monthly transaction reports to the City Council within 30 days of the end of the reporting period per California Government Code Section 53607. In addition to the monthly transaction reports, quarterly investment reports are submitted to the City Council approximately 45 days following the end of the quarter. The quarterly investment report offers a more extensive discussion of the City's economy, cash flow, and investments. The City's Municipal Code Section 2.24.050 Investment Authority states that the Treasurer shall make a monthly report of all investment transactions to the City Council.” (see attached June 27, 2022 Staff Report).

Additionally, here is the Cupertino Municipal Code requirement for the monthly reports:

2.24.050 Investment Authority.

Pursuant to authority granted by state statutes, there is hereby delegated to the Treasurer the authority to invest or to reinvest funds of the City, or to sell or exchange securities so purchased, and who shall thereafter assume full responsibility for such transactions until such time as the delegation of authority is revoked. The Treasurer shall make a monthly report of all such transactions to the members of the City Council, the City Manager and also make it available for review by such other persons who may so request.

Thank you,

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

AUDIT COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
Meeting: June 27, 2022

Subject
Consider the Monthly Treasurer's Investment Report for May 2022

Recommended Action
Review the Monthly Treasurer's Investment Report for May 2022 and recommend filing with City Council

Discussion
Background
On May 19, 2022, the City Council approved t he City Investment Policy . Per the City 's Investment Policy , the Treasurer shall submit monthly transaction reports to the City Council within 30 days of the end of the reporting period per California Government Code Section 53607. In addition to the monthly transaction reports, quarterly investment reports are submitted to the City Council approximately 45 days following the end of the quarter.

The quarterly investment report offers a more extensive discussion of the City's economy, cash flow, and investments.

The City's Municipal Code Section 2.24.050 Investment Authority states that the Treasurer shall make a monthly report of all investment transactions to the City Council. Lastly, the City's Municipal Code Section 2.88.100 Duties- Powers-Responsibilities lists one of the powers and functions of the Audit Committee is "to review the monthly Treasurer 's report."

Per the referenced code provisions, a Treasurer's Investment Report shall be submitted to the Audit Committee and City Council every month.

Treasurer's Investment Report
The report provides an update on the C ity's investment portfolio for the month ending May 31, 2022. The attached statements include balances and transactions of the City 's investments with the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and Chandler Asset Management.

2 While not governed by the City's Investment Policy, statements for the City's Wells Fargo cash accounts and Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Section 115 Trus ts are also attached per a request from the Treasurer's Report sub-committee.

As of Ma y 31, 2022, the City's General Ledger cash and investments balance was $22 9.8 million, a $1.5 million increase from the prior month due to receipts of $8.5 million, disbursements of ($7.5) million, and journal adjustments of $0.4 million.

Cash and Investments – General Ledger Balance
Fund Type Month Ending
April 30, 2022 Receipts Disbursements Journal
Adjustments*
Month Ending
May 31, 2022
General Fund 117,686,174 6,702,004 (5,152,788) 36,643 119,272,034 Special Revenue 48,468,249 272,065 (968,530) (105,235) 47,666,549 Debt Service 2,284,850 - - - 2,284,850
Capital Projects 38,923,074 1,402,454 (459,362) 130,235 39,996,401 Enterprise 13,154,490 140,361 (439,104) 413,360 13,269,107 Internal Service 7,816,682 - (473,354) (33,096) 7,310,232 Total $ 228,333,518 $ 8,516,884 $ (7,493,138) $ 441,907 $ 229,799,172 *Journal adjustments include transactions recorded in other systems and imported into the financial system, Council-approved budget adjustments, quarterly Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) charges, and quarterly interest earnings.

3 The $229.8 million in cash and investments includes $33.4 million in cash, $21.1 million in cash equivalents, $156.9 million in investments, and $18.5 million restricted for funding pension costs.

The City pools cash for all funds except restricted funds. However, the City accounts for interest earnings, revenues, and expenditures separately for each fund to adequately meet the purpose and restrictions of each funding source. Pooling funds is a common and appropriate practice used in public agencies. By pooling fund s, the City can benefit from economies of scale, diversification, liquidity, and ease of administration.

