CC 10-15-2024
#6
Unhoused Study Session
Supplemental Report
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: October 15, 2024
Agenda Item #
6 Subject
Study Session on Unhoused Services and Programs
Recommended Action
Staff recommend the City Council to consider the following options:
1. Continue the current model based on the Cityʹs Unhoused Task Force, Process for Assisting Unhoused Residents, and partnerships with the County of Santa Clara to measurably serve the City based on the relative needs of existing unhoused residents, including continuing to seek partnerships and possible grant opportunities.
OR
2. Direct the City Manager to propose an item for the Fiscal Year 2025‐2027 City Work Program to develop an encampment management policy by evaluating examples from other jurisdictions in the Bay Area and incorporating best practices for review by the City Council.
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers are shown in italics.
Q1: The report states that the City received one $50,000 grant in 2023 and another $50,000 grant in 2024 from the County. However, I wonder how much the County receives from Cupertinoʹs property taxes? My understanding is that only 7% of our property tax goes to the City, while about 34% goes to the County. (in case I remembered it wrong, please correct me.) (Chao)
Staff response: The allocation of property taxes between the City and the County is not germane to the Agenda Item.
Q2: How much is the total budget of the County on homeless services? How much of the budget serves Cupertino? (In case there is no such data, please give pointers on how to
2 obtain such data if possible) (Chao)
Staff response: Data is not immediately available. Staff have referred responses to County representatives who will be present during the Agenda Item and may provide a verbal response.
Q3: How many shelter beds/transitional housing are available in the County? How many serve Cupertino? (In case there is no such data, please give pointers on how to obtain such data if possible) (Chao)
Staff response: Data is not immediately available. Staff have referred responses to County representatives who will be present during the Agenda Item and may provide a verbal response.
Q4: Whatʹs the best way to report unsafe behaviors observed? (Chao) Staff response: If the observed behavior poses an immediate danger to the person involved or others (e.g., violence, medical emergencies, or criminal activity), it is important to call 911. For non‐ urgent matters that may still require police intervention, residents can contact the Sheriff’s Office non‐emergency line at 408‐299‐2311. Deputies will assess the situation and determine the appropriate response. General reports of encampments should be reported to Cupertino 311 at www.cupertino.org/311 or through the App. Centralizing reports of encampments allows the City to track resident concerns and efficiently allocate resources to the issue.
Q5: Whatʹs the best way to help unhoused individuals? (Chao) Staff response: The City prioritizes outreach and engagement to build trust and rapport.
This approach has been shown to be the most effective approach to helping unhoused individuals on a path to housing and addressing the community’s concerns. The process that the City currently has in place aligns with Strategy 3 of the Community Plan to end Homelessness: Improve the Quality of Life for Unsheltered Individuals and Create Healthy Neighborhoods for All of the Santa Clara County Community Plan to End Homelessness.
CC 10-15-2024
#7
Annual Code Cleanup
Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: October 15, 2024
Subject
Amendments to Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.32 (Planning Commission), Chapter 2.74 (Technology, Information, and Communications Commission), Chapter
2.86 (Housing Commission), Chapter 11.08 (Bicycles), and Chapter 13.04 (Parks), and repeal of Municipal Code Chapter 15.04 (Waterworks System – Rates and Charges).
Recommended Action
Conduct the first reading of and introduce Ordinance No. 24-____: “AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 15.04 AND AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 2.32, 2,74,
2.86, 11.08, AND 13.04.”
Supplemental Report
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers are shown in italics.
Q1: TICC
Q1-1: Why is this responsibility removed from TICC? Who will do it? "Conduct periodic reviews of technology, information, and communications providers, facilities and products and make recommendations on such subjects to the City Council;" Answer: These activities are operational in nature and not within the scope of consideration by the TICC. The proposed ordinance updates the TICC’s jurisdiction to align with current practice.
Q1-2: Why is this responsibility removed from TICC? Who will do it? "Recommend amendments to the City’s telecommunications policy of the City Council;" Answer:
Changes in state and federal law have limited the City’s authority to regulate telecommunications services and to adopt policies in this area. The proposed ordinance modifies the Municipal Code to more accurately reflect the TICC’s current jurisdiction.
Q1-3: Would TICC advise the Council on the location of cell towers and measurement metrics of radiation? If not TICC, which commission should advise the Council on this matter?
Answer:
The Planning Commission advises the City Council regarding regulation of wireless telecommunications facilities outside of the public right-of-way in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 19.136. Federal law preempts local regulation of wireless telecommunication facilities based on health concerns and limits the discretion of local jurisdictions to regulate the location of such facilities generally and small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way in particular. The proposed ordinance cleanup updates the Municipal Code to reflect the impact of these legal developments on the TICC’s jurisdiction and to more closely reflect current TICC practices.
Q1-4: Would TICC advise the Council on the Fiber network, broadband? If not, which commission should advise the Council on this matter?
Answer:
Local regulation of video services providers was largely preempted by the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006, Public Utilities Code §§ 5800–5970. The proposed ordinance updates the Municipal Code to reflect the impact of the legislation on the TICC’s jurisdiction and current TICC practices.
Q2: The staff report states that Section 2.86.010 (Housing Commission) is only changed to conform in format to other sections. But the redlined version shows that the composition is changed from 4 residents plus 1 business rep to 5 residents. Just wondering whether this change is intended?
