Cupertino City Council
July 2, 2024

CC 07-02-2024

Special Meeting
#1

Enterprise Risk Assessment
Final Report and Internal
Audit Work Plan

Presentation
City of Cupertino
FY 24-25 Internal Audit Program and
Enterprise Risk Assessment
City Council Meeting
July 2024
• The City retained Moss Adams to serve as the
designated Internal Auditor and conduct projects
focusing on:
• Risks
• Internal controls
• Efficiency and effectiveness
• Best practices
• Compliance
• Work is being completed under appropriate industry
standards (IIA, GAGAS, AICPA)
Internal Audit Overview
2 Role of Internal
Audit
3 Source: IIA
Holistic Internal Audit Program Components
Tracking &
ReportingCOpportunitiesBProgram InputsA
• Enterprise
Assessments
• Employees and
Residents
• Performance
Metrics
• Risks
• Controls
• Compliance
• Performance
• Findings &
Recommendations
• Fraud, Waste, and
Abuse Hotline
• Corrective Actions
• Implementation
• Validation
4 StatusFocus Area
2021, 2024Enterprise Risk Assessments
2Internal Controls Projects Completed
5Performance/Efficiency Projects
Completed
133Policies Reviewed
52Recommendations Delivered
21Ethics Hotline Reports
To Come in
2025
Recommendations Validated
Internal Audit Program Review

2024 Enterprise
Risk Assessment
6 As the City’s internal auditor, Moss Adams
conducted its triennial Enterprise Risk
Assessment (ERA).

The ERA was conducted between
December 2023 and May 2024 and focused
on identifying, categorizing, and evaluating
risks that may interfere with the City’s
ability to achieve its mission.

Assessing Risks
7 Risk Assessment
Results
8 OVERALL RISK LEVELRISK CATEGORY
HighFunding and Economics
Moderate to HighCapital Improvement Program
Moderate to HighCompliance and Financial Reporting
Moderate to HighHuman Resources
Moderate to HighPlanning and Strategy
ModerateAsset Management
ModerateGovernance
ModerateInternal Controls
ModerateManagement and Leadership
ModerateOperations and Service Delivery
ModerateOrganization and Staffing
ModeratePolicies and Procedures
ModerateProcurement and Contracting
ModerateReputation and Public Perception
ModerateRisk Programs
Low to ModerateAccounting and Finance
Low to ModerateEthics and Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
Low to ModerateInformation Technology
Low to ModeratePublic Safety and Security
TrajectoryPreparednessLikelihoodImpact
FlatModerate to HighHighHighFunding and
Economics
High Risk Categories
9 TrajectoryPreparednessLikelihoodImpact
Increasing – LowLow to ModerateModerateModerate to HighCapital Improvement
Program
FlatLow to ModerateModerate to HighModerateCompliance and Financial
Reporting
Increasing – LowModerateModerate to HighHighHuman
Resources
Increasing – Low ModerateModerate to HighModeratePlanning and Strategy
Moderate to High Risk Categories
10 1. Grants Management Internal Controls Review Assess the internal controls in place over the City’s grants management activities (including applications, review, administration, and reporting). (16 weeks, $25,000)

2. Special Revenue Fund Process Review Document the
process used for special revenue fund accounting, identify gaps compared to best practices, and conduct testing of prior years’ accounting. (16 weeks, $18,000)

3. Recommendation Validation Process Establishment
Inventory prior internal and external audit recommendations, collaborate with City staff to develop a tracking mechanism and process to report and validate recommendation
implementation. (20 weeks, $10,000)