4 Cash and Investments – General Ledger Balance
Month Ending
April 30, 2022
Month Ending
May 31, 2022
% of
Portfolio
Cash in banks and on hand
Operating Checking (Wells Fargo) 31,879,299 31,045,048 14% Workers' Compensation Checking (Wells Fargo) 4,719 26,623 0% Payroll Checking (Wells Fargo) - - 0%
Restricted for Bond Repayments1 (BNY Mellon) 8,333 2,286,333 1% Petty Cash and Change 5,100 5,100 0%
Cash Equivalents

Local Agency Investment Fund 21,059,752 21,059,752 9%
Investments

Investments (Chandler) 156,885,311 156,885,311 68%
Restricted for Pension2 (PARS) 18,491,004 18,491,004 8% Total Cash and Investments3 $ 228,333,518 $ 229,799,172 100% 1 Cash held by fiscal agent for bond repayments
2 In accordance with GASB 67/68, the assets in the Section 115 Pension Trust are reported as restricted cash and investments in the General Fund. The assets can only be used to fund CalPERS costs. 3 Assets in the Section 115 OPEB Trust are excluded as the C ity cannot use these assets to fund its own operations. The assets are held in trust for retirees’ post-employment health benefits.

The table below shows the bank balances for the City's cash and investments. Bank and General Ledger balances differ due t o timing. Bank balances do not include outstanding checks and deposits in transit. The General Ledger is updated quarterly with interest earnings and updated annually with the year-end investment market values.

5 Cash and Investments – Bank Balance
Month Ending
April 30, 2022
Month Ending
May 31, 2022
% of
Portfolio
Cash in banks and on hand
Operating Checking (Wells Fargo) 31,788,785 30,519,591 14% Workers' Compensation Checking (Wells Fargo) 7,279 26,922 0% Payroll Checking (Wells Fargo) - - 0%
Restricted for Bond Repayments1 (BNY Mellon) 8,333 2,286,333 1% Cash Equivalents
Local Agency Investment Fund 21,059,752 21,059,752 10%
Investments
Investments (Chandler) 148,861,823 149,697,509 68%
Restricted for Pension2 (PARS) 16,368,261 16,302,481 7% Total Cash and Investments3 $ 218,094,232 $ 219,892,588 100% 1 Cash held by fiscal agent for bond repayments
2 In accordance with GASB 67/68, the assets in the Section 115 Pension Trust are reported as restricted cash and investments in the General Fund. The assets can only be used to fund CalPERS costs. 3 Assets in the Section 115 OPEB Trust are excluded as the C ity cannot use these assets to fund its own operations. The assets are held in trust for retirees’ post-employment health benefits.

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
LAIF is an investment pool administered by the State of California Treasurer and governed by California Government Code. The City can withdraw funds from LAIF at any time. As a result, the City uses LAIF for short-term investment, liquidity, and yield.

As of May 31, 2022, the City's LAIF account had a balance of $21.1 million, no change from the prior month. Interest is deposited quarterly and was most recently deposited in April 2022. The City did not make any deposits or withdrawals in May 2022.

Investment Portfolio
In FY 2018-19, the City selected Chandler Asset Management for investment management services through a Request for Proposal (RFP). Under the City's Treasurer's direction, Chandler Asset Management manages the City's investment portfolio in accordance with the City's investment objectives. The City's investment objectives, in order of priority, are to provide:

• Safety to ensure the preservation of capital in the overall portfolio • Sufficient liquidity for cash needs
• A market rate of return consistent with the investment program

6 The performance objective is to earn a total rate of return through a market cycle equal to or above the return on the benchmark index. Chandler Asset Management invests in high- quality fixed-income securities consistent with the City's Investment Policy and California Government Code to achieve the objective.

As of May 31, 2022, t he portfolio's market value was $149.7 million, compared to $148.9 million at the end of the pr evious month. The portfolio's book value was $154. 9 million, compared to $154.8 million at the end of the prior month. The average maturity was 2.84 years, and the average modified duration was 2.49. The rate of return was 0.57% for the month.

Below are historical monthly comparisons for the City's portfolio:

April 30, 2022 May 31, 2022
Market Value 148,861,823 149,697,509
Par Value 154,612,129 154,801,899
Book Value 154,828,347 154,937,218
Average Maturity 2.83 years 2.84 years
Average Modified Duration 2.50 2.49
Average Purchase Yield 1.37% 1.41%
Average Market Yield 2.94% 2.86%
Average Quality1 AA/Aa1 AA/Aa1
1 S&P and Moody's respectively

The portfolio's market value fluctuates depending on interest rates. When interest rates decrease after an investment is purchased , the market value of the investment increases.

In contrast, when interest rates increase after an investment is purchased, the market value of the investment decreases. At the time of purchase, the City intends to hold all investments until maturity, so changes in market price do not affect the City's investment principal. The market values were provided by Chandler Asset Management.