Answer:
Based on further review of the City Council’s prior action, staff does not recommend removing the designated business representative from the Commission’s composition. Staff recommends that the proposed amendments to Section 2.86.010 be modified as follows:
2.86.010 Established–Composition.
A. The Housing Commission of the City is established. The Housing Commission shall consist of five members, as follows:
1. Representative from a Cupertino business,.
2. Four community members,.
B. The representatives from a Cupertino business and the community members shall not be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage, to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. All members except the Cupertino business representative shall be City of Cupertino residents. Members of the Housing Commission shall be appointed by the City Council.
C. The Director of Community Development, or his or her their designee, shall provide technical assistance to the Commission.
Q3: Bicycles on sidewalks
Q3-1: Please include a map to show the two sections of sidewalk that would allow bicycles: "Section 11.08.180: Transportation Division staff recommends amending Section
11.08.180 to allow bicycle riding on two sections of sidewalk, to facilitate connectivity to the Regnart Creek Trail."
Answer:
A map of the area identified in the proposed ordinance is provided as Attachment C. Also note that the proposed ordinance would facilitate access to Cupertino High School bicycle racks as well as the Regnart Creek Trail.
Q3-2: In Section 11.08.180, there is no speed limit for bicycles on the sidewalk?
Answer:
There is no established speed limit for bicycles on sidewalks.
Q3-3: What about electric bicycles? Electric scooters?
Answer: Electric bicycles must generally be treated the same as a standard bicycle under state law. Electric scooters are not permitted under this exemption.
Q3-4: How would we ensure the safety of pedestrians on the sidewalk?
Answer:
The two sidewalk segments that are being proposed for this exemption were built to be wider than standard (8’ minimum) for the purpose of accommodating both bicycles and pedestrians. Bicycles and pedestrians currently mix on existing trails within the City without known pedestrian safety issues.
Q3-5: It's unclear whether the bicycles are allowed to ride on the sidewalk in any direction or only in the direction which is the same as the on-street bicycles?
Answer:
Bicycles would be permitted to ride in either direction.
Q4: The modified Section 13.04.130 prohibit: "L. Use or allow the use of powered model airplanes or drones except in areas so designated by the department of parks and recreation;
Q4-1: Just wondering whether there is any area where model airplanes or drones are allowed right now?
Answer:
There are no designated areas for the operation of drones or model airplanes in City parks.
Q4-2: How would anyone apply to designate an area for model airplanes or drones?
Answer:
The City does not have an established process at this time.
Q4-3: Are model airplanes or drones allowed outside of parks? On public streets? On sidewalks? In schools?
Answer:
Drones are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration, and state law provides protection against the use of drones to photograph or record activities on private property. The City does not have any ordinance regulating drones or model airplanes outside of parks.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Christopher D. Jensen, City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim Assistant City Manager Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A – Draft Ordinance No. 24-______
B – Redline of proposed Municipal Code amendments
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
C – Map of Area Proposed for Exemption under Section 11.08.180
Recommended Muni Code 11.08.180
exempƟon segment
CC 10-15-2024 Item No. 7. Attachment C
Cupertino High School
Recommended Muni Code 11.08.180
exempƟon segment
CC 10-15-2024
#8
Uncommit Sales Tax Repayment
Reserve
Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: October 15, 2024
Agenda Item #8
Subject
Unassign funds from the Committed Sales Tax Repayment Reserve
Recommended Action
Approve an amendment to the City’s Committed, Unassigned Fund Balance, and Use of One Time Funds Policy to uncommit $74.5 million dollars from the Sales Tax Repayment Reserve, resulting in those funds becoming unassigned fund balance.
Background
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmembers are shown in italics.
Q1: Why do we need to move the funding from the Sales Tax Repayment Reserve at this time?
The purpose of the Sales Tax Repayment Committed Reserve (STRCR) was to set aside funds in case the City needed to pay the CDTFA following an unfavorable ruling on the appeal. The agreement with CDTFA allows the City to retain past sales tax allocations, eliminating the need to maintain the reserve. Since the City no longer has a reason to retain these funds in the STRCR, staff is requesting to move the funds back to Unassigned. This action will appropriately adjust the City’s reserve balances until the Council provides direction on the use of these funds.
Q2: Any consequence if we do not move the entire Sales Tax Repayment Reserve to the general fund now?
While there are no immediate consequences from uncommitting the STRCR, it may result in missed opportunities to reallocate funds to address immediate needs and could complicate financial reporting.
Q3: If we leave the Sales Tax Repayment Reserve as is until we have a better idea of how to proceed later, would that be ok?
Uncommitting the funds is the only option, whether done now or later. The reassignment aligns with best financial practices and guidance from the City’s auditors. . Council will appro ve the appropriations of these funds at a later date. It is important to note that uncommitting the funds does not automatically make them available for immediate use; it simply allows for more flexibility in how the funds can be allocated.
Q4: What is the timeline to consider the options on how to move forward? What options are being considered?
The City Council will have its first opportunity to discuss options for use of the funds reallocated from the STRCR at its November 1 9 meeting. Staff recommendations that will be presented at that meeting are currently being developed.
Q5: Would any movement of funding affect how the funding is invested in our portfolio? Uncommitting STRCR has no bearing on the current investment strategy.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A – Redline Policy
B – Clean Policy