4. Ongoing Internal Audit Services Attend Audit Committee and Council meetings, prepare status reports, manage
internal audit program, and monitor FWA hotline. ($7,000) Recommended Internal Audit
Projects
11 The material appearing in this presentation is for informational purposes only and is not legal or accounting advice. Communication of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a legal relationship, including, but not limited to, an accountant-client relationship. Although these materials may have been prepared by professionals, they should not be used as a substitute for professional services. If legal, accounting, or other professional advice is required, the services of a professional should be sought.
12 • Government Finance Officer’s Association (GFOA)
• GFOA Best Practices Guide on Audit Committees
• Institute of Internal Auditors
• IIA Publication “The Audit Committee: Internal Audit
Oversight”
• U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
• American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
• Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
Resources
Presentation
CC 7-02-2024
Item No. 7
Housing Element
Zoning
1 City Council
July 2, 2024
6th Cycle Housing Element
Update Rezoning
Agenda
 Housing Element
Overview/Sites Inventory
 Rezoning Scope: New
Zoning Districts/Text
Changes for consistency
 Related Amendments:

HOC, BMR Manual
 Staff Recommendation
 PC Review and
Recommendation
 Public Comments
 Next steps
 Housing Element adopted
May 14, 2024
1 2
2 Housing Element Overview
 State-mandated General
Plan Element
 Required to be updated
every 8 years
 Consists of: Needs
Assessment, Fair Housing
Assessment, Constraints
Analysis, Sites Inventory,
Policies & Programs
 6th Cycle Housing Element
covers 2023-2013
 Oversight Agency: CA Dept
of Housing and Community
Development (HCD)
 City received conditional
compliance letter from HCD
April 10, 2024
 Housing Element adopted
by Council May 14
 Rezoning to PC June 11
Adopted
Housing
Element
Priority
Housing
Sites
3 4
3 RezoningRezoning
Scope of Rezoning
 ONLY related to Housing Element conformance
 Text amendments to:
 Establish new zoning districts: R-4 and TH
 Modify existing regulations
 Edits for consistency with State law
 Edits for internal consistency
 Map amendments limited to Priority Housing Sites
 R-1 properties subject to Missing Middle Strategy
HE-1.3.6 not being rezoned
5 6
4 New Standards – R-4 zones
 Accommodates
densities 50 du/acre and
higher
 Aligns High/Very High
(50-65 du/acre) and
Very High (65-80
du/acre) General Plan
designations
 40 of 58 Priority Housing
sites are R-4
Front and Rear Setback Standards
R-4 zones
Arterial
Sidewalk and
landscape strip
35 feet to face of curb
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Level 5
Level 4
18 feet
to PL
Front Property line
20 feet
to PL
Rear Property line
30 feet
to PL
45 feet
to PL
70 feet
Face of curb
7 8
5 Side Setback Standards
R-4 zones
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Existing 3
story Bldg.

Side Property line
Level 2
Level 1
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Side Property line
10 feet
to PL
20 feet
to PL
70 feet
10 feet
to PL
20 feet
to PL
Existing 2
story Bldg.

New Standards – TH combining zone
 Only for use with existing residential base zoning
 16 of 58 Priority Housing Sites with R-3 base zoning
 Goal: to allow lower-scale buildings near single-family neighborhoods and encourage different housing types
 Height: 30 feet max (General Plan standard)
 Front setback must meet underlying base residential
zoning: 20 feet minimum unless on a major roadway
 Side and rear setbacks established
9 10
6 New Standards (contd.)
 Emergency Shelters
 Required to be by-right in at least one zoning district  Allowed in BQ and R-4 zoning districts
 By-right approval for Priority Housing Sites that include 20 du/acre and 20% of total units for LI and VLI households:
 Exempt from CEQA
 Objective design review
 Up to 50 units – Administrative Hearing
 50+ units – Planning Commission Review
Modification of existing standards
 Multiple Family (R-3) zoning districts
 Structure of ordinance modified to distinguish
between fourplexes and five or more units
 The regulations for developments with five or more
units modified to accommodate higher densities
 Language re: maintenance of common areas etc.
 Various Chapters in Title 19:
 Conformance with State law re: types of housing
that must be allowed by-right
 Definitions updated for consistency with State law
11 12
7  Updated to reflect the Zoning District changes
to Priority Housing Sites
 New colors and labels on Map to indicate new
zoning designations, R-4 and TH
 Map clearly Identifies Priority Housing Sites
 BMR Manual update to modify program
to match Housing Element (Strategy HE-2.3.3
Zoning Map/BMR Manual
PC Review and RecommendationPC Review and Recommendation 13 14
8  Recommended approval of HOC Specific Plan
Amendments, BMR Mitigation Manual and Zoning
Map (4-0 Absent: Fung)
 No Recommendation on Municipal Code
Amendments (2-2 Absent: Fung)
PC Review and Recommendation
 Height – increase to 35 feet (no consensus)
 Height established by General Plan
 Located in or abut low density residential homes
 Could be designed with lower plate heights or utilize CA Density Bonus law
 Lot Coverage and Floor Area Ratio – Eliminate lot
coverage and increase FAR (no consensus)
 Reduced areas for landscaping, urban canopy
impacts
 100% FAR would allow townhomes larger than in R1-5
zones. Changed to 85% FAR from 70% FAR.