Section 115 Trust Investment Portfolio
The City established Section 115 Trusts to reduce pension rate volatility and pre-fund Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB) costs. A Section 115 Trust is a tax -exempt investment tool that allows local governments to pre-fund pension and retiree health costs. Once contributions are placed into the trust, assets from the trust can only be used to fund retirement plans.

The Section 115 Trusts are not governed by the City's Investment Policy but by separate investment policies. On December 7, 2021, City Council approved the Pension Trust Investment Policy and OPEB Trust Investment Policy. Public Agency Retirement Services

7 (PARS) administers the trust, and US Bank manages the investments per the investment policies.

Both Section 115 Trusts are invested in "balanced " portfolios. The investment objective is designed to provide a moderate amount of current income with moderate growth of capital. It is recommended for investors with a long-term time horizon. The strategic asset allocation ranges for this objective are:

Asset Class Range Target
Equities 50-70% 63%
Fixed Income 20-40% 29%
Real Estate 0-15% 5%
Commodities 0-10% 2%
Cash 0-10% 1%

As of May 31, 2022, the Section 115 Pension Trust had a balance of $16.3 million, a decrease of $0.1 million from the prior month. The Section 115 OPEB Trust had a balance of $ 33.5 million, a decrease of $0.1 million from the prior month. The investment returns for the Section 115 Trusts were -0.37% for the month. The City did not make any contributions or receive any distributions in May 2022.

Compliance
All of the City's investments comply with state law and the City 's Investment Policy. In compliance with California Government Code 53646 (b)(3), the City maintains the ability to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
_____________________________________

Prepared by: __________________
Thomas Leung
Acting Finance Manager

Reviewed by: __________________
Kristina Alfaro
Director of Administrative Services and City Treasurer

8 Approved for Submission by: __________________
Jim Throop
City Manager

Attachments:

A – Chandler Investment Report May 2022
B – Chandler Custodial Statement May 2022
C – PARS Pension and OPEB Statement May 2022
D – LAIF Statement May 2022
E – Wells Fargo Operating Checking Account Statement May 2022 F – Wells Fargo Payroll Checking Account Statement May 2022 G – Wells Fargo Workers' Compensation Checking Account Statement May 2022 H – Wells Fargo Employee Benefits Checking Account Statement May 2022 I – BNY Mellon Statement May 2022

From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 1/17/2024 Cupertino City Council Agenda Item #15, #16 November treasurer"s report Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 3:06:26 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.
1/17/2024 Cupertino City Council Agenda Item #15 November treasurer's report This report is late. Please make these reports available even if there have been meeting cancellations.

CC 1-17-2024
Item No. 16
Receive the monthly
Treasurer's Report for
November 2023
Written Communications
From: Peggy Griffin
To: City Council; Thomas Leung
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2024-01-17 City Council Meeting Agenda Items 16 and 18 - Treasurer"s Report for Nov-Dec 2023 Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 9:09:54 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 THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR THE ABOVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEMS.

Dear Mayor Mohan, City Council Members and Budget Manager Leung, Due to the CDTFA Audit, the city has stopped paying Apple (BAZ INDUSTRIES) it’s 35% sales tax portion from the start of the 2023 sales tax period. This amount adds up to MILLIONS of dollars by now. Months ago, when this payment to Apple (BAZ) was stopped, staff said that they were setting aside Apple’s share (35%) in a fund until the CDTFA Audit was resolved.

Since that statement, the Treasurer’s Reports do not reflect the addition/existence of this new fund that by now holds millions of dollars!
Q1: Where is this Apple money being stored i.e. what fund is it being kept in? Q2: Why is this not showing up on the Monthly Treasurer’s Reports? Thank you.

Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Rhoda Fry
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: 1/17/2024 Cupertino City Council Agenda Item #15, #16 November treasurer"s report Date: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 3:06:26 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.
1/17/2024 Cupertino City Council Agenda Item #15 November treasurer's report This report is late. Please make these reports available even if there have been meeting cancellations.

CC 1-17-2024
Item No. 17
Receive the monthly
Treasurer's
Investment Report
for December 2023
Written Communications
From: Kitty Moore
To: City Clerk; Pamela Wu; Kirsten Squarcia
Cc: Christopher Jensen
Subject: Written Communications and Questions for Council 1/17 meeting Items 15 and 17 Date: Monday, January 15, 2024 9:26:39 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Investment Report June 2022 Staff Report.pdf
Dear City Manager and City Clerk,