PC Review – Topics discussed with motion
- TH Combining District
15 16
9  Front Setback – use underlying zoning standard for
R1-a (consensus)
 Change made to use underlying zoning standard for
front setback in all R1 zoning districts using Missing
Middle Policy
 Rental – Eliminate word “rental” (consensus)
 Change made
 Parking requirements – reduce standard for duplexes built in R1 zoning districts to 2 open and 2 enclosed (no
consensus)
 No change made. Council could make change if
desired
PC Review – Topics discussed with motion
– Single Family (R1) zones: Duplex Development
 No. of stories – Eliminate maximum number of
stories and retain 70-foot building height standard
 One height standard could provide greater
developer flexibility
 Proposed standard based on construction types,
building forms, activation of ground floor, visual
preference surveys and developer feedback
 Consensus reached on 70-foot maximum, not 5
stories. If desired, council could eliminate dual 5-story standard
PC Review – Topics not discussed with motions
– R-4 Zoning District
17 18
10  Duplex – Eliminate/modify 200 sq. ft. standard
between units
 Existing definition subjective under state law, not
enforceable. Objective standard necessary
 Elimination could result in greater flexibility when
building
 200 sq. ft. maximum separation allows one extra
bedroom and bathroom in one of the units
 If Council desires, it could eliminate, modify or
change the proposed standard
PC Review – Topics not discussed with motions
– Definitions
 FAR standard – Eliminate 55% FAR standard (minimal
discussion, no consensus)
 Proposed standard based on survey of neighboring
jurisdictions – Mtn. View and Sunnyvale
 Duplexes similar in size/scale to single family structures  Currently, no lot FAR limitation for R-2 development.

Existing coverage standard (40%) could allow 80% FAR
 Missing Middle policy primary focus of public based on comments received.
 Issue: compatibility with Single-Family homes vs.
encouraging expanded use of policy
 If Council desires, it could eliminate or modify the
proposed standard
PC Review – Topics not discussed with motions
– R-1 zoning district – Duplex Development
19 20
11 Public CommentsPublic Comments
Public Comments - Received after PC meeting
 Several comments received to:
 Eliminate no. of stories in R-4
zones
 Eliminate size standard from
definition of duplex
 Expand/modify lot coverage
limits for R-3 zones
 Eliminate minimum lot size
requirements for R-3 properties
 Eliminate or modify following
standards for duplexes in R-1
zoning districts per the Missing
Middle strategy
 Floor Area Ratio
 Parking standards
 Side yard setbacks
 Several comments also received to keep the proposed ordinance unchanged, including, specifically, the standards outlined above 21 22
12 Lot Coverage and FAR Comparison across zonesLot Coverage and FAR Comparison across zones Floor Area RatioLot Coverage
ScaleZoning
ProposedExistingProposedExisting
No change45%No change45%+5% for eaves
/covered patios
Single family Res
(SFR)Single Family R-1
55%-40%-Larger SFRNEW! Duplex in R-
1 (Missing Middle)
No changeNo limitNo change40%Larger SFRDuplex R-2 (not part of scope)
No changeNo limitNo change40%Larger SFR1-4 units
R-3
No changeNo limit55%40%Apt. scale5+ units
85%-55%-Six or eight-plexNEW! Townhome
TH
No limit-55%-High Density
scale
NEW! Multi-family
R-4
RecommendationRecommendation
23 24
13 Recommendation
 That the City Council adopt resolutions (with the
redlines proposed) to:
 Municipal Code Amendments (Attachment A)
 Specific Plan Amendments and BMR Mitigation
Manual updates (Attachment B)
 Zoning Map Amendments (Attachment C)
Next StepsNext Steps
25 26
14 Next Steps
 Objective Design Standards – Fall 2024
 Safety Element update – Winter 2024/25
Questions?Questions?
27 28
CC 07-02-2024

#8

Lawrence-Mitty Park and
Trail Project

Presentation
City Council meeting
July 2, 2024
Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Project
Final Conceptual Plan and Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Tonight’s Action
Subject: Review Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Project Final Conceptual Design and consider the proposed Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Recommended Action:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-XXX, adopting Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Project’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

2. Approve the Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Project Final Conceptual Design.
.

Lawrence –
Mitty Park and
Trail Project
Agenda

1. Project Background

2. Final Concept Plan

3. CEQA Summary

4. Next Steps
Project Background
Site Context
Existing Conditions
• Nature Play
• Things to Climb
• Fitness Equipment
Top Recreation Features
• Nature Trails
• Native Plants to
Enhance Wildlife
• Creek Overlook
Top Community and
Comfort Features
• Shaded Areas
• Walking Paths
• Restroom
• Seating
Top Wildlife, Nature,
and Education Features
Community Vision

Final Concept Plan
Phasing
Final Concept Plan

Final Concept Plan

CEQA Summary
CEQA Process
• Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) • 30-day Public Review Period: 2.12.24 – 3.13.24
• Five Comment Letters Received

• Final IS/MND, Responses to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
• Planning Commission Recommendation to City Council
• Parks & Recreation Commission Recommendation to
City Council
• Adoption of MND by City Council

Environmental Impacts
Mike to add
overview bullets
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant or No Impact • Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture & Forest
Resources
• Air Quality
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
• Hydrology & Water Quality
• Land Use & Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population &
Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities & Service
Systems
• Wildfire
Next Steps
Completed Concept Phases
Next Steps
July 2
Aug. 2024
to March 2025
Apr. 2025
to Dec. 2025
Jan. 2026
to Mar. 2027
City Council adoption of the IS/MND
and approval of the conceptual design
Design Development
& Regulatory Permitting
Construction Documents
& City Permitting
Bidding & Construction
Tonight’s Action
Subject: Review Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Project Final Conceptual Design and consider the proposed Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Recommended Action:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-XXX, adopting Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Project’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

2. Approve the Lawrence-Mitty Park and Trail Project Final Conceptual Design.
.

Thank You!
CC 07-02-2024

#9

General Plan Amendment
(GPA) Authorization

Presentation
Cupertino City Council
July 2, 2024
General Plan Amendment (GPA)
Authorization
Background
● GPA Authorization process was adopted by
Council with Resolution 15-078 in 2015
● Procedure intended to address Council and
community input
GPA Workflow

Prior to GPA Authorization Procedure
● City may amend its general plan up to four times in one calendar year.
● Applications reviewed concurrently with GPA
application.
● Public input solicited through citywide noticing, legal notices for meetings, site signage, and neighborhood
meetings.
● Upon completion of review, public hearings scheduled
for Planning Commission and City Council.

Reasons to Repeal
● Misunderstanding of the GPA project approval
and modification process
● Unclear expectations
● Increased overall project review time and
resources
● Misconception of quid pro quo for private
developments
Recommended Actions
That the City Council adopt Resolution
repealing the existing General Plan Amendment
Authorization procedure and process and
rescinding Resolution 15-078.